I think anybody who gives a careful consideration of the matter comes to that conclusion. Personally, I think it's more likely that if there's a connection between higher levels of education and less fear of death that it's more likely because of fatalism. People often times don't realism how comforting that can be.
One of the reasons why Buddhists and Hindus are frequently so comfortable with the idea of death is that it's a part of the culture, at some point you're going to die. And the lifestyle that the religion encourages is one which is rewarding within the present life, so even if there isn't anything at death you at least haven't wasted your entire life.
Personally, I've had quite a few near death experiences myself and focusing on what one can do rather and letting the rest of it sort itself out is the only way to go. People tend to think that near death experiences must be terrifying, but I don't think that it's a necessity. Generally I think it's more terrifying for the people that are likely to be left behind.
No, a lack of a fear of death is not the same thing as being suicidal. Suicides tend to happen because the perception is that living is worse than dieing. That could be because one has lost the fear of death, but not necessarily.
Those laws have some serious flaws to them. I personally voted against the one in Washington because it seemed to be unnecessary for the stated purpose. We could have solved the same problem by granting doctors the ability to ignore normal dosing practices with the informed consent of the patient to prescribe the necessary dose to treat the pain with the understanding that as the dose rises the likelihood of death and addiction does as well. I don't think anybody on either side was particularly concerned with an individual with less than a year to live getting hooked on the junk.
It bothered me a great deal that the initiative passed on strength of sentimentalism and FUD where a lesser measure could have addressed the issue more appropriately. There was sparse evidence that the demand was for reasons other than depression and inadequate palliative care. And there was no requirement that the individual get declared as depression free from a psychiatrist or psychologist.
And if they had an even halfway competent understanding of their religion they'd know that communion is supposed to be for that very purpose. According to Christianity everybody is a sinner and it's impossible to completely be without sin. So people take communion and God clears the record.
Personally, I don't personally buy that, but that is how that's supposed to work, try your best and for when you're legitimately unable to figure it out there's prayer and communion.
It can't be that scary, otherwise it would be the person in the comfy classroom fighting against rules to protect the impoverished from abuse and the impoverished fighting for protection and help.
C. S. Lewis the noted Christian apologist. It's been my experience that most people claiming to be Christian and to be going to Heaven are in fact neither. A shocking number of them believe in works for salvation when Chrisitanity takes a similar stance on that to what is found in Islam. It's the creator that decides who does and does not get their reward, and nothing you can do is going to earn it.
Personally, I find the following to be quite revealing. Eye of a needle
Not that I'm personally foolish enough to live an entire life devoted to something which may or may not exist without any reason for doing so. Mark me unaffiliated.
The technology for this is pretty simple compared with Antilock Breaks Systems and Electronic Stability Control. Not to mention modern fuel injection systems and airbags. All of which are much more complex than a camera system is. We've already crossed the point where people can't reasonably be expected to do much maintenance on their cars, refusing to add another safety feature because it makes things more complicated is a bad way of looking at it.
Unlikely these systems don't typically include any sort of method of recording the feed. It costs a lot of money and adds plenty of complexity. If you're making that suggestion you clearly haven't seen it in action.
Because the camera is located basically on the bumper it gives you a much more accurate view of what's behind you. It's not perfect as you're still going to have a blind spot, but in many situations, such as with larger vans and SUVs the view is going to be better than what you could've managed previously. With smaller cars it's not likely to be of much benefit, but for longer and larger ones it's a big difference.
Additionally, in some jurisdictions you might not be able to legally put a recorder on it without permission. I suspect that having what is essentially a hidden camera recording things you'd really have to worry about the various wiretap laws involved in the various parts of the country these cars are going to be sold in.
Not really, skateboarders and dogs are not known for being overly cautious. It's a known hazard to motorcyclists that some idiots will let their dogs run free and think it's funny to watch them chase down motorcycles. Never mind that it's potentially fatal for everybody involved.
Anything which increases visibility and decreases blindspots is worth considering adding to vehicles. Not all of the measures are realistic or worthwhile, but ruling things out because many of the people who need them are idiots is a bad way to make a decision.
So you trade the accidents where you run somebody over for when you're pulling into a spot rather than pulling out. I see no reason why the idiots that don't use their rearview mirrors now are going to be any less dangerous with your suggestions. They probably aren't going to be much safer with the technology either, but this will cut down on the accidents due to poor mirror visibility as well as make it less of an issue to load up the back of the car.
Certain accidents should never happen and yet they do. It's well known that you should hang back a few seconds from the car ahead and yet you still see six and seven car chain reaction collisions.
I've seen the technology and it's quite slick definitely helps quite a bit in situations where you're needing to pull in tight. It's been used in commercial trucking for a while, around here it's mandatory that a truck be equipped with either a camera system or those little mirrors to show what's behind. But the cameras do a much better job than mirrors.
Oh please. You know perfectly well that Wikileaks doesn't have the ability to release all secret materials simultaneously, and not even over the stuff that they have. Nobody with half a mind is going to connect a release of information about paypal now with retaliation. 250,000 documents is a large number to release if you're doing even the most trivial of redactions on them.
It's equally plausible that some employee of Paypal might find that to be the last straw in terms of justifying them leaking the information.
There's been a large amount of effort that's goin into smearing Wikileaks with this sort of FUD, but the reality is that it's far more believable that they just leak the stuff they're given and they prioritize based upon their perception of the public good. That and what the public seems most interested in hearing about. Folks go to odd lengths to turn this into some sort of conspiracy, and there isn't really a particularly compelling case that this is anything other than what it looks like.
If they've truly done that on v2.5, there's no particular reason why you'd want to use older firmwares. The only people I know of that run the older ones are the people that aren't wanting to give up the features that the newer versions remove.
My guess is that because until that first serious attempt nobody had really bothered to try. It seems a bit suspicious that it's easier to defeat the protection now than it was initially.
The more likely explanation is that it nobody was really trying very hard previously, but now that Sony has taken away a lot of the initial functionality from the PS3 there's a lot more interest in putting the options back that the device was sold based on.
Do you have a better theory as to why the hacks only started about the time that Sony took that feature away? I know there was that one guy that claimed to have gained root. But he refused to actually release it and Sony reacted by taking away the Other OS feature and updating firmwares to fight the efforts.
It seems a bit much that it took this long for the first successful crack to appear and now they're coming out so quickly.
Perhaps, but last I checked if you wanted to move games from one unit to a replacement unit you had to send it to Nintendo for them to do. The Wii is the most locked down of the consoles, that isn't particularly negated by them not spending as much effort at busting mods.
So, the solution then is to not own any consoles? Seriously, Sony isn't any worse in this respect than Nintendo or MS is. At least Sony provided the Other OS option, which neither of the competition did.
I just wonder if this hack actually works, I remember trying the other ones previously, and they did not work as advertised. Followed the steps precisely and nothing. Wasn't the only one either.
They've promised the next leak to be one involving a bank, and Paypal is in some jurisdictions a bank. I sincerely hope that they've got something to smear the hell out of paypal with. Given the degree of questionable business practice involved, I'd be shocked if none of it is outright illegal.
Well, they are. Notice how those same people don't generally volunteer their favorite programs to be cut in order to fund the tax cuts?
The main exception being the folks that want the rich to pay their fair share of the taxes as they've generally already given up their stuff to get those low taxes for the rich. Returning that to where it belongs is a tad different than the right wing antitax nuts that seem to think that no poor person should ever expect any help making something of themselves.
I'm guessing that's what this is about. But realistically now that they've cut off Wikileaks they've got precisely zero leverage. Previously they could pull that stunt they like and hold everybody's money ransom for....
You were going to make the same bullshit antitax rant? When you pay to buy a plot of land from the owner, you own it lock, stock and barrels. The government can't take that property just because it wants it, they have to either pay for it or use eminent domain to seize it. But even then they have to pay you for it.
The taxes they charge are for the services they provide as a result of your owning that property. The reason why they can seize the property if you fail to pay the taxes is that it's how they collect the debt. They've paid for the property by way of the individual not being taxed on it for a period of time.
But no, the GP's argument is really accurate, there are no protections against the government seizing your land./sarcasm
Depends where you are. I thought that CA had a fee that was attached to the purchase of things like monitors and computers to cover that. Up here, we make the manufacturers pay, the end result is largely the same the consumer pays, we just give the manufacturers more ability to find an efficient way of meeting our requirements.
Actually it's illegal to dispose of waste in that fashion according to Chinese law. The problem though is that it's not particularly well enforced due to rampant corruption at the local level. If you really want to recycle electronics correctly, really the only way to be sure is to do it locally. That's not to say that the equipment doesn't exist in other countries, just that you don't really know that it's being handled correctly. Much easier to keep track of it if it doesn't leave the country until after it's been processed.
Normally the Supreme Court would, but lately they've been granting the government enormous leeway in terms of things of this nature. SCOTUS has a rather poor record of telling the other branches what they can and can't do constitutionally when it involves war powers and related.
The whole point of a sandbox is to add another layer that the attacker has to punch through before getting root access to the computer. From what I gather it's chaining together multiple vulnerabilities to gain control. First bypassing the potected mode then gaining administrative control over the computer.
Assuming I'm reading things correctly that's to be expected. The real news is that MS' approach of letting security fixes ripen before release has caused what was bad to be far worse. Of course by real news I mean something that's known to everybody except MS.
And I'm sure that the GP will care as soon as women start caring about the unintended consequences of all the sexist things they say and do. It's really easy to be sanctimonious if you're OK ignoring the hypocrisy involved with it. Personally, I'd take sexism significantly more seriously if I wasn't expected to put up with so much sexual harassment and jokes that are far worse than the one the GP made.
I'm sure that there are some women out there that genuinely consider sexism to be wrong and do their best not to involve themselves in it either way, but I don't see them because that's a subtlety that isn't particularly easy to pick up on. What I do however see is the leering, the sexist comments about what scum men are and how serious domestic violence is, but mysteriously defining it as man on woman.
Slashdot Mirror
I think anybody who gives a careful consideration of the matter comes to that conclusion. Personally, I think it's more likely that if there's a connection between higher levels of education and less fear of death that it's more likely because of fatalism. People often times don't realism how comforting that can be.
One of the reasons why Buddhists and Hindus are frequently so comfortable with the idea of death is that it's a part of the culture, at some point you're going to die. And the lifestyle that the religion encourages is one which is rewarding within the present life, so even if there isn't anything at death you at least haven't wasted your entire life.
Personally, I've had quite a few near death experiences myself and focusing on what one can do rather and letting the rest of it sort itself out is the only way to go. People tend to think that near death experiences must be terrifying, but I don't think that it's a necessity. Generally I think it's more terrifying for the people that are likely to be left behind.
No, a lack of a fear of death is not the same thing as being suicidal. Suicides tend to happen because the perception is that living is worse than dieing. That could be because one has lost the fear of death, but not necessarily.
Those laws have some serious flaws to them. I personally voted against the one in Washington because it seemed to be unnecessary for the stated purpose. We could have solved the same problem by granting doctors the ability to ignore normal dosing practices with the informed consent of the patient to prescribe the necessary dose to treat the pain with the understanding that as the dose rises the likelihood of death and addiction does as well. I don't think anybody on either side was particularly concerned with an individual with less than a year to live getting hooked on the junk.
It bothered me a great deal that the initiative passed on strength of sentimentalism and FUD where a lesser measure could have addressed the issue more appropriately. There was sparse evidence that the demand was for reasons other than depression and inadequate palliative care. And there was no requirement that the individual get declared as depression free from a psychiatrist or psychologist.
And if they had an even halfway competent understanding of their religion they'd know that communion is supposed to be for that very purpose. According to Christianity everybody is a sinner and it's impossible to completely be without sin. So people take communion and God clears the record.
Personally, I don't personally buy that, but that is how that's supposed to work, try your best and for when you're legitimately unable to figure it out there's prayer and communion.
It can't be that scary, otherwise it would be the person in the comfy classroom fighting against rules to protect the impoverished from abuse and the impoverished fighting for protection and help.
C. S. Lewis the noted Christian apologist. It's been my experience that most people claiming to be Christian and to be going to Heaven are in fact neither. A shocking number of them believe in works for salvation when Chrisitanity takes a similar stance on that to what is found in Islam. It's the creator that decides who does and does not get their reward, and nothing you can do is going to earn it.
Personally, I find the following to be quite revealing. Eye of a needle
Not that I'm personally foolish enough to live an entire life devoted to something which may or may not exist without any reason for doing so. Mark me unaffiliated.
The technology for this is pretty simple compared with Antilock Breaks Systems and Electronic Stability Control. Not to mention modern fuel injection systems and airbags. All of which are much more complex than a camera system is. We've already crossed the point where people can't reasonably be expected to do much maintenance on their cars, refusing to add another safety feature because it makes things more complicated is a bad way of looking at it.
Unlikely these systems don't typically include any sort of method of recording the feed. It costs a lot of money and adds plenty of complexity. If you're making that suggestion you clearly haven't seen it in action.
Because the camera is located basically on the bumper it gives you a much more accurate view of what's behind you. It's not perfect as you're still going to have a blind spot, but in many situations, such as with larger vans and SUVs the view is going to be better than what you could've managed previously. With smaller cars it's not likely to be of much benefit, but for longer and larger ones it's a big difference.
Additionally, in some jurisdictions you might not be able to legally put a recorder on it without permission. I suspect that having what is essentially a hidden camera recording things you'd really have to worry about the various wiretap laws involved in the various parts of the country these cars are going to be sold in.
Not really, skateboarders and dogs are not known for being overly cautious. It's a known hazard to motorcyclists that some idiots will let their dogs run free and think it's funny to watch them chase down motorcycles. Never mind that it's potentially fatal for everybody involved.
Anything which increases visibility and decreases blindspots is worth considering adding to vehicles. Not all of the measures are realistic or worthwhile, but ruling things out because many of the people who need them are idiots is a bad way to make a decision.
So you trade the accidents where you run somebody over for when you're pulling into a spot rather than pulling out. I see no reason why the idiots that don't use their rearview mirrors now are going to be any less dangerous with your suggestions. They probably aren't going to be much safer with the technology either, but this will cut down on the accidents due to poor mirror visibility as well as make it less of an issue to load up the back of the car.
Certain accidents should never happen and yet they do. It's well known that you should hang back a few seconds from the car ahead and yet you still see six and seven car chain reaction collisions.
I've seen the technology and it's quite slick definitely helps quite a bit in situations where you're needing to pull in tight. It's been used in commercial trucking for a while, around here it's mandatory that a truck be equipped with either a camera system or those little mirrors to show what's behind. But the cameras do a much better job than mirrors.
Oh please. You know perfectly well that Wikileaks doesn't have the ability to release all secret materials simultaneously, and not even over the stuff that they have. Nobody with half a mind is going to connect a release of information about paypal now with retaliation. 250,000 documents is a large number to release if you're doing even the most trivial of redactions on them.
It's equally plausible that some employee of Paypal might find that to be the last straw in terms of justifying them leaking the information.
There's been a large amount of effort that's goin into smearing Wikileaks with this sort of FUD, but the reality is that it's far more believable that they just leak the stuff they're given and they prioritize based upon their perception of the public good. That and what the public seems most interested in hearing about. Folks go to odd lengths to turn this into some sort of conspiracy, and there isn't really a particularly compelling case that this is anything other than what it looks like.
If they've truly done that on v2.5, there's no particular reason why you'd want to use older firmwares. The only people I know of that run the older ones are the people that aren't wanting to give up the features that the newer versions remove.
My guess is that because until that first serious attempt nobody had really bothered to try. It seems a bit suspicious that it's easier to defeat the protection now than it was initially.
The more likely explanation is that it nobody was really trying very hard previously, but now that Sony has taken away a lot of the initial functionality from the PS3 there's a lot more interest in putting the options back that the device was sold based on.
Do you have a better theory as to why the hacks only started about the time that Sony took that feature away? I know there was that one guy that claimed to have gained root. But he refused to actually release it and Sony reacted by taking away the Other OS feature and updating firmwares to fight the efforts.
It seems a bit much that it took this long for the first successful crack to appear and now they're coming out so quickly.
Perhaps, but last I checked if you wanted to move games from one unit to a replacement unit you had to send it to Nintendo for them to do. The Wii is the most locked down of the consoles, that isn't particularly negated by them not spending as much effort at busting mods.
So, the solution then is to not own any consoles? Seriously, Sony isn't any worse in this respect than Nintendo or MS is. At least Sony provided the Other OS option, which neither of the competition did.
I just wonder if this hack actually works, I remember trying the other ones previously, and they did not work as advertised. Followed the steps precisely and nothing. Wasn't the only one either.
They've promised the next leak to be one involving a bank, and Paypal is in some jurisdictions a bank. I sincerely hope that they've got something to smear the hell out of paypal with. Given the degree of questionable business practice involved, I'd be shocked if none of it is outright illegal.
Well, they are. Notice how those same people don't generally volunteer their favorite programs to be cut in order to fund the tax cuts?
The main exception being the folks that want the rich to pay their fair share of the taxes as they've generally already given up their stuff to get those low taxes for the rich. Returning that to where it belongs is a tad different than the right wing antitax nuts that seem to think that no poor person should ever expect any help making something of themselves.
I'm guessing that's what this is about. But realistically now that they've cut off Wikileaks they've got precisely zero leverage. Previously they could pull that stunt they like and hold everybody's money ransom for....
One Meeeleon Dollars.
You were going to make the same bullshit antitax rant? When you pay to buy a plot of land from the owner, you own it lock, stock and barrels. The government can't take that property just because it wants it, they have to either pay for it or use eminent domain to seize it. But even then they have to pay you for it.
/sarcasm
The taxes they charge are for the services they provide as a result of your owning that property. The reason why they can seize the property if you fail to pay the taxes is that it's how they collect the debt. They've paid for the property by way of the individual not being taxed on it for a period of time.
But no, the GP's argument is really accurate, there are no protections against the government seizing your land.
Depends where you are. I thought that CA had a fee that was attached to the purchase of things like monitors and computers to cover that. Up here, we make the manufacturers pay, the end result is largely the same the consumer pays, we just give the manufacturers more ability to find an efficient way of meeting our requirements.
Actually it's illegal to dispose of waste in that fashion according to Chinese law. The problem though is that it's not particularly well enforced due to rampant corruption at the local level. If you really want to recycle electronics correctly, really the only way to be sure is to do it locally. That's not to say that the equipment doesn't exist in other countries, just that you don't really know that it's being handled correctly. Much easier to keep track of it if it doesn't leave the country until after it's been processed.
Normally the Supreme Court would, but lately they've been granting the government enormous leeway in terms of things of this nature. SCOTUS has a rather poor record of telling the other branches what they can and can't do constitutionally when it involves war powers and related.
The whole point of a sandbox is to add another layer that the attacker has to punch through before getting root access to the computer. From what I gather it's chaining together multiple vulnerabilities to gain control. First bypassing the potected mode then gaining administrative control over the computer.
Assuming I'm reading things correctly that's to be expected. The real news is that MS' approach of letting security fixes ripen before release has caused what was bad to be far worse. Of course by real news I mean something that's known to everybody except MS.
And I'm sure that the GP will care as soon as women start caring about the unintended consequences of all the sexist things they say and do. It's really easy to be sanctimonious if you're OK ignoring the hypocrisy involved with it. Personally, I'd take sexism significantly more seriously if I wasn't expected to put up with so much sexual harassment and jokes that are far worse than the one the GP made.
I'm sure that there are some women out there that genuinely consider sexism to be wrong and do their best not to involve themselves in it either way, but I don't see them because that's a subtlety that isn't particularly easy to pick up on. What I do however see is the leering, the sexist comments about what scum men are and how serious domestic violence is, but mysteriously defining it as man on woman.