...terrorists are by a wide margin extremely unlikely ways to get...psychologically damaged.
This isn't quite true. I think most of the US was psychologically damaged from one act of terrorism. Ironically, majority of the ones who psychologically made it out on top were the same people most affected by that one act.
5) "And finally, I'm mad at the public for taking the lazy route and accepting the cheapest form of half-crippled Internet access instead of a high-capacity bidirectional connection that could make us full Internet citizens. Let's not blame the telcos--or at least not stop with them. No one in a position to care has cared enough."
As long as the majority of the American public has access to Youtube and Myspace (and now Facebook), they're largely happy campers, apathetic to every other aspect of the internet, especially the technical ones or the ones that require any amount of thought. It's just like television; as long as there's American Idol and Lost, everybody's happy. Nobody cares about matters of substance like what's being reported on the major news outlets.
Before copyright, how did musicians and other artists make money? Well, they didn't make a terrible amount, but they usually got by. Around Bach's time and before, music was largely done in a religious context, as only the church had the need and the capital for musicians. In Hayden and Mozart's time, well-to-do people (nobles, wealthy merchants, etc.) commissioned works and hired composers and players. In Beethoven and Brahms' day, music was open to the general public, much like today.
In all of these, there's one particular common theme that runs through the whole music "industry" since the renaissance: the people who made money were the ones who actually had unique talent that could not be reproduced. People went to see these performers because nobody else could do it quite like them. And, the music offered infinite variations, so that each concert may have been of the same piece, by the same players, but was a little different, perhaps more mature, perhaps more geared towards the audience. After all, allegro is not necessary 120 bpm, and there's no exact number to forte.
And this is how classical music works today. Nobody owns the copyright to Beethoven's 5th or Mozart's Serenade in G. The interpretation, and the skill of the musician, is what makes the people money.
So one could say, there's no reason why copyright is necessary for musicians to earn a living. It's a boon for them, and I think they deserve copyright over their works, but copyright infringement for non-commercial purposes does not take food off an artists' table. At least, not the ones who are truly skilled and hence truly deserve their fame and fortune.
I wish I could attribute sarcasm to your post, but it is obvious you're being serious. And it's obvious you know nothing about children or the raising thereof.
Well, do you want anyone go snooping through your affairs ? Neither do chilren.
At 7, no child should be thinking this way. In five more years, maybe. But that's a long time.
Parents, of course, consider their concern for the safety or the purity of the religious or ideological views of their children to trump over said childrens desire for privacy and uncensored influx of information,
You make it sound as if parents should leaving children alone and not involving in their children's affairs is a good thing. There's a term for that: neglect. If parent's aren't going to care about their children, and what their children turn out to be like, who is? Who's job is it?
So what if "religious or ideological views" get passed on from parent to child? Who are you to say what children should or should not learn? You're not the parent. In advocating this, you yourself are passing an ideological view onto someone else. Who are you to say what is good and right?
and children disagree.
No, they don't. You disagree. But you're not a child.
Children have no concept of privacy. They know when they have it, but they don't think of privacy as an idea, much less a right that they deserve. And they shouldn't. They don't have that right (nor do you) while they live under their parent's roof. Until you get your own place and pay your own way, privacy is a privilege granted to you, as a sign of maturity. And children are not mature. They can be brilliant, insightful, but they are still children.
Both you and the AC submitter need to get off your high moral horses immediately. You might be a genius programmer, but when it comes to raising children, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh, and to the submitter, your job--your responsibility--as an older sibling is to ensure the safety and well being of your younger siblings. It is your responsibility to go where your parent's cannot, and do what your parents cannot, in protecting your younger siblings. You should be looking over your sibling's shoulders if they're sensitive about your parents doing so. Your responsibility is not to undermine your parents, unless your parents are directly harming your siblings, in which case, you have bigger problems than unmonitored internet access. Your job is not to throw your siblings out into the streets to the wolves and distract your parents from them, because by securing your sister's computer from your parents, that's exactly what you're trying to do.
Constant vigilance is rewarded only with another uneventful day. That is the fundamental problem. Vigilance is expensive and time consuming.
You're absolutely right. In this society dominated by the results/delivery-driven mentality, things that do not directly contribute tend to be marginalized. See how companies offshore support and QA because these divisions do not actively generate revenue. It is the same thing.
For something like QA, no news is good news. For management, no news is waste. Management's mentality is, "We don't pay you to sit around and do nothing." And so they cut QA time and resources.
Light moves faster than our galaxy; a double image is only possible if we were moving faster than light, or there was some kind of diffraction effect on an object far away.
However, the movement does cause a red or blue shift, which is what describes the phenomenon you're looking for.
That is supposed to be there according to the standard.
Slashdot isn't at fault, but don't you find it just a little idiotic to specify in the standard the need to validate against one central description and then complain about it happening too much? Maybe instead, the schema as specified in the standard should have been validated against a locally stored file with the correct hash.
It's one of those little things about XML that caught me as being retarded.
I once heard it being described as an old billionaire nabbing a young hot trophy wife, forgetting that the wife gets half the estate when there's a divorce, and gets progressively less hot as the years go on.
The only difference is that the billionaire will probably naturally die before the hot wife turns into an old hag, but a corporation will remain alive as long as it can.
There are several explanations. Birds are not adapted for tool use--yet. Given enough time, they may be, but I think for most purposes, they would need a wider range of motions for their limbs. In particular, since their wings are their upper limbs, they're at a disadvantage in that they only have two remaining, and unless they gain the ability to hover, one usually is needed to stay standing.
Other primates may just be a little farther behind in the evolutionary tree. There are theories that a number of species of tool-wielding primates arose at the same time, and that early humans or their predecessors came to dominate and likely even eliminated them. The surviving primates of those periods were likely to be less advanced and less threatening to the early intelligent crowd, and the apes and monkeys we see now are of that ilk. They may one day make that jump. They might have already, but died for it for the same reasons that the competing intelligent primates of the past were wiped out.
Regardless, so long as humans remain in power, we will never see any other species rise to the same level of intelligence. We will feel threatened by its presence, and we will eliminate it at all costs, if we hadn't accidentally done so beforehand.
And that's my point: Humans may be artificially creating that gap, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Perhaps it's a matter of selectively killing. Bombing a hotel would kill a lot of people of various nationalities and relgious affiliations.
So they kill only arabs, and when it comes to arabs, not selectively either. That speaks to me as no better than random killing. Men are men, women are women, children are children regardless of nationality or religious affiliation.
This isn't just the mentality of the Middle East. It's the mentality of all of Asia in general. Success for the lower class asian family is defined as a career in engineering, medicine, or law. Even the sciences isn't considered a success story unless it's being applied in a commercial environment. Arts education and higher research are largely considered in the same realm as hobbies or enthusiast pursuits of the well-to-do.
The mentality is different for the wealthy of course.
Ah, I see. You're one of those types of people. Please just stay out of our awesome city. We don't need people like you messing it up. If you want to come visit and leave a few tourist dollars, then yeah, but don't stay long and keep to the tourist spots. Thanks. That made me puke. Awesome city? You must be one of those new people here, one of them kids from the 'burbs or somewhere else that sees the city as the closest thing to heaven on Earth. It's not. The criminal elements have been surpressed, not removed. And when the squad car leaves for the night, you'll be in neck-deep in shit before long if you can't put up a decent defense. Unless your city is below 96th street. In which case you're in no position to call this city yours.
As for gun ownership, even in Manhattan, there are parts where you'll occasionally see someone drawing a gun in the middle of the night. Just beacuse it's illegal, and you don't get shootouts in broad daylight, doesn't mean nobody has a gun, and that possessing one is a bad thing.
I think GP's point, and the answer to his rhetorical question is, maybe we shouldn't fuck with anyone at all. I don't see anything that's worth the blood of thousands of civilians and tens of thousands of soldiers, beacuse 9/11 is what happens when you fuck with other cultures, the current Iranian regime is what happens when you fuck with other democratic governments, Iraq is what happens when you fuck with other soverign countries.
The US is in a location not easily attacked by anyone else. Our nearest neighbors are Canada and Mexico, and Siberian Russia. No sane government would dare attack us on our soil, and no insane government would have the means to do so. And quite frankly, if we weren't poking our noses around the world trying to enforce our rebranded form of colonialism, nobody would have attacked us at all.
Yes, certain things may require our assistance. I know I'm invoking Godwin, but the rise to power of the Nazis was one of them. But our assistance was requested. We were actively engaged in the war through the shipping of war supplies even before Pearl Harbor, and the Europeans practically begged for us to send troops over by the time the US began its counteroffensive.
But such are very special cases where by gaining control of the Atlantic ocean, US security would be threatened by Nazi Germany, and of the Pacific ocean, US security would be threatened by Imperial Japan (albeit not terribly much without ICBM's). Other than that, there has been no instance since where the US's security was threatened, only US "interests," which is a better word for "people who have lots of money and give lots of it to our corrupt politicians."
The answer you gave is why the rest of the world won't shed a single tear if another 9/11 happened. Because they've already seen through the moral, humanitarian, security facade, and they know us for the greedy, self-serving bastards that we actually are--which isn't the problem in and of itself if we only didn't pretend to be the righteous saviors of the rest of the world and try to stick our "morality" into everyone else's asses whenever we do intervene. If everyone here thought the same as you, I wouldn't be surprised if the US implodes upon itself trying to stop the mass wave of terrorists at our front door. In fact, that might already be happening.
Religions, especially those that involve an absolute, will try to suppress other religions because they all are mutually exclusive. Younger religions, being less secure, will try to do it more often and with greater ferocity than older, established ones. But at the end of the day, all religions were popularized for the purposes of money and power.
Certainly, the Abrahamic religions have settled down after so many centuries into more or less three classes: agnostic, practicing, and fanatic. Younger religions tend to have exclusively fanatics, as conversion (whether from atheism or any other religion) usually has fanaticism as a pre-requisite.
Religions aren't evil. People are evil. Religion just provides a feel-good justification for evil deeds.
You always hear about the kids who find their dad's gun and shoot themselves or someone else.
You never hear about the kids who use guns to hunt on a regular basis having any accidents.
The difference between the two groups is that one group of kids have been properly trained to handle and operate firearms, while the other group of kids has not. Considering that the kids with the proper training are far less likely to injure themselves or others with firearms, may it not be a good idea to incorporate proper firearm training into a child education?
And yes, there will be mishaps. There will be accidents. But that's natural. People die from driving recklessly. People die from eating recklessly. On the other hand, this is the middle ground between having no protection and too much protection.
This was, of course, what the founders wanted. To paraphrase the declaration of independence: If a government becomes unwilling or unable to represent the people, it would be time to kick them out and create a better one.
How do you suppose we do this when all of the power is in the hands of the few?
this is not even comparable to MS embedding a browser in their OS to kill Netscape. Not even close. I completely agree. This would be like MS putting out a mandatory update to IE that disables javascript on Firefox. Or better yet, a mandatory update to DirectX that completely disables video editing and playback through non-WMP players.
Because he's a human being, and as such, has friends and family who will be a little lesser for their loss. And because he did what most of us can only dream of doing, an accomplishment that involved neither destruction nor malice, and which changed society, arguably for the better. And for that alone, regardless of what he might have said or become later in life, I think he deserves both my respect and gratitude. In fact, the turn of events that caused him to be so hateful only makes me sadder still, that his life had to end this way.
Slashdot Mirror
...terrorists are by a wide margin extremely unlikely ways to get...psychologically damaged.
This isn't quite true. I think most of the US was psychologically damaged from one act of terrorism. Ironically, majority of the ones who psychologically made it out on top were the same people most affected by that one act.
5) "And finally, I'm mad at the public for taking the lazy route and accepting the cheapest form of half-crippled Internet access instead of a high-capacity bidirectional connection that could make us full Internet citizens. Let's not blame the telcos--or at least not stop with them. No one in a position to care has cared enough."
As long as the majority of the American public has access to Youtube and Myspace (and now Facebook), they're largely happy campers, apathetic to every other aspect of the internet, especially the technical ones or the ones that require any amount of thought. It's just like television; as long as there's American Idol and Lost, everybody's happy. Nobody cares about matters of substance like what's being reported on the major news outlets.
Before copyright, how did musicians and other artists make money? Well, they didn't make a terrible amount, but they usually got by. Around Bach's time and before, music was largely done in a religious context, as only the church had the need and the capital for musicians. In Hayden and Mozart's time, well-to-do people (nobles, wealthy merchants, etc.) commissioned works and hired composers and players. In Beethoven and Brahms' day, music was open to the general public, much like today.
In all of these, there's one particular common theme that runs through the whole music "industry" since the renaissance: the people who made money were the ones who actually had unique talent that could not be reproduced. People went to see these performers because nobody else could do it quite like them. And, the music offered infinite variations, so that each concert may have been of the same piece, by the same players, but was a little different, perhaps more mature, perhaps more geared towards the audience. After all, allegro is not necessary 120 bpm, and there's no exact number to forte.
And this is how classical music works today. Nobody owns the copyright to Beethoven's 5th or Mozart's Serenade in G. The interpretation, and the skill of the musician, is what makes the people money.
So one could say, there's no reason why copyright is necessary for musicians to earn a living. It's a boon for them, and I think they deserve copyright over their works, but copyright infringement for non-commercial purposes does not take food off an artists' table. At least, not the ones who are truly skilled and hence truly deserve their fame and fortune.
I wish I could attribute sarcasm to your post, but it is obvious you're being serious. And it's obvious you know nothing about children or the raising thereof.
Well, do you want anyone go snooping through your affairs ? Neither do chilren.
At 7, no child should be thinking this way. In five more years, maybe. But that's a long time.
Parents, of course, consider their concern for the safety or the purity of the religious or ideological views of their children to trump over said childrens desire for privacy and uncensored influx of information,
You make it sound as if parents should leaving children alone and not involving in their children's affairs is a good thing. There's a term for that: neglect. If parent's aren't going to care about their children, and what their children turn out to be like, who is? Who's job is it?
So what if "religious or ideological views" get passed on from parent to child? Who are you to say what children should or should not learn? You're not the parent. In advocating this, you yourself are passing an ideological view onto someone else. Who are you to say what is good and right?
and children disagree.
No, they don't. You disagree. But you're not a child.
Children have no concept of privacy. They know when they have it, but they don't think of privacy as an idea, much less a right that they deserve. And they shouldn't. They don't have that right (nor do you) while they live under their parent's roof. Until you get your own place and pay your own way, privacy is a privilege granted to you, as a sign of maturity. And children are not mature. They can be brilliant, insightful, but they are still children.
Both you and the AC submitter need to get off your high moral horses immediately. You might be a genius programmer, but when it comes to raising children, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh, and to the submitter, your job--your responsibility--as an older sibling is to ensure the safety and well being of your younger siblings. It is your responsibility to go where your parent's cannot, and do what your parents cannot, in protecting your younger siblings. You should be looking over your sibling's shoulders if they're sensitive about your parents doing so. Your responsibility is not to undermine your parents, unless your parents are directly harming your siblings, in which case, you have bigger problems than unmonitored internet access. Your job is not to throw your siblings out into the streets to the wolves and distract your parents from them, because by securing your sister's computer from your parents, that's exactly what you're trying to do.
Constant vigilance is rewarded only with another uneventful day. That is the fundamental problem. Vigilance is expensive and time consuming.
You're absolutely right. In this society dominated by the results/delivery-driven mentality, things that do not directly contribute tend to be marginalized. See how companies offshore support and QA because these divisions do not actively generate revenue. It is the same thing.
For something like QA, no news is good news. For management, no news is waste. Management's mentality is, "We don't pay you to sit around and do nothing." And so they cut QA time and resources.
Light moves faster than our galaxy; a double image is only possible if we were moving faster than light, or there was some kind of diffraction effect on an object far away.
However, the movement does cause a red or blue shift, which is what describes the phenomenon you're looking for.
That is supposed to be there according to the standard.
Slashdot isn't at fault, but don't you find it just a little idiotic to specify in the standard the need to validate against one central description and then complain about it happening too much? Maybe instead, the schema as specified in the standard should have been validated against a locally stored file with the correct hash.
It's one of those little things about XML that caught me as being retarded.
If it can't do it in 20 dollars or less, it won't compete with the Fung Wah (and offshoots') busses.
The masses aren't businessmen or politicians. There's a reason why economey class is the largest section on a plane.
Yeah, and there are absolutely no problems here with the system of using the social security number as the strongest method of identity verification.
I once heard it being described as an old billionaire nabbing a young hot trophy wife, forgetting that the wife gets half the estate when there's a divorce, and gets progressively less hot as the years go on.
The only difference is that the billionaire will probably naturally die before the hot wife turns into an old hag, but a corporation will remain alive as long as it can.
Time Warner does.
And yes, it's Time Warner, not AOL Time Warner.
AOL has long been merely a division within Time Warner.
There are several explanations. Birds are not adapted for tool use--yet. Given enough time, they may be, but I think for most purposes, they would need a wider range of motions for their limbs. In particular, since their wings are their upper limbs, they're at a disadvantage in that they only have two remaining, and unless they gain the ability to hover, one usually is needed to stay standing.
Other primates may just be a little farther behind in the evolutionary tree. There are theories that a number of species of tool-wielding primates arose at the same time, and that early humans or their predecessors came to dominate and likely even eliminated them. The surviving primates of those periods were likely to be less advanced and less threatening to the early intelligent crowd, and the apes and monkeys we see now are of that ilk. They may one day make that jump. They might have already, but died for it for the same reasons that the competing intelligent primates of the past were wiped out.
Regardless, so long as humans remain in power, we will never see any other species rise to the same level of intelligence. We will feel threatened by its presence, and we will eliminate it at all costs, if we hadn't accidentally done so beforehand.
And that's my point: Humans may be artificially creating that gap, whether consciously or unconsciously.
He's referring to the other half.
This is, in effect, demonstrating our ability to empathize. By "feeling" the pencil tip on the table, we are empathizing with the pencil.
Perhaps empathy is why humans are where we are today. It's too bad so many people throw it away so callously.
Perhaps it's a matter of selectively killing. Bombing a hotel would kill a lot of people of various nationalities and relgious affiliations.
So they kill only arabs, and when it comes to arabs, not selectively either. That speaks to me as no better than random killing. Men are men, women are women, children are children regardless of nationality or religious affiliation.
Just give them TV's that run reality shows 24/7.
Worked well enough for the US.
This isn't just the mentality of the Middle East. It's the mentality of all of Asia in general. Success for the lower class asian family is defined as a career in engineering, medicine, or law. Even the sciences isn't considered a success story unless it's being applied in a commercial environment. Arts education and higher research are largely considered in the same realm as hobbies or enthusiast pursuits of the well-to-do.
The mentality is different for the wealthy of course.
Terrorism is a method of social engineering.
As for gun ownership, even in Manhattan, there are parts where you'll occasionally see someone drawing a gun in the middle of the night. Just beacuse it's illegal, and you don't get shootouts in broad daylight, doesn't mean nobody has a gun, and that possessing one is a bad thing.
(for example, to go shooting)
And set the forest on fire while you're at it.
I think GP's point, and the answer to his rhetorical question is, maybe we shouldn't fuck with anyone at all. I don't see anything that's worth the blood of thousands of civilians and tens of thousands of soldiers, beacuse 9/11 is what happens when you fuck with other cultures, the current Iranian regime is what happens when you fuck with other democratic governments, Iraq is what happens when you fuck with other soverign countries.
The US is in a location not easily attacked by anyone else. Our nearest neighbors are Canada and Mexico, and Siberian Russia. No sane government would dare attack us on our soil, and no insane government would have the means to do so. And quite frankly, if we weren't poking our noses around the world trying to enforce our rebranded form of colonialism, nobody would have attacked us at all.
Yes, certain things may require our assistance. I know I'm invoking Godwin, but the rise to power of the Nazis was one of them. But our assistance was requested. We were actively engaged in the war through the shipping of war supplies even before Pearl Harbor, and the Europeans practically begged for us to send troops over by the time the US began its counteroffensive.
But such are very special cases where by gaining control of the Atlantic ocean, US security would be threatened by Nazi Germany, and of the Pacific ocean, US security would be threatened by Imperial Japan (albeit not terribly much without ICBM's). Other than that, there has been no instance since where the US's security was threatened, only US "interests," which is a better word for "people who have lots of money and give lots of it to our corrupt politicians."
The answer you gave is why the rest of the world won't shed a single tear if another 9/11 happened. Because they've already seen through the moral, humanitarian, security facade, and they know us for the greedy, self-serving bastards that we actually are--which isn't the problem in and of itself if we only didn't pretend to be the righteous saviors of the rest of the world and try to stick our "morality" into everyone else's asses whenever we do intervene. If everyone here thought the same as you, I wouldn't be surprised if the US implodes upon itself trying to stop the mass wave of terrorists at our front door. In fact, that might already be happening.
Not anymore, you mean.
Religions, especially those that involve an absolute, will try to suppress other religions because they all are mutually exclusive. Younger religions, being less secure, will try to do it more often and with greater ferocity than older, established ones. But at the end of the day, all religions were popularized for the purposes of money and power.
Certainly, the Abrahamic religions have settled down after so many centuries into more or less three classes: agnostic, practicing, and fanatic. Younger religions tend to have exclusively fanatics, as conversion (whether from atheism or any other religion) usually has fanaticism as a pre-requisite.
Religions aren't evil. People are evil. Religion just provides a feel-good justification for evil deeds.
Mod parent UP!
You always hear about the kids who find their dad's gun and shoot themselves or someone else.
You never hear about the kids who use guns to hunt on a regular basis having any accidents.
The difference between the two groups is that one group of kids have been properly trained to handle and operate firearms, while the other group of kids has not. Considering that the kids with the proper training are far less likely to injure themselves or others with firearms, may it not be a good idea to incorporate proper firearm training into a child education?
And yes, there will be mishaps. There will be accidents. But that's natural. People die from driving recklessly. People die from eating recklessly. On the other hand, this is the middle ground between having no protection and too much protection.
This was, of course, what the founders wanted. To paraphrase the declaration of independence: If a government becomes unwilling or unable to represent the people, it would be time to kick them out and create a better one.
How do you suppose we do this when all of the power is in the hands of the few?
Why should I shed tears over the guy?
Because he's a human being, and as such, has friends and family who will be a little lesser for their loss. And because he did what most of us can only dream of doing, an accomplishment that involved neither destruction nor malice, and which changed society, arguably for the better. And for that alone, regardless of what he might have said or become later in life, I think he deserves both my respect and gratitude. In fact, the turn of events that caused him to be so hateful only makes me sadder still, that his life had to end this way.
So why wouldn't you shed tears over him?