What do you mean? If I tossed a brick up into the air and it hit me in the head, it would be my responsibility, and I would blame myself. Anyone who wouldn't... has problems.
Why does practically every polarizing story on/. seem to garner posts like the parent?
Not everyone on/. feels the same way about Apple. I'm not particularly fond of them. I dislike them less than I dislike Microsoft, but it wouldn't be accurate to say that I like either company. So how do I fit into your convenient, polemical categories?
When this current plan runs a muck, i'm sure that a simple "tatoo" or "mark" used for tracking, could easily be proposed, so i don't think it's a stretch at all, considering that God's word is TRUTH.
God's word is truth? Prove the following:
1) That what's in the Bible is actually God's word.
The quote sounds more like every human had the same mark on them. Analogizing a database that contains a unique ID for each person, to a single common mark physically applied to each person, is quite a stretch. Even Elastic Man can't stretch that much.
Ugarte: Rick, think of all the poor devils who can't meet Renault's price. I get it for them for half. Is that so... parasitic? Rick Blaine: I don't mind a parasite. I object to a cut-rate one.
Common words can be trademarked in specific contexts. You can copyright "Risk" as the name of a board game, but if you owned that copyright, you couldn't prevent a laundry company from calling itself "Risk Laundry". There are quite a lot of different "Apple" trademarks, including several regional laundry companies, the computer company, a recording studio, and a variety of other businesses, and none of their trademarks infringe on each other.
If it can be implemented in a computer program (and Google's algorithm certainly has been), then it can be expressed mathematically. Or is that not what you meant?
Well, I don't personally believe that externally imposed bad luck/social disadvantage should be an excuse for not making an effort, any more than growing up in a racist community or environment should be an excuse for being racist. The two situations are comparable, in that they are behaviors that result, in part, from external conditions that the individual cannot control (at least, not during the years of their life when the inculcation occurs). I think they are also both behaviors that are detrimental to society (although in different ways). Racists encourage discrimination and divisiveness; slackers drain social resources.
So what do we do? Discourage those behaviors. We discourage racism by making laws preventing its application in certain areas, and by trying to teach people that getting along is better than strife. We discourage not making an effort by giving opportunities to those who have not had enough of them, and teaching them that they can improve their lives by hard work. Will these methods reach everyone? Not realistically. Does that mean we shouldn't try, in order to at least help the next generation of people pull themselves out of their rut (either the racist rut or the laziness rut)? No, of course not. A large number of people are, societally, more or less stuck in a hole that they effectively cannot pull themselves out of -- both racists and slackers. Helping them (in realistic and useful ways) seems to me a better way to improve society, than by dismissing and ignoring them.
And I thought Slammer was going to be the way MS's SQL swerver was going to cost this company the most money this month....
For a second, I was going to correct your spelling... then I realized, with the ride that MS SQL users are being taken for, "swerver" is a more accurate word.:)
The terms "conservative" and "liberal," at least applied to American politics, no longer really have any meaning. What blurry lines there ever were have long since blurred beyond distinction. Scratch two "conservatives," and maybe you'll find some common ground -- but they won't agree on everything, even "key" issues which those with the same ideological identity often share. Same goes for liberals. There are too many issues, and too many positions, for any one word to accurately and meaningfully sum them up.
Here's the defining characterstic of a conservative: the belief that if someone works hard and consistently, they can improve their condition.
Here's a hint: "Liberals" believe almost the same thing, except it goes like this:
If someone works hard and consistently, they can probably improve their condition; but preexisting conditions over which they had no control can easily more than make up for their hard work, or teach them that hard work isn't going to help in the first place.
Someone who is born in a poor neighborhood to poor parents, is going to receive a lot of negative reinforcement with regards to work, success, and achievement, long before they have the mental capacity to fight against those things and supercede them. By the time a child from the ghetto is old enough to be able to "work hard," for the most part, it's been inculcated into their bones that the best they'll ever be able to do is minimum-wage jobs, or maybe prison or an early death. Some of these people are still able to get past all that, and become "successful," but the environment works against them. As strongly as you believe that hard work can improve your lot to the point of "success," do they believe that hard work isn't going to help.
Success is not just a matter of effort; it's also a matter of opportunity. A black child born on a plantation in Georgia in 1802 may have been highly motivated and superintelligent, but his environment would make it nigh-impossible for his lot to improve beyond the point of "house negro" -- and still a slave.
The upshot of all this is that environment is rather important, in addition to willingness to improve your lot. Is it as important? Well, these thing are notoriously hard to quantify, but I would say it's reasonable to compare the two. That's the difference between "conservatives" and "liberals;" they each tend toward only looking at half the picture, but they look at different halves. (Although I believe that "conservatives" tend to focus more on their half than liberals do on theirs.)
You're talking about Good Samaritan laws, that require you to report a crime if you witness it. There are a number of states that have laws of this kind, but generally they're with respect to medical emergencies -- namely, if you in good faith provide emergency medical assistance to someone in need, you can't be held liable for any damage you case. However, laws that require you to report a crime you witness generally don't exist. Not in California, at least, as far as I know.
Besides, you're not talking about someone witnessing a crime -- you're talking about someone witnessing the results of a crime. If I come across a corpse, I'm not an accessory to murder if I don't report it. That would be absurd.
At first glance I thought this might be an O'Reilly book. Then I had to envision which animal would be on the cover. The answer, of course, was obvious.
Who modded this clown up? Nobody claimed that we now understand "the entire universe." MAP is simply providing some data about fundamental characteristics of the universe. Its accuracy is arguable, but we're just getting some data here. Calm down before you blow out your last synapse.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the word "fuck" in the title of the parent post... was censored? :)
What do you mean? If I tossed a brick up into the air and it hit me in the head, it would be my responsibility, and I would blame myself. Anyone who wouldn't... has problems.
Consulting the chart, it seems that today, we hate... stupid generalizations. Oh, crap! :)
Why does practically every polarizing story on /. seem to garner posts like the parent?
/. feels the same way about Apple. I'm not particularly fond of them. I dislike them less than I dislike Microsoft, but it wouldn't be accurate to say that I like either company. So how do I fit into your convenient, polemical categories?
Not everyone on
1) That what's in the Bible is actually God's word.
2) That God exists.
3) That God's words are always true.
Then get back to me.
The quote sounds more like every human had the same mark on them. Analogizing a database that contains a unique ID for each person, to a single common mark physically applied to each person, is quite a stretch. Even Elastic Man can't stretch that much.
Apropos:
Ugarte: Rick, think of all the poor devils who can't meet Renault's price. I get it for them for half. Is that so... parasitic?
Rick Blaine: I don't mind a parasite. I object to a cut-rate one.
-- Casablanca
"I find your lack of ethics disturbing." *choke*
Common words can be trademarked in specific contexts. You can copyright "Risk" as the name of a board game, but if you owned that copyright, you couldn't prevent a laundry company from calling itself "Risk Laundry". There are quite a lot of different "Apple" trademarks, including several regional laundry companies, the computer company, a recording studio, and a variety of other businesses, and none of their trademarks infringe on each other.
If it can be implemented in a computer program (and Google's algorithm certainly has been), then it can be expressed mathematically. Or is that not what you meant?
Well, I don't personally believe that externally imposed bad luck/social disadvantage should be an excuse for not making an effort, any more than growing up in a racist community or environment should be an excuse for being racist. The two situations are comparable, in that they are behaviors that result, in part, from external conditions that the individual cannot control (at least, not during the years of their life when the inculcation occurs). I think they are also both behaviors that are detrimental to society (although in different ways). Racists encourage discrimination and divisiveness; slackers drain social resources.
So what do we do? Discourage those behaviors. We discourage racism by making laws preventing its application in certain areas, and by trying to teach people that getting along is better than strife. We discourage not making an effort by giving opportunities to those who have not had enough of them, and teaching them that they can improve their lives by hard work. Will these methods reach everyone? Not realistically. Does that mean we shouldn't try, in order to at least help the next generation of people pull themselves out of their rut (either the racist rut or the laziness rut)? No, of course not. A large number of people are, societally, more or less stuck in a hole that they effectively cannot pull themselves out of -- both racists and slackers. Helping them (in realistic and useful ways) seems to me a better way to improve society, than by dismissing and ignoring them.
That'd be the First Amendment, the same one that allows me to mock you for misspelling things. Mock! Mock, I say! :)
The terms "conservative" and "liberal," at least applied to American politics, no longer really have any meaning. What blurry lines there ever were have long since blurred beyond distinction. Scratch two "conservatives," and maybe you'll find some common ground -- but they won't agree on everything, even "key" issues which those with the same ideological identity often share. Same goes for liberals. There are too many issues, and too many positions, for any one word to accurately and meaningfully sum them up.
If someone works hard and consistently, they can probably improve their condition; but preexisting conditions over which they had no control can easily more than make up for their hard work, or teach them that hard work isn't going to help in the first place.
Someone who is born in a poor neighborhood to poor parents, is going to receive a lot of negative reinforcement with regards to work, success, and achievement, long before they have the mental capacity to fight against those things and supercede them. By the time a child from the ghetto is old enough to be able to "work hard," for the most part, it's been inculcated into their bones that the best they'll ever be able to do is minimum-wage jobs, or maybe prison or an early death. Some of these people are still able to get past all that, and become "successful," but the environment works against them. As strongly as you believe that hard work can improve your lot to the point of "success," do they believe that hard work isn't going to help.
Success is not just a matter of effort; it's also a matter of opportunity. A black child born on a plantation in Georgia in 1802 may have been highly motivated and superintelligent, but his environment would make it nigh-impossible for his lot to improve beyond the point of "house negro" -- and still a slave.
The upshot of all this is that environment is rather important, in addition to willingness to improve your lot. Is it as important? Well, these thing are notoriously hard to quantify, but I would say it's reasonable to compare the two. That's the difference between "conservatives" and "liberals;" they each tend toward only looking at half the picture, but they look at different halves. (Although I believe that "conservatives" tend to focus more on their half than liberals do on theirs.)
Alternate joke: Yoda? Is that you?
Coincidence Design is a hoax. Research, people! It takes all of two minutes.
You're talking about Good Samaritan laws, that require you to report a crime if you witness it. There are a number of states that have laws of this kind, but generally they're with respect to medical emergencies -- namely, if you in good faith provide emergency medical assistance to someone in need, you can't be held liable for any damage you case. However, laws that require you to report a crime you witness generally don't exist. Not in California, at least, as far as I know.
Besides, you're not talking about someone witnessing a crime -- you're talking about someone witnessing the results of a crime. If I come across a corpse, I'm not an accessory to murder if I don't report it. That would be absurd.
Heck, my Magic Eight Ball has known about Microsoft for years. Whenever I ask it a computing question, it responds, "Outlook not so good."
(originally seen in someone's sig)
At first glance I thought this might be an O'Reilly book. Then I had to envision which animal would be on the cover. The answer, of course, was obvious.
Godzilla.
Who modded this clown up? Nobody claimed that we now understand "the entire universe." MAP is simply providing some data about fundamental characteristics of the universe. Its accuracy is arguable, but we're just getting some data here. Calm down before you blow out your last synapse.