..not just dangerous virtual games are harmful....
on
School Bans 'Tag'
·
· Score: 1
See, it's not just dangerous virtual games that are harmful to children!
Absolutely right! We also have to worry about the harm done to a child's psyche after they run the bewildering gauntlet of contradiction that is a public education!
As with everything at this level of BS, only the lawyers win:/
Past court decisions the world over have unequivocally demonstrated that certain contracts are unenforceable, and have been rendered void by the courts. Among the reasons that certain contracts have been nullified is....drum roll please....because they have been found to be illegally exploitative of one or more parties.
Before you say "oh, but an illegal contract isn't a contract at all, is it" you must acknowledge that a contract can only be deemed illegal after an expensive, time-consuming, laborious legal process, which oftentimes isn't feasible.
So, in light of that, do I understand you right? You believe that no matter the legality of a given contract, whatever ill effects befall a party to that contract are solely the responsibility of that same party? Please, continue to play along. You'll get a nice door prize when we're all finished.
Yeah, ok trollerific trolly-troll. Keep on trollin'. If you don't know what I'm getting at, perhaps you could find a hard object to hit yourself in the head with until you comprehend the definition of the word "exploitative."
...and we all know how fair and unexploitative recording contracts have proven to be over the history of their existence.
I think Ian MacKaye said it best: "When people who are songwriters say 'That's my property and if you give it away for free then I'll lose my incentive,' then, well, good riddance."
I will keep that story in mind when I start to get annoyed at having to do yet another "one time online pay" to my utility/phone/etc provider. Sometimes it's tempting to just authorize an automatic/recurring/future debit and end the need to remember to pay such and such bill on such and such day, but thanks to your story, I'll feel a lil more warm and fuzzy about it in the future.:)
I'm with you 100% on all the points you make, however one small point I'd like to make is that you are (distressingly) not alone in failing to recognize gambling in all its forms, based on my personal experience.
Many years ago when I worked at a liquor store, I had the unfortunate task of operating a Maryland Lottery terminal as well as maintaining a Scratchoff vending machine. Before I started that job, I was more or less "on the fence" about the morality of state-sponsored gambling, though after I left I was decidedly against it. Seeing the same sad people throwing away money they could barely (and often times couldn't) afford to day after day really changed my opinion.
The current state of affairs is as pure a double standard as I can imagine. Tragically, as you mention, the overwhelming majority of gambling operations (including state-sponsored gambling) are targeted at those who are least able to afford the "habit." And it is an addictive habit like tobacco and alcohol usage, though the harm it does is less apparent to the uneducated eye.
Urm, I'm not sure what you're replying to there, AC ole chum.
Even the most technophobic computer illiterate can do things like QUOTE SOME TEXT or DESCRIBE SOME COLORS OR SHAPES within what's popping up.
If that wasn't readily apparent within my original post...when I used the words "ANY DETAILS" and "ANY DESCRIPTION"...um...yeah.
The other possibility is that the submission is a put-on by someone with the motivation to see the/. answer to the question, and there really isn't any "disappearing window." Draw your own conclusions from there -- I think it's crap either way.
The submitter didn't provide ANY details about his environment other than "Windows" nor did he provide ANY description of what the "disappearing application" does.
The devil is in the details, and so is your answer. Provide more info or, as a man more eloquent than I once said, "BRACE YOSELF."
My goal was to raise the issue and set a little hypothetical thought in motion.
Personally, the idea of the state that gave the human race COINTELPRO and MK ULTRA having the power to deploy bionically-augmented soldiers gives me indigestion.
Once they work out how to do this without a dedicated signal analyzer and neural network processing, it's the end of MAC spoofing on wireless networks.
...and once the paquet warr10rz figure out how to arbitrarily generate and utilise "transceiver prints" it's the end of this method of IDS.
(any wagers on how many other "first comments" will say the same thing?)
While I'm reasonably sure that anyone who applies for federal financial aid expressly agrees to the type of sharing of information described in TFA, your logic is flawed. TFA's scenario is not "exactly" like the one you describe, and if it were, that would be much worse than the current reality.
Your display of your face in a public place necessarily implies that you agree to make the viewing of your face possible by anyone else.
Your maintenance of financial records including records of financial aid does not necessarily imply that you agree to make the viewing of your financial records possible by the FBI.
"I've often been struck by the extensive knowledge that people have of sports, and particularly, their self-confidence in discussing it with "experts." While driving, I sometimes turn on radio talk shows on sports, and am always struck by this. People calling in have no hesitation in criticizing the coaches, the judgments of the people running the shows, etc. In contrast, when discussing matters of concern to human lives -- their own and others -- people tend to defer to "experts," though for the most part the expert knowledge is no more beyond them than how the local professional sports team should play their next game. That's where the indoctrination comes in: in the intensive training that brings people to feel that they must defer to alleged "experts" on matters of very direct concern to them, far more so than sports. I do, however, agree that there can be negative aspects to the heavily promoted frenzy on spectator sports, loyalty to the home team, etc. Depends very much on how it is carried out."
Note to vindictive mods: thanks for giving meta-moderation a chance to remove your privileges. I stand by my original post, and in addition to that, I fart in your general direction.
...um, because I don't want wardriving sickos using my network to download kiddie porn? And bring all of the unwanted attention from my ISP and law enforcement that would generate? Hello?
Slashdot Mirror
See, it's not just dangerous virtual games that are harmful to children!
:/
Absolutely right! We also have to worry about the harm done to a child's psyche after they run the bewildering gauntlet of contradiction that is a public education!
As with everything at this level of BS, only the lawyers win
Past court decisions the world over have unequivocally demonstrated that certain contracts are unenforceable, and have been rendered void by the courts. Among the reasons that certain contracts have been nullified is....drum roll please....because they have been found to be illegally exploitative of one or more parties.
Before you say "oh, but an illegal contract isn't a contract at all, is it" you must acknowledge that a contract can only be deemed illegal after an expensive, time-consuming, laborious legal process, which oftentimes isn't feasible.
So, in light of that, do I understand you right? You believe that no matter the legality of a given contract, whatever ill effects befall a party to that contract are solely the responsibility of that same party? Please, continue to play along. You'll get a nice door prize when we're all finished.
Yeah, ok trollerific trolly-troll. Keep on trollin'. If you don't know what I'm getting at, perhaps you could find a hard object to hit yourself in the head with until you comprehend the definition of the word "exploitative."
...and we all know how fair and unexploitative recording contracts have proven to be over the history of their existence.
I think Ian MacKaye said it best: "When people who are songwriters say 'That's my property and if you give it away for free then I'll lose my incentive,' then, well, good riddance."
A parson has been served with action? Who knew the clergy were itchin' for the latest Snoop Dogg so bad they couldn't wait for it to ship!
US Soldier: Where is the rebel base?
PC: (synthesized Arabic translation)
Iraqi: (Arabic response)
PC: Dear Aunt, let's go ice cream 2 Live Crew!
I will keep that story in mind when I start to get annoyed at having to do yet another "one time online pay" to my utility/phone/etc provider. Sometimes it's tempting to just authorize an automatic/recurring/future debit and end the need to remember to pay such and such bill on such and such day, but thanks to your story, I'll feel a lil more warm and fuzzy about it in the future. :)
...that the already low standards for becoming an attorney can be lowered even more by the right dingleberry objecting to it.
...use soap, water, and deodorant liberally.
You can let yourself slide back in to the "code daily, shower monthly" schedule after that seven-figure VC check is in the bank, k?
I'm with you 100% on all the points you make, however one small point I'd like to make is that you are (distressingly) not alone in failing to recognize gambling in all its forms, based on my personal experience.
Many years ago when I worked at a liquor store, I had the unfortunate task of operating a Maryland Lottery terminal as well as maintaining a Scratchoff vending machine. Before I started that job, I was more or less "on the fence" about the morality of state-sponsored gambling, though after I left I was decidedly against it. Seeing the same sad people throwing away money they could barely (and often times couldn't) afford to day after day really changed my opinion.
The current state of affairs is as pure a double standard as I can imagine. Tragically, as you mention, the overwhelming majority of gambling operations (including state-sponsored gambling) are targeted at those who are least able to afford the "habit." And it is an addictive habit like tobacco and alcohol usage, though the harm it does is less apparent to the uneducated eye.
Urm, I'm not sure what you're replying to there, AC ole chum.
...um...yeah.
/. answer to the question, and there really isn't any "disappearing window." Draw your own conclusions from there -- I think it's crap either way.
Even the most technophobic computer illiterate can do things like QUOTE SOME TEXT or DESCRIBE SOME COLORS OR SHAPES within what's popping up.
If that wasn't readily apparent within my original post...when I used the words "ANY DETAILS" and "ANY DESCRIPTION"
The other possibility is that the submission is a put-on by someone with the motivation to see the
...this is truly a crappy Ask Slashdot.
The submitter didn't provide ANY details about his environment other than "Windows" nor did he provide ANY description of what the "disappearing application" does.
The devil is in the details, and so is your answer. Provide more info or, as a man more eloquent than I once said, "BRACE YOSELF."
Who said it was surprising?
My goal was to raise the issue and set a little hypothetical thought in motion.
Personally, the idea of the state that gave the human race COINTELPRO and MK ULTRA having the power to deploy bionically-augmented soldiers gives me indigestion.
When will this technology cross the line from being restorative (for amputees) and become (for super-soldiers) augmentative?
Don't think DARPA hasn't already put this on the projected timeline.
...the families have asked that donations be made to The Holy Church of The Order of The Red Breast.
Once they work out how to do this without a dedicated signal analyzer and neural network processing, it's the end of MAC spoofing on wireless networks.
...and once the paquet warr10rz figure out how to arbitrarily generate and utilise "transceiver prints" it's the end of this method of IDS.
(any wagers on how many other "first comments" will say the same thing?)
That comment is so insightful it needs a forum of its own.
While I'm reasonably sure that anyone who applies for federal financial aid expressly agrees to the type of sharing of information described in TFA, your logic is flawed. TFA's scenario is not "exactly" like the one you describe, and if it were, that would be much worse than the current reality.
Apples and oranges.
Your display of your face in a public place necessarily implies that you agree to make the viewing of your face possible by anyone else.
Your maintenance of financial records including records of financial aid does not necessarily imply that you agree to make the viewing of your financial records possible by the FBI.
You took the words right out of Noam Chomsky's mouth:
"I've often been struck by the extensive knowledge that people have of sports, and particularly, their self-confidence in discussing it with "experts." While driving, I sometimes turn on radio talk shows on sports, and am always struck by this. People calling in have no hesitation in criticizing the coaches, the judgments of the people running the shows, etc. In contrast, when discussing matters of concern to human lives -- their own and others -- people tend to defer to "experts," though for the most part the expert knowledge is no more beyond them than how the local professional sports team should play their next game. That's where the indoctrination comes in: in the intensive training that brings people to feel that they must defer to alleged "experts" on matters of very direct concern to them, far more so than sports. I do, however, agree that there can be negative aspects to the heavily promoted frenzy on spectator sports, loyalty to the home team, etc. Depends very much on how it is carried out."
...and if you go slow enough while passing the main staff building, you can see what they really do with all that juice.
I've seen the same clip (the second you mention), and I felt exactly the same way.
Note to vindictive mods: thanks for giving meta-moderation a chance to remove your privileges. I stand by my original post, and in addition to that, I fart in your general direction.
I agree, especially because you haven't been modded -1 Troll for this post yet.
why would *you* object to that?
...um, because I don't want wardriving sickos using my network to download kiddie porn? And bring all of the unwanted attention from my ISP and law enforcement that would generate? Hello?