because when you make peoples' lives less risky they become less valuable.
See, its kindof an interesting phenomenon. Tell somebody that they're only going to live for a few more months, and suddenly every moment of their life becomes special, valuable, memorable. Somebody that believes that they're going to live forever (children, stupid people) have almost no value associated with their life; they assume that it will never end and treat it accordingly. Nothing is fun without the threat of losing it, life included.
Why is that too difficult for the article submitter to understand?
For the same reason that they can't understand that this is as much you outsourcing your work to google as it is google outsourcing their work to you.
How many people could seriously code an idea they had all the way from drunk drawings on the back of a coaster to full-scale deployment?
Google is offering to give them a service that they want, of course they're going to profit from it if it is good. If you had the skill set to do it yourself, you would.
Want to put up a microsoft ad? Ok, but it will never appear on pages discussing any sort of computer software or hardware from any maker.
I think that might only work if the ads were the big, flashing, obnoxious variety. Google's ads work so wonderfully because they are relevant. That also allows them to be almost invisible.
It is the difference between trying to get some name recognition (think: all those fucking barracuda spam filter ads you see in the airport) and trying to legitimately offer someone a product they might be interested in.
The influence of the large companies would be "We won't buy your ads if you don't change this". How would you feel if they only put ads up for a few days a year? If TFS is correct, and they could potentially make $50-100 Million a month from ads, they should [hopefully] be able to cover their costs if they threw up ads for one day a month every month.
Finally, if you a)hand me a computer system with Office on it; b)announce that you don't provide user support/help for Office, then you have no right to expect that I will do anything but regard you with suspicion.
You're an accountant, right? It is your damned job to know how to use office, not mine. I haven't got a clue how to write excel macros, but you also probably haven't got a clue how to code perl.
I'm not an accountant, okay? I haven't got a damned clue how to use Mas90. If the server starts dropping connections...call me, if you want to know how to print an invoice, don't. It is your job to know these things.
Their is a school in Phoenix called UAT (University of Advancing Technology). Really cool place, also really expensive.
They have a similar policy. Students are allowed (encouraged) to crack into the machines. They are allowed to change the website (not de-deface it...think more like "blhack was here, happy tuesday!" hidden in the bottom or something) as long as they don't break anything and they show the admins how they did it.
High Schools really need to implement this. Intelligence needs to be encouraged, not punished.
Our bank (chase) gave us a credit-card-sized device with an LCD on it.
It generates 8 (i think it is 8, I don't work in accounting) digit numbers that we need to put in when we log into their website to view checks and manage our account.
The numbers change every few minutes. Is this similar to what you've got?
Are we even sure that Global Climate Change is something that we need to stop? If this is all part of a cycle (all signs point to yes), then isn't f*king with it sortof the last thing that we should be doing?
The earth isn't a computer. We can't just reimage it and try again. There are no backups. If we fuck this up, we have to live with it. Seriously, all of these ideas like poisoning the ocean with C02 or spraying tons of extra water into the air seem to be completely and utterly retarded.
Are cars and mankind contributing to the change in climate? Yes. Has the earth been going through a similar climate change every few thousand years for as long as we can tell? Also yes.
Don't worry, I run openbsd, and a few different linuxes, but seriously...microsoft does some interesting stuff! The microsoft-hate that goes on around here is kindof silly.
How many of us have been at least intrigued by the idea of working on something like this? Granted, yes, it is illegal and immoral, but I'm sure it is a really interesting challenge.
Spit out keyloggers at a few hundred thousand/million computers (which sounds like a fun task to begin with), then set up a dump where all the logged keys go. Write some perl to look through the dumps searching for CC#s, SSNs, bank account numbers, passwords, etc. etc. and sort them accordingly. Then dump all of this into a searchable database.
That sounds like a very difficult, and VERY interesting challenge. Given the size of slashdot, and the type of crown it attracts, I imagine that there are a few people that work on these things trolling this very thread.
Care to give us any nerdy details on how the back-end of this thing works?
Should be interesting to see how they handle that whole FTP and HTTP stuff next.
At least in the past, the prosecuting of the people running massive FTP dumps has been something done by the Feds. It isn't so much Find the IP address -> Find the ISP -> Subpeona for user's address -> Nastygram as much as it has been bust down the persons door with a battering ram -> Confiscate all of the equipment that they haven't yet thrown in the microwave/raid the datacenter that their servers are being hosted in.
Well I release butterflies into the atmosphere. The flapping of their wings changes the flow of the eddy currents in the upper atmosphere. These cause momentary pockets of higher-pressure air to form, which act as lenses that deflect incoming cosmic rays, focusing them to strike the drive platter and flip the desired bit..
Part of what IT does is manage disasters. If you are using old gear, you'd better have some OTHER old gear standing by in case the old-gear-in-use fails.
If you're not ALSO doing this with your new gear, then you're doing something seriously wrong.
Pay no attention to the man being arrested behind me for disclosing how to build a supercomputer using gaming consoles and beaten by the fine men and women of the LAPD
There are two ages which most pro choice people would argue:
Now let's examine the second point that you made.
2) The time of reasonable fetal viability outside the mother. Before a certain point, a fetus cannot survive if removed from the mother or should the mother die. Even if care is immediately available, there is still no saving it. Thus in a very real way it is a part of the mother, not an individual entity.
This point is moot. The funding isn't there (for moral reasons), but a fetal transplant is rapidly Approaching Possibility (linked from another person that responded to you).
At the point when transplanting a fetus becomes possible, this argument will either need to be expanded to include infants and the mentally disabled (because neither of these would be able to survive alone), or discarded.
The whole problem with this debate is that neither side is willing to go all in. You need to either ban abortions completely (even for rape and incest), or allow them globally for anything that doesn't fit whatever definition is used for life. Most of the models that I've heard people use would not include infants as life, meaning that they could be "aborted" (killed).
You (maybe accidentally) bring up an interesting point.
If any sort of obligation can be placed on the father of the child, then it invalidates the argument that it is a woman's body and, therefore, her right to chose what she wants to do.
Following the logic that a fetus is not a life but merely a part of a woman's body, and therefore can morally be aborted, contradicts any responsibility that the father should have.
Its an interesting debate because people are unwilling to go all-in on one side or the other. In my first post to this thread I started with "on the one hand" and never finished it. Slashdot doesn't let you edit comments. Here is the rest:
On the other hand, you've got the pro-lifers who are still okay with abortion in the case of rape or incest. TO me, this shows that they aren't against abortion from a standpoint of "it's a life and all life is sacred", what is more likely is that they're against abortion because they want to punish the people who had sex for being immoral and feel as though making them keep the child is a punishment.
Regarding an embryo as a citizen naturally leads you to regard a zygote as citizen, and sperm and ova as half-citizens. Thus, willingly letting sperm die makes you guilty of numerous half-murders, which, ultimately, makes everyone a mass murderer.
This is such a horrible, horrible argument.
Aborting a fetus is taking an active measure to prevent a life from forming. Not preserving every sperm or every egg is passive. It would take an active measure to bring the sperm and the egg together thus creating the potential for human life.
It is the difference between bulldozing a half-finished house, and never starting the project to begin with.
There are two ages which most pro choice people would argue
Yes, I understand. I'm arguing the basis of those arguments. Both of them are trying to establish when life begins.
The first one is pretty basic. Brain Function/Capacity for pain = life. The second equally so. The fetus can not survive without the mother, and is therefore not a life, simply a part of the mother.
My point is that both of those arguments can be expanded beyond just fetuses. Lets look at the first one. Brain activity. This, to me, isn't a good test for life. Ants have brain activity, AND the ability to communicate. They form advanced civilizations. They fit almost every test that I've heard for sentience. They have the capacity for self destruction, they're motivated, etc. etc. etc.
Followers of the life-criteria that you suggested should advocate for the protection of Ants, and fish, bees, and just about every other animal on the planet, but they don't! Why? If that is the criteria for life, and life is something that should be protected, then why not protect anything that fits the model? This is where the first argument breaks down. It establishes that there is something different about humans. What is that difference? AH! The CAPACITY for a human existence! We can kill ants because they will never become anything more than ants. Human fetuses, however, almost always will. The very argument that aborting a fetus before "brain activity" is present invalidates itself.
I don't understand the arguments that seem to justify murder for the woman's convenience, however, anymore than killing baby after birth for the woman's convenience is acceptable.
Abortion is really an interesting topic for debate.
One the one hand, you've got the people in favor of it claiming that abortion isn't "killing" anything because the fetus isn't alive and thinking yet. However, following that logic, then mothers should have the ability to "abort" a child for several months following the birth. Not until several months after birth do memories (a basic building block of sentience) begin to form. Further along that path of thought; mothers (or guardians, I guess) should be allowed to "abort" children with severe mental disabilities. If these children could not pass a sentience test then, in following the logic of the pro-choice followers, there should be absolutely nothing wrong with having them killed for convenience.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you've completely missed the point here.
I'm against a bubble-wrapped world where everything is safe and soft and cushy. Things need to be dangerous.
because when you make peoples' lives less risky they become less valuable.
See, its kindof an interesting phenomenon. Tell somebody that they're only going to live for a few more months, and suddenly every moment of their life becomes special, valuable, memorable.
Somebody that believes that they're going to live forever (children, stupid people) have almost no value associated with their life; they assume that it will never end and treat it accordingly. Nothing is fun without the threat of losing it, life included.
Why is that too difficult for the article submitter to understand?
For the same reason that they can't understand that this is as much you outsourcing your work to google as it is google outsourcing their work to you.
How many people could seriously code an idea they had all the way from drunk drawings on the back of a coaster to full-scale deployment?
Google is offering to give them a service that they want, of course they're going to profit from it if it is good. If you had the skill set to do it yourself, you would.
Want to put up a microsoft ad? Ok, but it will never appear on pages discussing any sort of computer software or hardware from any maker.
I think that might only work if the ads were the big, flashing, obnoxious variety. Google's ads work so wonderfully because they are relevant. That also allows them to be almost invisible.
It is the difference between trying to get some name recognition (think: all those fucking barracuda spam filter ads you see in the airport) and trying to legitimately offer someone a product they might be interested in.
Targeted ads don't really bother me at all....
No ads. No influence of Large Corporations,
The influence of the large companies would be "We won't buy your ads if you don't change this".
How would you feel if they only put ads up for a few days a year?
If TFS is correct, and they could potentially make $50-100 Million a month from ads, they should [hopefully] be able to cover their costs if they threw up ads for one day a month every month.
I wouldn't be opposed to that at all.
s/\s//g applied globally would pink "pink ponies " into "pinkponies" on both ends.
Finally, if you a)hand me a computer system with Office on it; b)announce that you don't provide user support/help for Office, then you have no right to expect that I will do anything but regard you with suspicion.
You're an accountant, right? It is your damned job to know how to use office, not mine. I haven't got a clue how to write excel macros, but you also probably haven't got a clue how to code perl.
I'm not an accountant, okay? I haven't got a damned clue how to use Mas90. If the server starts dropping connections...call me, if you want to know how to print an invoice, don't. It is your job to know these things.
Their is a school in Phoenix called UAT (University of Advancing Technology). Really cool place, also really expensive.
They have a similar policy. Students are allowed (encouraged) to crack into the machines. They are allowed to change the website (not de-deface it...think more like "blhack was here, happy tuesday!" hidden in the bottom or something) as long as they don't break anything and they show the admins how they did it.
High Schools really need to implement this. Intelligence needs to be encouraged, not punished.
Our bank (chase) gave us a credit-card-sized device with an LCD on it.
It generates 8 (i think it is 8, I don't work in accounting) digit numbers that we need to put in when we log into their website to view checks and manage our account.
The numbers change every few minutes.
Is this similar to what you've got?
Whoever has the largest gun.
Or bank account, they're really the same thing.
and we all know how THAT turned out!
A pg-13 rated movie with bewbies in it?
Are we even sure that Global Climate Change is something that we need to stop?
Yes.
Why?
Are we even sure that Global Climate Change is something that we need to stop? If this is all part of a cycle (all signs point to yes), then isn't f*king with it sortof the last thing that we should be doing?
The earth isn't a computer. We can't just reimage it and try again. There are no backups. If we fuck this up, we have to live with it. Seriously, all of these ideas like poisoning the ocean with C02 or spraying tons of extra water into the air seem to be completely and utterly retarded.
Are cars and mankind contributing to the change in climate? Yes.
Has the earth been going through a similar climate change every few thousand years for as long as we can tell? Also yes.
What about Surface (a multi-touch platform), or their Image compositing software?
Don't worry, I run openbsd, and a few different linuxes, but seriously...microsoft does some interesting stuff! The microsoft-hate that goes on around here is kindof silly.
How many of us have been at least intrigued by the idea of working on something like this? Granted, yes, it is illegal and immoral, but I'm sure it is a really interesting challenge.
Spit out keyloggers at a few hundred thousand/million computers (which sounds like a fun task to begin with), then set up a dump where all the logged keys go. Write some perl to look through the dumps searching for CC#s, SSNs, bank account numbers, passwords, etc. etc. and sort them accordingly. Then dump all of this into a searchable database.
That sounds like a very difficult, and VERY interesting challenge. Given the size of slashdot, and the type of crown it attracts, I imagine that there are a few people that work on these things trolling this very thread.
Care to give us any nerdy details on how the back-end of this thing works?
Should be interesting to see how they handle that whole FTP and HTTP stuff next.
At least in the past, the prosecuting of the people running massive FTP dumps has been something done by the Feds. It isn't so much Find the IP address -> Find the ISP -> Subpeona for user's address -> Nastygram as much as it has been bust down the persons door with a battering ram -> Confiscate all of the equipment that they haven't yet thrown in the microwave/raid the datacenter that their servers are being hosted in.
A doubt that this will change.
Well I release butterflies into the atmosphere. The flapping of their wings changes the flow of the eddy currents in the upper atmosphere. These cause momentary pockets of higher-pressure air to form, which act as lenses that deflect incoming cosmic rays, focusing them to strike the drive platter and flip the desired bit..
Part of what IT does is manage disasters. If you are using old gear, you'd better have some OTHER old gear standing by in case the old-gear-in-use fails.
If you're not ALSO doing this with your new gear, then you're doing something seriously wrong.
Pay no attention to the man being arrested behind me for disclosing how to build a supercomputer using gaming consoles and beaten by the fine men and women of the LAPD
Please....please go back to reddit.
So we are all guilty of negligent manslaughter?
No.
The point is that aborting a fetus is an active act.
NOT creating one to begin with is a passive one.
People argue active passivisim, but those people are idiots.
There are two ages which most pro choice people would argue:
Now let's examine the second point that you made.
2) The time of reasonable fetal viability outside the mother. Before a certain point, a fetus cannot survive if removed from the mother or should the mother die. Even if care is immediately available, there is still no saving it. Thus in a very real way it is a part of the mother, not an individual entity.
This point is moot. The funding isn't there (for moral reasons), but a fetal transplant is rapidly Approaching Possibility (linked from another person that responded to you).
At the point when transplanting a fetus becomes possible, this argument will either need to be expanded to include infants and the mentally disabled (because neither of these would be able to survive alone), or discarded.
The whole problem with this debate is that neither side is willing to go all in. You need to either ban abortions completely (even for rape and incest), or allow them globally for anything that doesn't fit whatever definition is used for life. Most of the models that I've heard people use would not include infants as life, meaning that they could be "aborted" (killed).
You (maybe accidentally) bring up an interesting point.
If any sort of obligation can be placed on the father of the child, then it invalidates the argument that it is a woman's body and, therefore, her right to chose what she wants to do.
Following the logic that a fetus is not a life but merely a part of a woman's body, and therefore can morally be aborted, contradicts any responsibility that the father should have.
Its an interesting debate because people are unwilling to go all-in on one side or the other. In my first post to this thread I started with "on the one hand" and never finished it. Slashdot doesn't let you edit comments. Here is the rest:
On the other hand, you've got the pro-lifers who are still okay with abortion in the case of rape or incest. TO me, this shows that they aren't against abortion from a standpoint of "it's a life and all life is sacred", what is more likely is that they're against abortion because they want to punish the people who had sex for being immoral and feel as though making them keep the child is a punishment.
Regarding an embryo as a citizen naturally leads you to regard a zygote as citizen, and sperm and ova as half-citizens. Thus, willingly letting sperm die makes you guilty of numerous half-murders, which, ultimately, makes everyone a mass murderer.
This is such a horrible, horrible argument.
Aborting a fetus is taking an active measure to prevent a life from forming.
Not preserving every sperm or every egg is passive. It would take an active measure to bring the sperm and the egg together thus creating the potential for human life.
It is the difference between bulldozing a half-finished house, and never starting the project to begin with.
There are two ages which most pro choice people would argue
Yes, I understand. I'm arguing the basis of those arguments. Both of them are trying to establish when life begins.
The first one is pretty basic. Brain Function/Capacity for pain = life.
The second equally so. The fetus can not survive without the mother, and is therefore not a life, simply a part of the mother.
My point is that both of those arguments can be expanded beyond just fetuses.
Lets look at the first one. Brain activity. This, to me, isn't a good test for life. Ants have brain activity, AND the ability to communicate. They form advanced civilizations. They fit almost every test that I've heard for sentience. They have the capacity for self destruction, they're motivated, etc. etc. etc.
Followers of the life-criteria that you suggested should advocate for the protection of Ants, and fish, bees, and just about every other animal on the planet, but they don't! Why? If that is the criteria for life, and life is something that should be protected, then why not protect anything that fits the model?
This is where the first argument breaks down.
It establishes that there is something different about humans. What is that difference?
AH! The CAPACITY for a human existence! We can kill ants because they will never become anything more than ants. Human fetuses, however, almost always will.
The very argument that aborting a fetus before "brain activity" is present invalidates itself.
I don't understand the arguments that seem to justify murder for the woman's convenience, however, anymore than killing baby after birth for the woman's convenience is acceptable.
Abortion is really an interesting topic for debate.
One the one hand, you've got the people in favor of it claiming that abortion isn't "killing" anything because the fetus isn't alive and thinking yet.
However, following that logic, then mothers should have the ability to "abort" a child for several months following the birth. Not until several months after birth do memories (a basic building block of sentience) begin to form.
Further along that path of thought; mothers (or guardians, I guess) should be allowed to "abort" children with severe mental disabilities. If these children could not pass a sentience test then, in following the logic of the pro-choice followers, there should be absolutely nothing wrong with having them killed for convenience.
A brave new world indeed.