Oh yes, I can see this beneficial. Especially now that DoubleClick content will be able to choke even more web pages with bloat thanks to Google's pervasiveness. I especially can't wait to have the loading times for pages soar, as they are loaded with ads for things even more irrelevant to my existence than the current ones.
The above was sarcasm.
I'm not sure Google can apply it's "Do No Evil" policy to DoubleClick, since marketing is the true gate to Hades.
I'm surprised that more banks don't make you retrieve credit/debit cards at local branches. Lots of cameras to help verify who you are. I know that when I want to change my PIN, I have to go to a WAMU branch to do it, whereas I can remember doing it online just a few years ago.
I was right... we hit double-digits with Perl 5 before Perl 6 became available... and don't go on about Parrot -- it's not Perl 6. I'll be interested to download 5.10 and see what it can do. The speedier regex engine is going to be a great boon.
More importantly: if the fundamental laws of the universe are changing (as some posit), how would we know? Can we separate natural laws from the universe that they are derived from/created in?
Go beyond the storage issue: how do you sift through all that communication to find what you're looking for? Simple searches? Semantic searches? A room full of $8 per hour interns reading every email and IM? Frankly it's impractical.
Au contraire. While it's perfectly acceptable for anyone to do business freely on the Internet, if some groups are allowed to control access to certain types of information/goods by throttling/blocking access to it, then that goes against free trade and the free market. It would mean short term profits, but long term loss, as much of the economy would move underground to places where there would be unfettered access.
The "exaflood hypothesis" is not based on solid fact. It is a ploy, a PR stunt, as the article intimates, by our friends at the Discovery Institute, who are keen on floods and other prophecies of mass destruction.
Does land-line include cable (Optimum Voice, Vonage, etc.)? I still want to have a land-line, but I'm tired of paying Verizon $90 a month. I plan on switching to Optimum Voice so I can consolidate my bills and save some cash.
I think that might be the inverse really. When you think about it, an Asimovian robot would have to follow all orders given to it by a human. If you're a human with a fetish for power, wouldn't a robot make a great slave? You know it couldn't harm you, and would follow all your orders up to the point of its destruction...
And Asimov wrote about this in at least two stories... one about a housewife who falls for a male humaniform robot that her husband brings home from work (name escaping me at the moment) and I think "The Bicentennial Man" also included some robot lust (there my memory of the story is failing me [probably due to having seen the awful Robin Williams movie]).
On the one hand, I enjoy the flexibility of having my laptop come home with me, so that if something happens and I can't get to my office, I can still work. On the other hand, I get obsessive with problems I can't solve, so there's the pitfall of going home, logging in, and continuing to work. It's up to the individual to control their use. Now, if your supervisor begins pressuring you to work more... that's a whole different ballgame, but still, you have to push back when work bleeds into your home life to the point that it interferes too much.
This has now become so commonplace that it really shouldn't surprise anyone or even be considered news. Answer this question: they've been "caught" -- now what? Will Jimmy Wales declare war on the U.S. Government or the Catholic Religion? This isn't even going to generate enough interest in the mainstream media to become a blip on the national radar. I also imagine the average American or Catholic probably doesn't even know what Wikipedia is.
I know "US Government Caught Manipulating Wikipedia" is a cool title, but seriously, does anyone think the US government, the CIA or the Vatican would be stupid enough to get caught if they actually wanted to influence a wikipedia article?
More importantly, do any of them feel that threatened by Wikipedia that they have to try and manipulate it? Are they expecting Wikipedia to foment revolution or call into question their very existence? And do they realize that pages tend to be archived all over the place, so that even if they do manipulate entries, the original entries are no doubt floating around somewhere?
There always seems to be one user in the office who looks at technology as if it were spawned by demons. They use it, because it is required of their job, but they distrust it, and if something they click on takes 5 ms longer than normal, there must be something wrong. They pine for the day of the typewriter and carbon paper, and hate it when anything is updated/upgraded/replaced, because they don't want to have to learn anything new.
You're correct -- I didn't. I asked two question, for which you were unable to supply anything but rhetoric. Yes, if you commit a crime, are caught, and convicted, you are considered guilty. Society then determines the amount of time required of you to re-pay society for your crimes, sentences you, and sends you away for incarceration. After that, it gets iffy.
We call it the system of "corrections", but the fact is that there is no coherent theory of how it should operate. There are those who simply want offenders incarcerated, others who insist on pure reform, and others who think "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
So what is it to be? Are we simply to treat anyone who commits a crime as trash, to be discarded, or do we stand up as a society and give them the possibility of redemption? Until the system become consistent and coherent, this debate is pointless. I am of the opinion that prison itself is not enough of a deterrent, especially to someone who is ingrained with the need to commit crimes. I think your average criminal can most likely be rehabilitated, but first they have to undergo trial by fire. You have to be sure that they will actually try to reform. Their first few years in prison should be hard enough, limiting enough, rough enough that when given the opportunity to reform they jump at the chance and hold onto it. And I believe that the system of reform has to be long and arduous -- you have to want it to make it through. And then I think if you can survive the trials, you should be trained, given the necessary skills to operate in society, and let go with a clean slate. Mind you, I also think you still have to be monitored for a period of time afterward to ensure recidivism is not an issue.
And for the ones who can't hack the reform trail, hard labor. Make them work for everything and keep them too busy to make trouble. Only the hardest of the hard will survive that, and they can be locked up in isolation in super secure facilities.
In my heart of hearts, I want to believe there is a core of good in everyone; my mind knows that is not the case. But I believe we as a society have to try.
But does his death suddenly heal her feelings from the rape? There's been a lot of back and forth over the subject but the bottom line is that even the criminal justice system cannot remove the results of a heinous crime. The dead do not come back to life, a woman does not suddenly regain her self-confidence or self-esteem after a rape, and someone who has been kidnapped does not necessarily find it easier to walk down the street. While we can certainly deal with the offenders in whatever manner society thinks best, the victim(s) receives no solace.
Rehabilitation is not universal. Some cannot be reformed. Does that mean that those that can be reformed should not be or cannot be simply because of the crime they committed? If you say that someone who murders someone should be killed, no matter the circumstance, you take the flexibility out of the criminal justice system and make it a regimented, rubber-stamp system. The current system is not perfect, but at least it allows for the possibility that some who commit crimes may not be "hardened" to that way of life and can become useful members of society again.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yes, I can see this beneficial. Especially now that DoubleClick content will be able to choke even more web pages with bloat thanks to Google's pervasiveness. I especially can't wait to have the loading times for pages soar, as they are loaded with ads for things even more irrelevant to my existence than the current ones.
The above was sarcasm.
I'm not sure Google can apply it's "Do No Evil" policy to DoubleClick, since marketing is the true gate to Hades.
I'm surprised that more banks don't make you retrieve credit/debit cards at local branches. Lots of cameras to help verify who you are. I know that when I want to change my PIN, I have to go to a WAMU branch to do it, whereas I can remember doing it online just a few years ago.
Be sure to post a journal with the usernames/numbers of anybody who actually does this, so we can stone them.
Could someone please define "soon"?
I was right... we hit double-digits with Perl 5 before Perl 6 became available... and don't go on about Parrot -- it's not Perl 6. I'll be interested to download 5.10 and see what it can do. The speedier regex engine is going to be a great boon.
More importantly: if the fundamental laws of the universe are changing (as some posit), how would we know? Can we separate natural laws from the universe that they are derived from/created in?
More like...
Auditor: It's not much of a mail server, isn't it?
Sysadmin: Oh yes, sir, finest in the company sir!
Auditor: Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.
Sysadmin: Well, it's so clean, sir.
Auditor: It's certainly uncontaminated by email.
Sysadmin: You haven't asked me about IMs, sir.
Auditor: Is it worth it?
Sysadmin: Could be.
Go beyond the storage issue: how do you sift through all that communication to find what you're looking for? Simple searches? Semantic searches? A room full of $8 per hour interns reading every email and IM? Frankly it's impractical.
Au contraire. While it's perfectly acceptable for anyone to do business freely on the Internet, if some groups are allowed to control access to certain types of information/goods by throttling/blocking access to it, then that goes against free trade and the free market. It would mean short term profits, but long term loss, as much of the economy would move underground to places where there would be unfettered access.
The "exaflood hypothesis" is not based on solid fact. It is a ploy, a PR stunt, as the article intimates, by our friends at the Discovery Institute, who are keen on floods and other prophecies of mass destruction.
Where's the bit about "His noodly appendage," huh?
Does land-line include cable (Optimum Voice, Vonage, etc.)? I still want to have a land-line, but I'm tired of paying Verizon $90 a month. I plan on switching to Optimum Voice so I can consolidate my bills and save some cash.
I think that might be the inverse really. When you think about it, an Asimovian robot would have to follow all orders given to it by a human. If you're a human with a fetish for power, wouldn't a robot make a great slave? You know it couldn't harm you, and would follow all your orders up to the point of its destruction...
And Asimov wrote about this in at least two stories... one about a housewife who falls for a male humaniform robot that her husband brings home from work (name escaping me at the moment) and I think "The Bicentennial Man" also included some robot lust (there my memory of the story is failing me [probably due to having seen the awful Robin Williams movie]).
Damn those Replicants!!!
On the one hand, I enjoy the flexibility of having my laptop come home with me, so that if something happens and I can't get to my office, I can still work. On the other hand, I get obsessive with problems I can't solve, so there's the pitfall of going home, logging in, and continuing to work. It's up to the individual to control their use. Now, if your supervisor begins pressuring you to work more... that's a whole different ballgame, but still, you have to push back when work bleeds into your home life to the point that it interferes too much.
And in his spare time, working on the next version of the Linux core...
[INSERT GROUP HERE] Caught Manipulating Wikipedia
This has now become so commonplace that it really shouldn't surprise anyone or even be considered news. Answer this question: they've been "caught" -- now what? Will Jimmy Wales declare war on the U.S. Government or the Catholic Religion? This isn't even going to generate enough interest in the mainstream media to become a blip on the national radar. I also imagine the average American or Catholic probably doesn't even know what Wikipedia is.
More importantly, do any of them feel that threatened by Wikipedia that they have to try and manipulate it? Are they expecting Wikipedia to foment revolution or call into question their very existence? And do they realize that pages tend to be archived all over the place, so that even if they do manipulate entries, the original entries are no doubt floating around somewhere?
There always seems to be one user in the office who looks at technology as if it were spawned by demons. They use it, because it is required of their job, but they distrust it, and if something they click on takes 5 ms longer than normal, there must be something wrong. They pine for the day of the typewriter and carbon paper, and hate it when anything is updated/upgraded/replaced, because they don't want to have to learn anything new.
2010: asstunnel
Word!!!
You're correct -- I didn't. I asked two question, for which you were unable to supply anything but rhetoric. Yes, if you commit a crime, are caught, and convicted, you are considered guilty. Society then determines the amount of time required of you to re-pay society for your crimes, sentences you, and sends you away for incarceration. After that, it gets iffy.
We call it the system of "corrections", but the fact is that there is no coherent theory of how it should operate. There are those who simply want offenders incarcerated, others who insist on pure reform, and others who think "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
So what is it to be? Are we simply to treat anyone who commits a crime as trash, to be discarded, or do we stand up as a society and give them the possibility of redemption? Until the system become consistent and coherent, this debate is pointless. I am of the opinion that prison itself is not enough of a deterrent, especially to someone who is ingrained with the need to commit crimes. I think your average criminal can most likely be rehabilitated, but first they have to undergo trial by fire. You have to be sure that they will actually try to reform. Their first few years in prison should be hard enough, limiting enough, rough enough that when given the opportunity to reform they jump at the chance and hold onto it. And I believe that the system of reform has to be long and arduous -- you have to want it to make it through. And then I think if you can survive the trials, you should be trained, given the necessary skills to operate in society, and let go with a clean slate. Mind you, I also think you still have to be monitored for a period of time afterward to ensure recidivism is not an issue.
And for the ones who can't hack the reform trail, hard labor. Make them work for everything and keep them too busy to make trouble. Only the hardest of the hard will survive that, and they can be locked up in isolation in super secure facilities.
In my heart of hearts, I want to believe there is a core of good in everyone; my mind knows that is not the case. But I believe we as a society have to try.
But does his death suddenly heal her feelings from the rape? There's been a lot of back and forth over the subject but the bottom line is that even the criminal justice system cannot remove the results of a heinous crime. The dead do not come back to life, a woman does not suddenly regain her self-confidence or self-esteem after a rape, and someone who has been kidnapped does not necessarily find it easier to walk down the street. While we can certainly deal with the offenders in whatever manner society thinks best, the victim(s) receives no solace.
Rehabilitation is not universal. Some cannot be reformed. Does that mean that those that can be reformed should not be or cannot be simply because of the crime they committed? If you say that someone who murders someone should be killed, no matter the circumstance, you take the flexibility out of the criminal justice system and make it a regimented, rubber-stamp system. The current system is not perfect, but at least it allows for the possibility that some who commit crimes may not be "hardened" to that way of life and can become useful members of society again.