I was a teenager in Philly and there was a curfew. These curfews make sense, I really don't think you are from there if you don't understand why. Currently, these "flash mobs" are sporadic riots involving violence. Imagine living there. Does some kid being out at 12 at night seem more important than not getting mugged and assaulted out of the blue in what you would think is a nice area because there are literally people around everywhere?
The curfew is not enforced racially, for the record. Under 18, you go in. My friend was telling me about how a while back (7 years maybe) he was out at 4am in Philly when he was like 15 and the police cited him and called his parents and he got in a lot of trouble. He's white. These curfews are because a lot of kids do cause problems that late. Right now, yes, there is the disenfranchised black youth, but let's not act like we can't be against violence in the streets if it means we have to acknowledge instances of violence that generally center around a specific population. All it means is we should probably figure out what is making Philadelphia's black youth so mad (there are a lot of obvious things that come to mind) and at the same time don't let them act out in the interim as we try and fix it because no matter what the reasoning, innocent people shouldn't be hospitalized and stores and delis shouldn't be destroyed. No one has the right to do these things to people.
This is what a flash mob is in Philly. They are not flash mobs as they are in the rest of the world; it's a slang term for quick, violent riots generally involving minors
In Philadelphia, a flash mob is literally a mob of disenfranchised, angry youth rioting violently for a short amount of time. They run through stores destroying things, they beat people up, they carjack people for a block, hundreds of these kids (if not pushing 1000 sometimes). They are quite literally flash riots.
I dunno why man. You are like "well Facebook oughta just pay back the investors and close down, they are taking a nosedive. Good game everyone"
Anyone with even a pinky finger on the pulse of current business and technology knows that Facebook is doing well. Your comment about being in Europe is just because you assume I am a dumb American who will buy that excuse. I don't know if Facebook is as big in Europe as America, but I do know that Facebook is viewed as a world wide phenomenon by this point and you have to be pretty out of touch to not know that it is doing well, especially in this industry (I assume since you post here you are tangentially related to the industry).
So in short your comment was equivalent to someone posting "who's Taylor Swift" after clicking on an article mentioning her name. You probably know who she is but wanted to sound cooler than that or you legitimately don't know but instead of using Google you act like it is someone else's job to tell you. It's like saying "I don't own a TV" when people are discussing breakfast.
The bitterness is because I can only assume you said anything, especially anything so glib and dismissive and so blatantly contrary to reality (you: Facebook is a failure, reality: Facebook is just going up) because you are bitter that something you dislike is a billion dollar idea.
It's pretty obvious why a belief in God or a study of such beliefs is different than Santa Claus. In fact, it says something about you if you can't distinguish why one discussion is more relevant regardless of beliefs on the subject. This flying spaghetti monster crap that nerds constantly spit about religion is so inane and absurd; it demonstrates a depressing lack of understanding of anything outside of the realm of technology in some sort of cutesy I-could-put-it-on-a-Think-Geek-tshirt way.
Every argument that involves either "a belief in a god or gods is literally the same as a belief in Santa Claus" or "why can't a flying spaghetti monster be god" is completely anti-intellectual. It is not the peak of wit nor is it some learned statement that demonstrates your secular intelligence. It just makes you look like an idiot.
Since you are either unable to actually understand why, even from a secular standpoint, these things aren't the same (or you are just being obtuse) I will lightly explain my reasoning. Even if you do not believe in a god or gods, the supernatural, any faith (organized or not) or anything related to religion, the existence of a belief in such things has existed since the beginning of civilization and this is undebatable. You can debate the truth of the beliefs but not the existence of the beliefs themselves. This alone makes them relevant for study from so many angles; anthropological, neurological, ethical, cultural, etc.
Santa Claus was made up by adults as a fairy tale to entertain kids. There is no debate here that runs deeper than that outside of the 3rd grade between kids in the know and kids who still think a bearded fat guy gives them presents. The flying spaghetti monster is the monkey cheese random 8th grade girl bullshit unfunny stupid embarrassing infuriating argument that people with no actual input like to say so they can laugh and their stupid peers can laugh and they can fall asleep tonite knowing they contributed a witicism to a grownup conversation. They are the same people who think that every Slashdot post warrants some variation on "hot grits overlords lololololol".
Meanwhile, a belief in the supernatural tells us a lot about humanity, as these beliefs have existed for all of modern time (modern time being the dawn of civilization). Religions have evolved and all began with legitimate beliefs; while you may argue in retrospect they are just stories like Santa Claus, I would say that they were actually believed by the people telling them (parents dont believe in Santa). I am sure that many times, power hungry people hijacked the potential for these beliefs and thus some religion is man made by persuasive, manipulative sociopaths, but the capacity for belief was obviously already there and I do not believe every religion or faith was rooted in capitalizing on ignorance; I would argue the capitalizing on faith came after some sickos saw the potential to do so because faith was already being embraced but without clear definitions.
Ultimately, believe the actual beliefs or not, the beliefs exist and this makes them relevant for study and debate as the beliefs ultimately sum up the beliefs of the culture that holds them and also, when looked at as a whole, demonstrates humanity's desire for there to be more out there than just us and to explain what happens around them.
But for people like you, no. Religion is a relic of the "sheeple" and worthy of nothing more than an off base derisive comment and a hand wave. The cynicism in the demographic that primarily makes up the "nerd" community is not inherently correct; often times the cynicism is completely out of touch no matter how edgy it is and how many likeminded people agree with you.
I assume you see yourself as intellectual but it's nothing more than nerdy cynicism if you truly believe anyone who follows a religion to have an actual mental disorder. I'm sure you think you are having some high brow everyone-in-the-Starbucks-is-impressed conversation while secretly looking down your nose at your opponent but it's probably just another "religion is good *regurgitates some stuff*", "no it isn't because *more regurgitated stuff*" discussion. But the fact that you really believe this could be called a mental illness is telling, same goes for everyone else who says it. It shows a lack of understanding on so many levels whether you agree with religion/personal faith or not.
It isn't outside normal reason and logic to have a religion and believe in the supernatural. You could argue the logic is faulty but for most people it is based on faith and separate from the logical side of their interpreting of day to day activities. They aren't logicking their belief, they are investing faith. This isn't any different then someone holding faith that a loved one is okay when a building burns down, even if it may appear there are no survivors at first glance. The outcome isn't relevant to the discussion, the accusation that this thought process is mental illness is. By your own definition (and the real definitions), mental illness must be abnormal and absurd; faith in a higher power or logic defying faith in general is part of humanity. Sometimes Slashdot (not you parent) likes to act like humanity is or should be a bunch of robots but this is pretty much equivalent to how the worst faces of religion feel. Just going through the motions and dismissing everything you believe is useless or stupid as outright wrong is not a good way to live (once agin not necesarilly you, parent).
He has a right to make his case. The judge isn't coming down hard on plaintiff's rights, he is likely doing his best to keep the court system moving. In this instance, he believes the plaintiff has had enough time to sort his stuff out and doesn't have any mercy that his lawyers quit since that is not a right and he has already wasted enough time. The judge wants him to present his evidence so basically, these likely-forged emails haven't even hit the courtroom yet. The judge is just trying to expedite things; you don't have the right to freeze the trial process under the idea that you might always be at some kind of disadvantage.
Well raytracing gets pretty close. Imagine extremely high end raytracing that can be done in real time for video games. Since this is just simulating the physics of light (if I'm not mistaken), perfecting this and having the hardware to do it very quickly would go hand in hand with amazing 3D graphics beyond any game we play now.
I'm pretty sure that while a slashdotter can't write some law which covers every fringe case and iteration, the courts can make decisions on a case by case basis. This is why courts exist, because laws don't need to be overengineered so that deterministic solutions can be applied in a purely logic based way using only a machine. The law should have clear intent and do it's best to clarify the point in a non-vague manner but it is up to lawyers, individual situations, juries and judges to draw conclusions from all available information including law and circumstance. A law which disallows assisting with a crime fighting the legality of public information? Lawyers from each side will spin it and people (jurors, judges) will decide based on the case whether the friends were more assisting in a crime ("hey bro I know the cops are surrounding you here are some you can shoot at") or just saying "yo there are a lot of cops to the left of your office what the heck is going on?".
I doubt it... You don't think Zuckerberg will be a billionaire? Even besides your death prediction (which I'm suspicious is colored with bias and perhaps a desire that Facebook dies soon), you don't think anyone else there has already made it?
What? Really? The RIAA isn't responsible for sorting out someone else's affairs. If you download music illegally it's on you to sort your shit out. Stop acting so entitled like everyone else on here. It's embarrassing and gross.
I recently cleaned out my textbook collection. I have been acquiring compsci books long before college (middle school and high school) from bookstores and relatives who were in the field and clearing out their collections. A lot of books I donated but most of these were about web development which I know inside out (and the internet fills in the gaps) and some old books about outdated OSes or versions of Java. However I kept a ton of books about algorithms, graphics, C++, programming paradigms etc and some of these books go back to the early 90s or late 80s.
On a Mac (US Keyboard) you can just press option-3:P You can do a lot of other things using option- or shift-option- including some cool stuff like umlauts (option-u) where when you do an umlaut, it highlights a freefloating umlaut yellow indicating you can type the following character you expect to display under it so typing option-u and then a gives ä which I don't even think appears in a language (if slashdot chokes, the character it gives is literraly a lowercase a with an umlaut).
Also I'm not sure why the things weren't showing up but I know slashdot chokes on half of the "nonstandard" characters its fed so it's probably just slashdot.
When I first got a Mac I bought Symantec or Norton or something for it. I thought "for sure, running an internet connected machine will need this just like I dutifully ran these on my Windows PCS". Long story short, biggest waste of money ever.
Also, scanning a mail server for viruses is a lot different. Maybe I'm wrong but are you talking about scanning attachments and the like? That's not really the same idea.
I sang Forever by Drake (feat Kanye, Eminem and Lil Wayne). I also acted it out. I took the backing track and then redid their verses and mixed them and everything. I put it on Youtube for my friends (I did it tongue in cheek, not seriously). Youtube recognized immediately that I had used copyrighted works (they recognized it as Forever which I took as a complement that I did it well enough to trick the machine) but they let me keep it up. They show an ad at the bottom of my video and presumably some of that money goes to paying the record industry for the right for people like me to use Youtube as a venue for music whether in lipsyncing, remixes, covers, background tracks or what have you. Ultimately none of these things are illegal, people just need to be paid and do they have the right to be? Well if all of Youtube is using copyrighted music, then maybe the industry should get a bit of licensing money since it may just be little guys but it's a ton of little guys. If this can be settled by placing unobtrusive ads in the offending content's lower part of the video, then great. Seems like everyone wins.
Ignoring the OS X virus debate, no one I know in IT or otherwise has ever seriously performed a virus scan on OS X in the way one regularly does on Windows. I'm sure there are fringe incidents but my point stands; running virus scans on an iMac is not a standard day to day job of a systems administrator.
The music isn't bought in the cloud it is stored there. If you own it already it goes to the cloud and yes, if you stop subscribing to the cloud, you can no longer use it to share you music, but you never lost possession in the first place.
What if next gen they release another whimsical wellaccepted Nintendoish system alongside a run of the mill plays COD ports system? Seems like a way to lock everything up. Pure speculation obviously.
Slashdot Mirror
I was a teenager in Philly and there was a curfew. These curfews make sense, I really don't think you are from there if you don't understand why. Currently, these "flash mobs" are sporadic riots involving violence. Imagine living there. Does some kid being out at 12 at night seem more important than not getting mugged and assaulted out of the blue in what you would think is a nice area because there are literally people around everywhere?
The curfew is not enforced racially, for the record. Under 18, you go in. My friend was telling me about how a while back (7 years maybe) he was out at 4am in Philly when he was like 15 and the police cited him and called his parents and he got in a lot of trouble. He's white. These curfews are because a lot of kids do cause problems that late. Right now, yes, there is the disenfranchised black youth, but let's not act like we can't be against violence in the streets if it means we have to acknowledge instances of violence that generally center around a specific population. All it means is we should probably figure out what is making Philadelphia's black youth so mad (there are a lot of obvious things that come to mind) and at the same time don't let them act out in the interim as we try and fix it because no matter what the reasoning, innocent people shouldn't be hospitalized and stores and delis shouldn't be destroyed. No one has the right to do these things to people.
This is what a flash mob is in Philly. They are not flash mobs as they are in the rest of the world; it's a slang term for quick, violent riots generally involving minors
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/171638/20110629/philadelphia-flash-mob-2011.htm As a source (but I'm from there and know this personally to be true as well)
In Philadelphia, a flash mob is literally a mob of disenfranchised, angry youth rioting violently for a short amount of time. They run through stores destroying things, they beat people up, they carjack people for a block, hundreds of these kids (if not pushing 1000 sometimes). They are quite literally flash riots.
Shit like this gets modded insightful? Fuck yourself mods
I dunno why man. You are like "well Facebook oughta just pay back the investors and close down, they are taking a nosedive. Good game everyone"
Anyone with even a pinky finger on the pulse of current business and technology knows that Facebook is doing well. Your comment about being in Europe is just because you assume I am a dumb American who will buy that excuse. I don't know if Facebook is as big in Europe as America, but I do know that Facebook is viewed as a world wide phenomenon by this point and you have to be pretty out of touch to not know that it is doing well, especially in this industry (I assume since you post here you are tangentially related to the industry).
So in short your comment was equivalent to someone posting "who's Taylor Swift" after clicking on an article mentioning her name. You probably know who she is but wanted to sound cooler than that or you legitimately don't know but instead of using Google you act like it is someone else's job to tell you. It's like saying "I don't own a TV" when people are discussing breakfast.
The bitterness is because I can only assume you said anything, especially anything so glib and dismissive and so blatantly contrary to reality (you: Facebook is a failure, reality: Facebook is just going up) because you are bitter that something you dislike is a billion dollar idea.
It's pretty obvious why a belief in God or a study of such beliefs is different than Santa Claus. In fact, it says something about you if you can't distinguish why one discussion is more relevant regardless of beliefs on the subject. This flying spaghetti monster crap that nerds constantly spit about religion is so inane and absurd; it demonstrates a depressing lack of understanding of anything outside of the realm of technology in some sort of cutesy I-could-put-it-on-a-Think-Geek-tshirt way.
Every argument that involves either "a belief in a god or gods is literally the same as a belief in Santa Claus" or "why can't a flying spaghetti monster be god" is completely anti-intellectual. It is not the peak of wit nor is it some learned statement that demonstrates your secular intelligence. It just makes you look like an idiot.
Since you are either unable to actually understand why, even from a secular standpoint, these things aren't the same (or you are just being obtuse) I will lightly explain my reasoning. Even if you do not believe in a god or gods, the supernatural, any faith (organized or not) or anything related to religion, the existence of a belief in such things has existed since the beginning of civilization and this is undebatable. You can debate the truth of the beliefs but not the existence of the beliefs themselves. This alone makes them relevant for study from so many angles; anthropological, neurological, ethical, cultural, etc.
Santa Claus was made up by adults as a fairy tale to entertain kids. There is no debate here that runs deeper than that outside of the 3rd grade between kids in the know and kids who still think a bearded fat guy gives them presents. The flying spaghetti monster is the monkey cheese random 8th grade girl bullshit unfunny stupid embarrassing infuriating argument that people with no actual input like to say so they can laugh and their stupid peers can laugh and they can fall asleep tonite knowing they contributed a witicism to a grownup conversation. They are the same people who think that every Slashdot post warrants some variation on "hot grits overlords lololololol".
Meanwhile, a belief in the supernatural tells us a lot about humanity, as these beliefs have existed for all of modern time (modern time being the dawn of civilization). Religions have evolved and all began with legitimate beliefs; while you may argue in retrospect they are just stories like Santa Claus, I would say that they were actually believed by the people telling them (parents dont believe in Santa). I am sure that many times, power hungry people hijacked the potential for these beliefs and thus some religion is man made by persuasive, manipulative sociopaths, but the capacity for belief was obviously already there and I do not believe every religion or faith was rooted in capitalizing on ignorance; I would argue the capitalizing on faith came after some sickos saw the potential to do so because faith was already being embraced but without clear definitions.
Ultimately, believe the actual beliefs or not, the beliefs exist and this makes them relevant for study and debate as the beliefs ultimately sum up the beliefs of the culture that holds them and also, when looked at as a whole, demonstrates humanity's desire for there to be more out there than just us and to explain what happens around them.
But for people like you, no. Religion is a relic of the "sheeple" and worthy of nothing more than an off base derisive comment and a hand wave. The cynicism in the demographic that primarily makes up the "nerd" community is not inherently correct; often times the cynicism is completely out of touch no matter how edgy it is and how many likeminded people agree with you.
I assume you see yourself as intellectual but it's nothing more than nerdy cynicism if you truly believe anyone who follows a religion to have an actual mental disorder. I'm sure you think you are having some high brow everyone-in-the-Starbucks-is-impressed conversation while secretly looking down your nose at your opponent but it's probably just another "religion is good *regurgitates some stuff*", "no it isn't because *more regurgitated stuff*" discussion. But the fact that you really believe this could be called a mental illness is telling, same goes for everyone else who says it. It shows a lack of understanding on so many levels whether you agree with religion/personal faith or not.
It isn't outside normal reason and logic to have a religion and believe in the supernatural. You could argue the logic is faulty but for most people it is based on faith and separate from the logical side of their interpreting of day to day activities. They aren't logicking their belief, they are investing faith. This isn't any different then someone holding faith that a loved one is okay when a building burns down, even if it may appear there are no survivors at first glance. The outcome isn't relevant to the discussion, the accusation that this thought process is mental illness is. By your own definition (and the real definitions), mental illness must be abnormal and absurd; faith in a higher power or logic defying faith in general is part of humanity. Sometimes Slashdot (not you parent) likes to act like humanity is or should be a bunch of robots but this is pretty much equivalent to how the worst faces of religion feel. Just going through the motions and dismissing everything you believe is useless or stupid as outright wrong is not a good way to live (once agin not necesarilly you, parent).
Your bitterness is astounding
He has a right to make his case. The judge isn't coming down hard on plaintiff's rights, he is likely doing his best to keep the court system moving. In this instance, he believes the plaintiff has had enough time to sort his stuff out and doesn't have any mercy that his lawyers quit since that is not a right and he has already wasted enough time. The judge wants him to present his evidence so basically, these likely-forged emails haven't even hit the courtroom yet. The judge is just trying to expedite things; you don't have the right to freeze the trial process under the idea that you might always be at some kind of disadvantage.
Exactly. I think people who get their panties in a wad about this work IT at and play Quake III all the time. They also say "n000000b" in real life.
That being said it was very strange hearing "epic fail" in a Katy Perry song
OH SHIT I admitted to listening to a katy perry song *hands in geek card*
Well raytracing gets pretty close. Imagine extremely high end raytracing that can be done in real time for video games. Since this is just simulating the physics of light (if I'm not mistaken), perfecting this and having the hardware to do it very quickly would go hand in hand with amazing 3D graphics beyond any game we play now.
I'm pretty sure that while a slashdotter can't write some law which covers every fringe case and iteration, the courts can make decisions on a case by case basis. This is why courts exist, because laws don't need to be overengineered so that deterministic solutions can be applied in a purely logic based way using only a machine. The law should have clear intent and do it's best to clarify the point in a non-vague manner but it is up to lawyers, individual situations, juries and judges to draw conclusions from all available information including law and circumstance. A law which disallows assisting with a crime fighting the legality of public information? Lawyers from each side will spin it and people (jurors, judges) will decide based on the case whether the friends were more assisting in a crime ("hey bro I know the cops are surrounding you here are some you can shoot at") or just saying "yo there are a lot of cops to the left of your office what the heck is going on?".
I doubt it... You don't think Zuckerberg will be a billionaire? Even besides your death prediction (which I'm suspicious is colored with bias and perhaps a desire that Facebook dies soon), you don't think anyone else there has already made it?
What? Really? The RIAA isn't responsible for sorting out someone else's affairs. If you download music illegally it's on you to sort your shit out. Stop acting so entitled like everyone else on here. It's embarrassing and gross.
You mean that I own paper underwear and tshirts?! What a world! AI YAI YAI
I recently cleaned out my textbook collection. I have been acquiring compsci books long before college (middle school and high school) from bookstores and relatives who were in the field and clearing out their collections. A lot of books I donated but most of these were about web development which I know inside out (and the internet fills in the gaps) and some old books about outdated OSes or versions of Java. However I kept a ton of books about algorithms, graphics, C++, programming paradigms etc and some of these books go back to the early 90s or late 80s.
It does exist im dumb Wikipedia has an article on it but Slashdot can't handle "Ä" in a url so yeah.
On a Mac (US Keyboard) you can just press option-3 :P You can do a lot of other things using option- or shift-option- including some cool stuff like umlauts (option-u) where when you do an umlaut, it highlights a freefloating umlaut yellow indicating you can type the following character you expect to display under it so typing option-u and then a gives ä which I don't even think appears in a language (if slashdot chokes, the character it gives is literraly a lowercase a with an umlaut).
Also I'm not sure why the things weren't showing up but I know slashdot chokes on half of the "nonstandard" characters its fed so it's probably just slashdot.
When I first got a Mac I bought Symantec or Norton or something for it. I thought "for sure, running an internet connected machine will need this just like I dutifully ran these on my Windows PCS". Long story short, biggest waste of money ever.
Also, scanning a mail server for viruses is a lot different. Maybe I'm wrong but are you talking about scanning attachments and the like? That's not really the same idea.
I sang Forever by Drake (feat Kanye, Eminem and Lil Wayne). I also acted it out. I took the backing track and then redid their verses and mixed them and everything. I put it on Youtube for my friends (I did it tongue in cheek, not seriously). Youtube recognized immediately that I had used copyrighted works (they recognized it as Forever which I took as a complement that I did it well enough to trick the machine) but they let me keep it up. They show an ad at the bottom of my video and presumably some of that money goes to paying the record industry for the right for people like me to use Youtube as a venue for music whether in lipsyncing, remixes, covers, background tracks or what have you. Ultimately none of these things are illegal, people just need to be paid and do they have the right to be? Well if all of Youtube is using copyrighted music, then maybe the industry should get a bit of licensing money since it may just be little guys but it's a ton of little guys. If this can be settled by placing unobtrusive ads in the offending content's lower part of the video, then great. Seems like everyone wins.
Ignoring the OS X virus debate, no one I know in IT or otherwise has ever seriously performed a virus scan on OS X in the way one regularly does on Windows. I'm sure there are fringe incidents but my point stands; running virus scans on an iMac is not a standard day to day job of a systems administrator.
The music isn't bought in the cloud it is stored there. If you own it already it goes to the cloud and yes, if you stop subscribing to the cloud, you can no longer use it to share you music, but you never lost possession in the first place.
What if next gen they release another whimsical wellaccepted Nintendoish system alongside a run of the mill plays COD ports system? Seems like a way to lock everything up. Pure speculation obviously.