The only problem with the legislative process as change control is that it's hard to tell which coder is responsible for any given bug (or Easter egg!) in the system.
I think I see whats going on here. Most slashdotters can't comprehend the idea of spending that much money and not getting f**ked. They can't understand that some people pay for nude massages because the fantasy turns them on, not because they're going to get sex. Making the mistake that if you just need to tip more in the sex industry will either result in you being out more money needlessly, or getting your arse kicked.
You think the majority of people going to strip clubs are going for more than the show? Regardless of whether or not illegal activities are going on behind closed doors, there's certainly plenty of people who just want a peep show.
Besides... no matter what anybody tells you... there's no sex in the champagne room.
Sounds like he's not much better than a vigilante. It would have been reasonable for him to give renters more time than the bank was asking, but the home is the bank's property, and it should be their right to evict a renter. It sucks, but it's a risk you take when you rent.
That's the kind of stuff you mostly find on there. There are of course some more questionable postings, but mostly they're innocent stuff like private party strippers.
I think he's more referring to the erotic services section, which are actually mostly legitimate legal services. Just because there's no sex doesn't mean that a service isn't erotic. Massages, BDSM (doesn't require sex), and Kama Sutra classes are some of the more frequent offerings on there.
As a patient, I would just like to add that to any reasonable person (I know the existence of these patients can be rare) it's generally assumed that most negative feedback is first exaggerated, and second, not necessarily linearly proportional to the negative experiences. People are a lot more likely to go out of their way to write feedback when they are emotionally moved (ala, being pissed off). Good experiences don't often strongly move people emotionally... at least not like bad experiences can. So the point to take here is, don't worry too much about the negative feedback. Once enough doctors around you have feedback, it will not matter unless you really have a disproportionate amount of negative feedback, which should make you consider the possibilities that you really do deserve it, or that you are a victim of libel slander.
He's not guilty of infringement for downloading it. He's probably guilty because he probably used bit torrent, and therefore also probably redistributed it to countless others.
Yes because clearly the peanut salmonella incident could have been prevented if we had some federal agency tasked with regulating the food and drug supply for safety. Clearly.
Which means that making fundamental change in our society (such as altering the economy and political system from a Capitalistic Representative Republic to a Socialistic Single Party System.) is literally prohibited from even attempting.
Now I'm all for a capitalistic multi-party society, but where in the US Constitution is an economic system and political party organization defined? Using your reasoning, considering that there were no political parties in the first years of the US Republic, one might surmise that a NO party system is the only system acceptable by the US Constitution.
Actually my ancestors came here as indentured servants to the Crown of England, forced to live and work in estates producing pine tar until they revolted in a quite violent fashion.
Are you actually trying to refer to the production of currency as a business? At least compare apples to apples. I'm not saying that pirating music is okay. It's clearly copyright infringement, though the damages that the RIAA are demanding are absolute insanity. But even so, the RIAA can't ever hope to win this battle. There's just no way to make most people stop short of draconian internet filtering and/or a music "tax" that everyone pays whether they download music or not. The only thing that's going to save them is for them to adapt to the changing market conditions.
Piracy has always been here, so expecting it to ever disappear is just dumb. Let us not forget that the iTunes Music Store brought music sales back up. Have sales started going back down since they went DRM free?
You're assuming that everyone pirating, or even just a significant percentage of them, would have purchased the music otherwise. Do you actually expect a business model built around selling physical media in an age where the media can be reproduced by anyone at virtually no cost or effort?
It's clear to me that whoever was behind Premier Election Systems clearly did not understand the difference between "requirements" and "intended use". It's also clear to me that the US Government approving with this crap does not understand the difference between verification and validation. The whole situation is pretty much a prime example of why a good quality system is essential.
How can anyone be incompetent enough to screw that up? That's truly creative incompetence.
Simple. Some big headed exec realized how much money and time they could save by making GEMS from an MS Access database using VB commands and an autorun script.
now, this company makes cash machines and from what I understand, they are exact to the penny. and thousands more people use these (per day!) than the once-every-few-years cycle of voting.
Except that Diebold didn't make these machines. Premier Election Systems made them, and then was bought up by Diebold. It was certainly negligent and a very poor choice by Diebold who probably just saw the dollar signs with HAVA. If Diebold really conspired to get Republicans into office via election fraud, making GEMS nothing more than a glorified MS Access database was a really dumb way to do it, since Democrats could just as easily make use of the security holes. If you locked up every government official that "bought off" on this, you would need to lock up every official that voted for HAVA.
analogy time (no cars): if I see you are an artist and have painted amazingly accurate portraits of people and I hire you to paint one of me - and you give me a POS and say 'this is the best I can do' - you should be able to sue them since they have established a standard of quality they CAN meet and yet chose not to on a certain occasion.
Except that you can't unless you have some contract that allows you to not pay them until you like the output. Which by the way, the US Government didn't approve the Diebold machines for use until they were approved by the US Government.
Was there conspiracy? Maybe, it certainly looks suspicious. But it looks a lot more like bad negligence on the part of everyone involved.
The only problem with this is that our government solicited for this product. As far as anyone can tell, Diebold met the quality control and traceability standards that were put in place by the US government for this type of device, which is to say THERE WERE NONE. It was unethical for Diebold to put out the product that they did, but that's not to say that it was illegal or treasonous.
I think there are several general misconceptions about psychotropic drugs that make describing them as changing personality a very poor choice of words, whether you believe it to be technically accurate or not. First and foremost is that almost every person I talk to about psychotropic drugs completely misunderstands how they work. They believe that anti-depressants make you happy, resulting in such misinformed beliefs in things like "fake happiness". And not just with anti-depressants. These beliefs follow for every psychotropic drug that has ever come up in conversation with me including such straightforward things like amphetamines. Many people have expressed concern to me that psychotropic drugs change your personality, and thereby change who you are as a person. And that's just rubbish. As someone else mentioned in here, our current understanding of personality can only account for about 10% of the variation, which basically means that we don't know anything about personality, and can't at all be defined by some form of look-up table.
Sorry, I came into this a little heated. I have just had way too many friends ostracized and admonished for using drugs to treat conditions like depression, chronic anxiety, and ADD. In addition, I have lost friends who refused to consider treatment for problems based on the idea that drugs would change who they are, rather than on a preference for more traditional treatment (which they still refused).
If your dog died, you lost your wallet, broke a bone, and your girl-friend broke up with you in the span of a couple weeks, you'd probably be feeling pretty shitty in a way that would affect your behavior. However, this kind of feeling-shitty, unlike with depression, is directly caused by shitty-stimuli and leads to feeling-shitty-behavior.
No, this is environmental stimuli resulting in specific complex chemical changes occurring in the brain including but not limited to serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrin concentrations. The only difference in chronic depression is that these chemical levels are set to feel shitty by default. The only way that an anti-depressant is personality altering would be if you consider normal environmental stimuli to also be personality altering. If you believe this to be the case, then I think you have a very narrow view of what personality is in comparison to the majority of society (no citation). Maybe that narrow view is for the better; I would certainly argue in favor of it. But the majority of society seems to view personality as being very closely associated with defining their concept of "self", no matter how misguided that association is.
I'm seriously sick and tired of this antiquated view of anti-depressants. They don't alter personality. They alter chemistry. The fact that you have or don't have depression or the fact that you have greater or lesser control of outbursts, etc has nothing to do with a person's personality. If it did, your personality would be different on a day to day basis based on whether or not you're having a good day or a bad day.
Slashdot Mirror
The only problem with the legislative process as change control is that it's hard to tell which coder is responsible for any given bug (or Easter egg!) in the system.
I think I see whats going on here. Most slashdotters can't comprehend the idea of spending that much money and not getting f**ked. They can't understand that some people pay for nude massages because the fantasy turns them on, not because they're going to get sex. Making the mistake that if you just need to tip more in the sex industry will either result in you being out more money needlessly, or getting your arse kicked.
You think the majority of people going to strip clubs are going for more than the show? Regardless of whether or not illegal activities are going on behind closed doors, there's certainly plenty of people who just want a peep show.
Besides... no matter what anybody tells you... there's no sex in the champagne room.
Sounds like he's not much better than a vigilante. It would have been reasonable for him to give renters more time than the bank was asking, but the home is the bank's property, and it should be their right to evict a renter. It sucks, but it's a risk you take when you rent.
Yet people flock to strip clubs to watch women dance and take off their clothes. Erotic Services with no sex are quite common.
That's the kind of stuff you mostly find on there. There are of course some more questionable postings, but mostly they're innocent stuff like private party strippers.
I think he's more referring to the erotic services section, which are actually mostly legitimate legal services. Just because there's no sex doesn't mean that a service isn't erotic. Massages, BDSM (doesn't require sex), and Kama Sutra classes are some of the more frequent offerings on there.
As a patient, I would just like to add that to any reasonable person (I know the existence of these patients can be rare) it's generally assumed that most negative feedback is first exaggerated, and second, not necessarily linearly proportional to the negative experiences. People are a lot more likely to go out of their way to write feedback when they are emotionally moved (ala, being pissed off). Good experiences don't often strongly move people emotionally... at least not like bad experiences can. So the point to take here is, don't worry too much about the negative feedback. Once enough doctors around you have feedback, it will not matter unless you really have a disproportionate amount of negative feedback, which should make you consider the possibilities that you really do deserve it, or that you are a victim of libel slander.
He's not guilty of infringement for downloading it. He's probably guilty because he probably used bit torrent, and therefore also probably redistributed it to countless others.
Except that if he used bit torrent, he probably is guilty of illegal distribution.
You have mandatory fences everywhere for swimming pools where you live? Where I'm from, that's strictly a township by township thing.
Yes because clearly the peanut salmonella incident could have been prevented if we had some federal agency tasked with regulating the food and drug supply for safety. Clearly.
Yes, except that the Federal Reserve IS a government entity with some influence from the private sector.
Which means that making fundamental change in our society (such as altering the economy and political system from a Capitalistic Representative Republic to a Socialistic Single Party System.) is literally prohibited from even attempting.
Now I'm all for a capitalistic multi-party society, but where in the US Constitution is an economic system and political party organization defined? Using your reasoning, considering that there were no political parties in the first years of the US Republic, one might surmise that a NO party system is the only system acceptable by the US Constitution.
Our taxes pay for their education and research
What? They do? I was under the impression that foreign students pay the same unsubsidized tuition that out-of-state and private college students pay.
Actually my ancestors came here as indentured servants to the Crown of England, forced to live and work in estates producing pine tar until they revolted in a quite violent fashion.
Are you actually trying to refer to the production of currency as a business? At least compare apples to apples. I'm not saying that pirating music is okay. It's clearly copyright infringement, though the damages that the RIAA are demanding are absolute insanity. But even so, the RIAA can't ever hope to win this battle. There's just no way to make most people stop short of draconian internet filtering and/or a music "tax" that everyone pays whether they download music or not. The only thing that's going to save them is for them to adapt to the changing market conditions.
Piracy has always been here, so expecting it to ever disappear is just dumb. Let us not forget that the iTunes Music Store brought music sales back up. Have sales started going back down since they went DRM free?
You're assuming that everyone pirating, or even just a significant percentage of them, would have purchased the music otherwise. Do you actually expect a business model built around selling physical media in an age where the media can be reproduced by anyone at virtually no cost or effort?
It's clear to me that whoever was behind Premier Election Systems clearly did not understand the difference between "requirements" and "intended use". It's also clear to me that the US Government approving with this crap does not understand the difference between verification and validation. The whole situation is pretty much a prime example of why a good quality system is essential.
How can anyone be incompetent enough to screw that up? That's truly creative incompetence.
Simple. Some big headed exec realized how much money and time they could save by making GEMS from an MS Access database using VB commands and an autorun script.
now, this company makes cash machines and from what I understand, they are exact to the penny. and thousands more people use these (per day!) than the once-every-few-years cycle of voting.
Except that Diebold didn't make these machines. Premier Election Systems made them, and then was bought up by Diebold. It was certainly negligent and a very poor choice by Diebold who probably just saw the dollar signs with HAVA. If Diebold really conspired to get Republicans into office via election fraud, making GEMS nothing more than a glorified MS Access database was a really dumb way to do it, since Democrats could just as easily make use of the security holes. If you locked up every government official that "bought off" on this, you would need to lock up every official that voted for HAVA.
analogy time (no cars): if I see you are an artist and have painted amazingly accurate portraits of people and I hire you to paint one of me - and you give me a POS and say 'this is the best I can do' - you should be able to sue them since they have established a standard of quality they CAN meet and yet chose not to on a certain occasion.
Except that you can't unless you have some contract that allows you to not pay them until you like the output. Which by the way, the US Government didn't approve the Diebold machines for use until they were approved by the US Government.
Was there conspiracy? Maybe, it certainly looks suspicious. But it looks a lot more like bad negligence on the part of everyone involved.
The only problem with this is that our government solicited for this product. As far as anyone can tell, Diebold met the quality control and traceability standards that were put in place by the US government for this type of device, which is to say THERE WERE NONE. It was unethical for Diebold to put out the product that they did, but that's not to say that it was illegal or treasonous.
I think there are several general misconceptions about psychotropic drugs that make describing them as changing personality a very poor choice of words, whether you believe it to be technically accurate or not. First and foremost is that almost every person I talk to about psychotropic drugs completely misunderstands how they work. They believe that anti-depressants make you happy, resulting in such misinformed beliefs in things like "fake happiness". And not just with anti-depressants. These beliefs follow for every psychotropic drug that has ever come up in conversation with me including such straightforward things like amphetamines. Many people have expressed concern to me that psychotropic drugs change your personality, and thereby change who you are as a person. And that's just rubbish. As someone else mentioned in here, our current understanding of personality can only account for about 10% of the variation, which basically means that we don't know anything about personality, and can't at all be defined by some form of look-up table.
Sorry, I came into this a little heated. I have just had way too many friends ostracized and admonished for using drugs to treat conditions like depression, chronic anxiety, and ADD. In addition, I have lost friends who refused to consider treatment for problems based on the idea that drugs would change who they are, rather than on a preference for more traditional treatment (which they still refused).
If your dog died, you lost your wallet, broke a bone, and your girl-friend broke up with you in the span of a couple weeks, you'd probably be feeling pretty shitty in a way that would affect your behavior. However, this kind of feeling-shitty, unlike with depression, is directly caused by shitty-stimuli and leads to feeling-shitty-behavior.
No, this is environmental stimuli resulting in specific complex chemical changes occurring in the brain including but not limited to serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrin concentrations. The only difference in chronic depression is that these chemical levels are set to feel shitty by default. The only way that an anti-depressant is personality altering would be if you consider normal environmental stimuli to also be personality altering. If you believe this to be the case, then I think you have a very narrow view of what personality is in comparison to the majority of society (no citation). Maybe that narrow view is for the better; I would certainly argue in favor of it. But the majority of society seems to view personality as being very closely associated with defining their concept of "self", no matter how misguided that association is.
I'm seriously sick and tired of this antiquated view of anti-depressants. They don't alter personality. They alter chemistry. The fact that you have or don't have depression or the fact that you have greater or lesser control of outbursts, etc has nothing to do with a person's personality. If it did, your personality would be different on a day to day basis based on whether or not you're having a good day or a bad day.