Blaming you for what? For having a tantrum? You having a tantrum isn't the fault of the slashdot moderation system or the moderators. You being modded a troll was their choice. You reacting poorly was your choice.
That reasoning only works if the question asker is at all technical.
If my mum couldnt hear any sound in GAIM and the Ubuntu community told her to read the ALSA documentation she wouldn't be able to understand it.
Similarly, it wouldn't be reasonable for her to take her car into a workshop and for the mechanic to hand her a copy of the workshop manual and say "Reading TFM is an important skill, and one that must be acquired. If you have that skill, then there is no call for you (or anyone else, of course this entire post is directed generally) to go demanding that other people use their energy and time to do what you are perfectly capable of."
1) He wasnt blaming the victims. He was blaming the parents for not raising a child capable of dealing with ridicule. Obviously it isnt the child's fault he hasn't been taught how to stand up for himself.
2) Stop crying you fucking baby. Maybe your parents need to teach you how to handle being modded a troll.
not that i'm at all religious, but you really are grasping at straws. i'm sure this news has absolutely no implication on what the bible says whatsoever.
"the bible describes humans as flesh and blood and as one"
What, are you implying that christians believe humanity is one giant homogenous blob of flesh? Or that we are all clones? We illusions of theirs does this 10% threaten to shatter?
yes but the programmer is not infinitely powerful. he couldnt will up some more ram for his computer to double the space for his world.
God is supposedly ALL POWERFUL. NO LIMITS TO HIS POWER. that is not the same as having power that is great enough to perform any feat in our universe, but not great enough to perform any feat in his own realm. That power has a limit. No rocks so large he cant lift them. There's a limit for you. Its as logically impossible to have an omnipotent being, as it is to travel back in time and kill your own grandparents.
"UKs current propensity towards spying on its citizens"
The CCTV cameras don't point into your living room window. They monitor public places. If you want privacy, don't do something in a public place. That would hold true if there were cameras or not. the cameras are no more an invasion of your privacy than a policeman walking a beat.
magnificent. you can search the entire workbook, but you can only have 256 worksheets in one book. looks like we have at least one user who need office2k3.
what IP address does your router have? it you type that ip address into your web browser, it should bring up a HTML based configuration utility for your router. The IP address might be written on the case of the router or in the instruction book, if you cant find it there, it is your gateway IP address on your PC (google how to find that out). You will need to put in a username and password, but these are usually "admin" / "admin". they should be written on the case of the router somewhere, or in the instruction book. i always change the default password, as anyone can guess it and hack your router.
"It is dangerous in that it kills off the child's creativity, making him a passive consumer. If the child decides to create something based on their Thomas lunchbox (eg. drawing a Thomas for Daddy) in the eyes of the law that child is a criminal. Would you like your child to be a criminal?"
What an hysterical exaggeration. What you are saying is FALSE. It's just FALSE. Get your kid to draw a picture of thomas the tank engine and take it to the police station and confess to the police. Under what laws will they arrest your kid?
Then there is the case of the RIAA suing the parents of children who download stuff off the net. The Australian legislation provides substantial goal terms and fines, even if the person was unaware that a copyright was being ignored.
Surely the people to take to task over this are the australian government. Dont fuck with your kid's head to spite the government.
I drew a picture of a Transformer toy i had once as a kid. I cant say that destroyed my creativity. What a baseless and nonsensical generalization. The world isnt black and white.
"That's why it is dangerous, and children should be brought up to just say NO to copyright cartels and their wares."
What's dangerous is out-of-whack perspectiveless nut jobs who politicise their children with a load of histrionic dogma when they're far too young to understand what you're talking about.
"However, tasers are intended as a means of subduing a suspect without causing serious harm, not convince them to move."
That's what i assumed, but was utterly disgusted to read this on the chicago tribune website: "UCLA campus police are allowed to use a Taser on a passive resister as a pain-compliance technique, Assistant Chief Jeff Young said in an interview Friday with the Los Angeles Times."
Pain-compliance technique?!?!?!!?!?
Oh, you mean FUCKING TORTURE. TORTURE PASSIVE RESISTERS. If people want to make a passive protest, police officers are allowed to torture them, and threaten to torture or shoot anyone who tries to intervene. Watching that video made me physically fucking sick, especially in the knowledge that those deranged meatheads weren't breaking the law.
im just downloading openoffice becuase excel2000 only lets you search one worksheet at a time and i have a workbook with 600 sheets in it, and i need to find some text somewhere. apparently this feature was only introduced in office 2k3 so i'm hoping to god openoffice can do it.
besides, all this "office97 has all the features anyone would need" stuff is only backed up by a bunch of individual anecdotes. of course there are features in offices later than 97 that people need. slashdot is always flooded with personal anecdotes to back up swathing generalisations.
Licensed products are just too dangerous to have anything to do with.
Don't you think that's a tad hysterical? Or do you actually think buying your kid a thomas the tank engine lunchbox is "too dangerous"? What danger does it represent?
that doesnt cover the people who only drive safely because they dont want to be punished. unless of course no such people exist, but i'd find that very hard to swallow, because it would imply that the the deterrent factor of law/punishment is an illusion.
yeah i know what you mean. to be honest its kind of exciting to know there is a branch of nature that we know next to nothing about, and that is just waiting for one or two geniuses for a "golden age" style explosion of understanding like electromagnetism in the 19th century and subatomics in the early 20th century.
when it happens its going to be a really exciting, fascinating time to live, scientifically and sociologically. certainly a lot more interesting than squabbling over DRM and software patents;)
one thing that just occurred to me is that if a dev wanted to make some more sales, it wouldnt be hard to backport a Wii game to Gamecube (controller notwithstanding).
i think the next big scientific renaissance is going to be the understanding of the brain/mind. it will completely revolutionise the world in a way probably more significant than the industrial revolution. Once we have an objective knowledge of conciousness and life then there are no more dark corners for superstition and arbitrary religious dogma to exploit. Also people can have more to go on than their own intuition when deciding if an animal is going to care if it is killed or not.
i see what you mean - yeah i dont go along with the "animals have no qualms about killing animals, so neither should we" kind of absolute attitude, because it isn't much of a logical leap from that to going completely wild west and deciding its every man for himself.
i know its a cliché, but its pretty universal to say it isnt black or white. i mean at some point life forms cross the line from being a complex chemical reaction to being a complex chemical reaction that has the ability to comprehend itself and be traumatised. i'm sure no one would have any rational reason to not eat mushrooms or yoghurt on moral grounds (although i'm sure some people would have some irrational ones). thats a no brainer. but what about fish? they have brains but do they comprehend themselves? is their reaction to detrimental circumstances an unconscious reflex or are they enduring auschwitz-level horrors day after day by their millions when they are dragged out of the sea?
and then the waters only get muddier as creatures get more complex. of course its worth pointing out that the only reason anyone gives a toss is because we have evolved a social sensibility and feeling of empathy. There is no absolute universal moral that says killing is wrong. Otherwise nature wouldn't spend so much of its time killing everything. Our biology has concocted this sensibility in us, and it is a totally subjective internal decision. Since we are all largely the same biologically speaking and we all soak up each other's psychological characteristics, there is a fairly pervasive human attitude that killing is wrong. And of course moral absolutists see this pervasive attitude and read it as some kind of universal absolute moral.
yeah, no one one contests recycling certain things like aluminium save energy. but supposedly its a lot more environmentally freindly to just harvester paper from renewable forests, than spend extra energy recycling it.
there are people of the opinion that recycling is a red herring, and the more you recycle, the more energy you are wasting (as in electricity and fuel) than if the stuff was just landfilled and remined/relogged, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
so what's the point of the ubuntu?
Not a bit. But its your fault (and probably your parents) that you're a baby about it.
Blaming you for what? For having a tantrum? You having a tantrum isn't the fault of the slashdot moderation system or the moderators. You being modded a troll was their choice. You reacting poorly was your choice.
That reasoning only works if the question asker is at all technical.
If my mum couldnt hear any sound in GAIM and the Ubuntu community told her to read the ALSA documentation she wouldn't be able to understand it.
Similarly, it wouldn't be reasonable for her to take her car into a workshop and for the mechanic to hand her a copy of the workshop manual and say "Reading TFM is an important skill, and one that must be acquired. If you have that skill, then there is no call for you (or anyone else, of course this entire post is directed generally) to go demanding that other people use their energy and time to do what you are perfectly capable of."
1) He wasnt blaming the victims. He was blaming the parents for not raising a child capable of dealing with ridicule. Obviously it isnt the child's fault he hasn't been taught how to stand up for himself.
2) Stop crying you fucking baby. Maybe your parents need to teach you how to handle being modded a troll.
not that i'm at all religious, but you really are grasping at straws. i'm sure this news has absolutely no implication on what the bible says whatsoever.
"the bible describes humans as flesh and blood and as one"
What, are you implying that christians believe humanity is one giant homogenous blob of flesh? Or that we are all clones? We illusions of theirs does this 10% threaten to shatter?
yes but the programmer is not infinitely powerful. he couldnt will up some more ram for his computer to double the space for his world.
God is supposedly ALL POWERFUL. NO LIMITS TO HIS POWER. that is not the same as having power that is great enough to perform any feat in our universe, but not great enough to perform any feat in his own realm. That power has a limit. No rocks so large he cant lift them. There's a limit for you. Its as logically impossible to have an omnipotent being, as it is to travel back in time and kill your own grandparents.
"UKs current propensity towards spying on its citizens"
The CCTV cameras don't point into your living room window. They monitor public places. If you want privacy, don't do something in a public place. That would hold true if there were cameras or not. the cameras are no more an invasion of your privacy than a policeman walking a beat.
magnificent. you can search the entire workbook, but you can only have 256 worksheets in one book. looks like we have at least one user who need office2k3.
what IP address does your router have? it you type that ip address into your web browser, it should bring up a HTML based configuration utility for your router. The IP address might be written on the case of the router or in the instruction book, if you cant find it there, it is your gateway IP address on your PC (google how to find that out). You will need to put in a username and password, but these are usually "admin" / "admin". they should be written on the case of the router somewhere, or in the instruction book. i always change the default password, as anyone can guess it and hack your router.
"It is dangerous in that it kills off the child's creativity, making him a passive consumer. If the child decides to create something based on their Thomas lunchbox (eg. drawing a Thomas for Daddy) in the eyes of the law that child is a criminal. Would you like your child to be a criminal?"
What an hysterical exaggeration. What you are saying is FALSE. It's just FALSE. Get your kid to draw a picture of thomas the tank engine and take it to the police station and confess to the police. Under what laws will they arrest your kid?
Then there is the case of the RIAA suing the parents of children who download stuff off the net. The Australian legislation provides substantial goal terms and fines, even if the person was unaware that a copyright was being ignored.
Surely the people to take to task over this are the australian government. Dont fuck with your kid's head to spite the government.
I drew a picture of a Transformer toy i had once as a kid. I cant say that destroyed my creativity. What a baseless and nonsensical generalization. The world isnt black and white.
"That's why it is dangerous, and children should be brought up to just say NO to copyright cartels and their wares."
What's dangerous is out-of-whack perspectiveless nut jobs who politicise their children with a load of histrionic dogma when they're far too young to understand what you're talking about.
that would only be true at absolute zero. a low temperature only slows change.
"However, tasers are intended as a means of subduing a suspect without causing serious harm, not convince them to move."
That's what i assumed, but was utterly disgusted to read this on the chicago tribune website: "UCLA campus police are allowed to use a Taser on a passive resister as a pain-compliance technique, Assistant Chief Jeff Young said in an interview Friday with the Los Angeles Times."
Pain-compliance technique?!?!?!!?!?
Oh, you mean FUCKING TORTURE. TORTURE PASSIVE RESISTERS. If people want to make a passive protest, police officers are allowed to torture them, and threaten to torture or shoot anyone who tries to intervene. Watching that video made me physically fucking sick, especially in the knowledge that those deranged meatheads weren't breaking the law.
newspapers have ways round libel laws for anything they want to print anyway. this hasn't opened any floodgates.
im just downloading openoffice becuase excel2000 only lets you search one worksheet at a time and i have a workbook with 600 sheets in it, and i need to find some text somewhere. apparently this feature was only introduced in office 2k3 so i'm hoping to god openoffice can do it.
besides, all this "office97 has all the features anyone would need" stuff is only backed up by a bunch of individual anecdotes. of course there are features in offices later than 97 that people need. slashdot is always flooded with personal anecdotes to back up swathing generalisations.
Licensed products are just too dangerous to have anything to do with.
Don't you think that's a tad hysterical? Or do you actually think buying your kid a thomas the tank engine lunchbox is "too dangerous"? What danger does it represent?
yeah like "rediculous". just because 75% of the people on slashdot think that's how you spell ridiculous doesn't mean it is.
that doesnt cover the people who only drive safely because they dont want to be punished. unless of course no such people exist, but i'd find that very hard to swallow, because it would imply that the the deterrent factor of law/punishment is an illusion.
very true - i kind of take it for granted that i have the world's knowledge at my fingertips!
yeah i know what you mean. to be honest its kind of exciting to know there is a branch of nature that we know next to nothing about, and that is just waiting for one or two geniuses for a "golden age" style explosion of understanding like electromagnetism in the 19th century and subatomics in the early 20th century.
;)
when it happens its going to be a really exciting, fascinating time to live, scientifically and sociologically. certainly a lot more interesting than squabbling over DRM and software patents
one thing that just occurred to me is that if a dev wanted to make some more sales, it wouldnt be hard to backport a Wii game to Gamecube (controller notwithstanding).
i think the next big scientific renaissance is going to be the understanding of the brain/mind. it will completely revolutionise the world in a way probably more significant than the industrial revolution. Once we have an objective knowledge of conciousness and life then there are no more dark corners for superstition and arbitrary religious dogma to exploit. Also people can have more to go on than their own intuition when deciding if an animal is going to care if it is killed or not.
i see what you mean - yeah i dont go along with the "animals have no qualms about killing animals, so neither should we" kind of absolute attitude, because it isn't much of a logical leap from that to going completely wild west and deciding its every man for himself.
i know its a cliché, but its pretty universal to say it isnt black or white. i mean at some point life forms cross the line from being a complex chemical reaction to being a complex chemical reaction that has the ability to comprehend itself and be traumatised. i'm sure no one would have any rational reason to not eat mushrooms or yoghurt on moral grounds (although i'm sure some people would have some irrational ones). thats a no brainer. but what about fish? they have brains but do they comprehend themselves? is their reaction to detrimental circumstances an unconscious reflex or are they enduring auschwitz-level horrors day after day by their millions when they are dragged out of the sea?
and then the waters only get muddier as creatures get more complex. of course its worth pointing out that the only reason anyone gives a toss is because we have evolved a social sensibility and feeling of empathy. There is no absolute universal moral that says killing is wrong. Otherwise nature wouldn't spend so much of its time killing everything. Our biology has concocted this sensibility in us, and it is a totally subjective internal decision. Since we are all largely the same biologically speaking and we all soak up each other's psychological characteristics, there is a fairly pervasive human attitude that killing is wrong. And of course moral absolutists see this pervasive attitude and read it as some kind of universal absolute moral.
yeah, no one one contests recycling certain things like aluminium save energy. but supposedly its a lot more environmentally freindly to just harvester paper from renewable forests, than spend extra energy recycling it.
there are people of the opinion that recycling is a red herring, and the more you recycle, the more energy you are wasting (as in electricity and fuel) than if the stuff was just landfilled and remined/relogged, etc.