A perfect example of an event so rare that it should never be used as a reason for a policy. Terrorist acts are just not that hard. Highway deaths are the equivalent of a 9/11 every few months. Random chance is better at killing people here than terrorists are. Anyone quaking in their boots over it still is a fucking moron.
That shouldn't have resulted in a single change of policy. Not the creation of the TSA or DHS. Not the PATRIOT act... nothing. It was a single event with no follow up by a pissant organization that never had any hope of doing us any real damage without us helping them along by spending billions of our own dollars.
The other sad thing is that we still haven't paid for it.
There is no way it was successfull for the US, it was a stupid and unnecessary pissing match from day one. An embarassment for the country. I am still against having a standing army. We have no need to have forces outside of our borders. Its a shameful waste.
I was simply posing a question with my thoughts on the subject. I think these rules can go to far, and in going too far, can be bad for the company.
Also, the purpose of my company is NOT to make money. Not at all. We are more like a budgeted department of several companies than a company on our own. Though technically we are separate, imaging having customers who consume your services, but don't pay for them..instead they get to decide how much they will pay once a year. (we are fixing this by phasing in charge backs but... thats a whole different can of worms and isn't even intended to change the model for most things)
In any case, I know these questions are "above my pay grade", and I prefer to keep them there. However, I have seen how eroding morale (one of our management's specialties) hurts output. The rule that I was thinking of came about from a corruption scandal. The only problem is, they went way too far to the point that they actually make a point to tell people that you can't even accept a free pen from a vendor. I mean, a pen. Then its rules about whether you can eat lunch supplied by a vendor (which takes into account things like whether its off site and whether its a free event (no) or one we paid for (yes) ).
I mean, I can see some of it, the base concept of the rules is right. Of course, its not even clear why we needed new rules since... when the corruption was exposed, they had no problem firing the people involved. Seems the old rules worked just fine... oh well. In any case, its something that I occasionally think about.
While its true, the words do not make logical sense as written, you know the meaning. In fact, this is a very very common idiomatic expression. Feel free to read up on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom
If it were not for such things, we wouldn't have such gems as "fuck you", which, I might need to point out, is not a suggestion that we have sex.
This is something that occurred to me recently at one of our corporate love-fests....
There is right, and then there is right. Certainly, its true... the company has the right to buy whatever copier it wants, and place whatever restrictions on it, which they like etc.
I don't dispute this at all. What I do dispute is that well... ok "Confidential Do not copy" may be a good one. The first use that comes to mind is actually trying to catch people using the copier for personal things. Now, I will say yes, the company has every right....... but... does it actually serve the cause of creating respect for the company and the rules amongst employees if the actions that the company takes, however "right" seem petty? I mean, I grab mechanical pencils and toss them in my work folder with my notebook to take notes at meetings. Sometimes I whip out the old note pad and pencil off hours for personal reasons. Am I stealing pencil lead? Am I stealing lined paper? (actually, I buy my own pad of graph paper, because I like it, but, I could just as easily use their lined paper in my note pad). Am I misusing company property?
I mean, yes, in a very technical sense. However, its not like I am stealing RAM from the desktops (its happened actually). I am not taking equipment home for my own use, its a piece of paper and pencil that I grabbed and used out of convinience, because I carry them with me anyway and take my pack home with me (with the company laptop). If someone tried to give me shit for it, it would seriously degrade any respect that I had for them on account of such utter pettiness.
This isn't really the policy that made me think of this, but, its not too far off in terms of "right but over the top".
Well honestly, I don't really care how much "Success" we have over there with prosecuting the taliban or whoever. Nothing we do is going to bring anybody back, rebuild any buildings, or change the situations that cause some small number of people to occasionally decide to blow something up or otherwise kill some people.
They are just not a really big concern, nor should they be. Big deal, some people kill other people occasionally, no reason for us to turn around and do the same thing. This sort of frivolous use is exactly why we should avoid a standing army.
-Steve
Re:Israel is an interesting exercise in Game Theor
on
Gambling On Bacteria
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I can't help but laugh at that one.
Actually, I would say that the problem here is that, your assessment is exactly the one that seems to be used by both sides. So long as that is the perceived situation, there doesn't appear to be any solution but to have them fight it out and go with the winner (which would be Isreal, we are talking about one side that can utterly wipe the other off the face of the planet, and one that can't).
I would like to think that the reality is, that this assessment is flawed in that "massive casualties" on each side are valued more than massive casualties on the other side. Either way, its peoples lives.
I tend to think that the reality is more nuanced. If Isreal backs off, yes, there would be more casualties. However, I don't see the Palestinians maintaining an elevated level of casualties in such a situation. Its just plain hard to justify continued attacks against someone who is backing down and giving you reasonable things that you asked for.
My own application of game theory is that, in the medium term, such a strategy would drive a wedge within the Palestinian opposition and erode anti-isreali sentiment.
The bigger problem that I see, is Isreal internally weathering the short term storm and not swinging back towards ultra nationalism and changing course back.
Essentially, I would liken such a process to a couple of bipolar people who hate taking their meds.
Thats the problem with game theory, in these situations, you can't assume a "nation" is a single rational actor. Its a play of internal actors playing out their own games, for the chance to control the overall strategy.
Imagine... playing risk, but instead of having players, each color is a group of people who are constantly playing a game of poker on the side to determine who makes the moves. I think thats a far better way to think about it.
And if you go to Romania, you find people who still think that Vlad Tepes gets a bum rap. He was the king who staved off the Arab invasions. Though his methods have been were quite draconian (ba dum ting) and seldom lauded by anyone else.
You find similar kernels of truth throughout many types of, what seem like, extreme rhetoric. I think the problem with perspective comes in that its a bit like climbing a mountain top. Each piece of evidence, each argument is built upon others. When viewed from the outside of their own context, its easy to think people had to be crazy to be Nazis, or Al Queda, but, from some perspectives, even the people we hold up as heros would be in the same crazy boat. However, each foot you go up one peak, brings you that much further from being able to see the view from atop another.
If you view the US as violent, hypocritical (torture anyone?), meddling in your people's affairs, bent on slowly destroying your way of life, and too big and powerful to take on through direct confrontation, then terrorist actions start to become.... entirely rational. How else do you fight such an enemy? I have said many times that I would think quite dimly of the person who feels otherwise should the day come that Chinese boots march on our soil.
I have heard from people here "We went over to help them". Its nice to have a good intention in your heart but, how can you expect "them" to see it that way? If Chinese soldiers rolled onto our beaches and began forming a new government here, would you accept their "help"? Would you say to your brothers, sisters, parents, and friends "Oh look, they came to help us! Lets welcome our new friends with open arms!"?
More and more I have come to the opinion that such an open attitude is a better one than the one which I have often espoused. However, that doesn't mean that I expect people, as a rule, to adopt it.
It is quite rare that one mans evil supervillian isn't somebodies hero.
Isn't this just more examples that show the point?
Yes a "sniper shot from 2 miles" is "safer for the good guys" but... are they really still the good guys at that point?
Being able to kill someone from 2 miles away is a power. At least, its about as close to a super power as any individual human being (or team of two) is going to come. So... its easy to rationalize "Well hes a bad guy, we might lose many men if we assault the bad guy, but one shot, and bang we did good".
But... a sniper shot from 2 miles away is a de facto denial of due process. There is no appeal. There is no mitigating circumstance, no evidence to the contrary, no day in court.
We see it over and over. Give someone power, and they will find an excuse to use it. We didn't need to use the military to go after Al Queda in Afghanistan, we could have used the FBI to squeeze them and their conspriators. Would it have taken longer? Yes. Would more people have died in the long run? Maybe, maybe not, hard to say.
However, it wouldn't have compromised our ideals of a fair trial and due process. Yet, since we have a military and a built in "excuse".... the decision to be "heros" was made, and we immediately started acting like villians.
Aside from being dead, I would much rather these things be run by a pot smoker like sagan. It seems like most everything else in the terms of our social systems are designed by alcoholics and crack heads, and the worst addicts of all Teetotalers (self-righteousness is a hell of a drug)
Of course... are we not laying the blame in the wrong place?
Why are you being denied access to the plane? Why again? Is it because someone posted something on facebook? No... its because there are morons out there who think that they are somehow making the world safer by pulling names out of their ass and adding them to lists.
Its the very fact that a "no fly list" even exists that is the REAL problem here. Ditto on employers trolling facebook for dirt. Its stupid.
You may be right, but, its not clear that this is the only cause or solution, for that matter.
I tend to think this problem is driven, mostly, by large unions with unified currency. Sure, it makes things easier, but, exchange rates between areas allow individual areas to fluctuate independantly as they need to. Look at greece, if they had their own currency, inflation would happen, local development would follow, increasing exports, which would lead to it being seen as on a come back, and bring in outside investment.
I would advocate it here in the US, a central authority for currency made sense when we needed it to simplify things and information moved very slowly... these days, it seems a large number of individual currencies could be much more easily managed.
Your analogy is not very good since a person smoking in a restaurant probably knows what he is doing is not allowed. Even so the first line of action is usually to...ask him to stop.
This is more like, a guy in the restraunt is walking around with his fly down. Does it make sense to immediately kick him out for exposing his underwear in your classy joint? Or does it make sense to have a waiter politely point out the problem and suggest that he fix it?
Now certainly, if he refuses to fix it, thats one thing, but, if he was genuinely unaware (as most infected system owners are) then he will probably be thankful that you called his attention to a problem rather than treating him like some sort of trouble making asshole.
So we are in vociferous agreement? You start by bashing my analogy and then saying that your policy is to do exactly what I laid out? Excellent. If I ever need an ISP again, and you are in my area... I you may have a customer.
Overall, even tho this is not deadly force, the same sort of general concept applies. If you are going to use force to stop something, you should exhaust any other reasonable options first. Making an honest attempt to contact someone and inform them of whats going on is definitely that. It sounds like your procedure is great.
-Steve
Re:Never thought I would defend Iran, but...
on
Stuxnet Worms On
·
· Score: 1
> Finding a death penalty for homosexuality fascinating? It should be horrifying. Same thing for atheism or denying > Islam.
You do realize, I hope, that there is a difference between "I find it fascinating" and "I agree with it" or "I like it". You seem not. I find many aspects of the holocaust fascinating too, even though I have nothing against jews. Hell... I admonish our own soldiers and police for their willingness to use violence to solve problems, I certainly don't condone it in any other circumstances.
So yes, a fascinating. Also, most every Iranian I have met has also lamented the invasion by the arabs and the forced conversion of people to Islam. Its really not fair to paint their culture with one big brush.
Too bad the police don't do this. "We would love to go to their house Mrs, but they havn't paid their fees, so we don't enforce ourr silly laws there"
I would so gladly not pay that fee. Tho... $75 for fire coverage? Id pay twice that or more!
-Steve
Re:Never thought I would defend Iran, but...
on
Stuxnet Worms On
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Thats pretty much what he said. Actually, homosexuality in their culture is a whole topic unto itself. What was interesting to me was the way he seemed to imply that there is a difference between "public morality" and "private". Have you ever seen how many "witnesses" are required to accuse someone of certain things (like being a homosexual) under sharia law, for example?
What he seemed, to me, to be espousing was the idea that "what you do in private is between you and god, but, what other people see you do, is another matter". In some ways it reminds me of a japanese woman who was interviewed for the book "Lust in Translation" (never read it, but heard several stories about it) who was not mad at her husband for having an affair, as she had her own, but was mad that he was careless and allowed her to find out about it.
Having known a few Iranian ex-pats, I must say, they have a fascinating culture, and one thats very different from our own in many ways.
Very true but... I would also point out that ISP customers are...paying customers.
It seems to me like cutting them off is an acceptable solution but, just like the use of deadly force may be legal in some situations, it shouldn't be a matter of "shoot first and ask questions later" either.
I would say, cutting them off is acceptable in circumstances when either a) the end user can't be contacted in a reasonable amount of time b) the end user refuses to acknowledge the problem or take steps to fix it in a reasonable amount of time
Reasonable amount of time, of course, depends on the situation. A machine that is actively participating in a DOS or impacting other users directly is a different case than one thats infected and idle. In any case, its just plain good customer service to contact your customers when there is a problem.
yah, I would mercilessly ridicule those people. You may have enjoyed my recent facebook comment at someone who was bitching about the use of the word "retarded", I was happy to agree with her, people who use the word retarded are being very mentally challenged.:)
Though, thats within the population of people known to be infected. You can't make HIV involve within my body, since my body is not currently a resevoir for HIV (and lets hope it stays that way).
These antibiotics are, as I understand, given in low doses across the population, meaning that multiple organisms are involved on a massive scale. What do you do when a portion of the bacterial population evolves to defend against A in a way that protects it against B, and part against C?
Otherwise, its a neat hack. I was thinking, wouldn't it be cool to combine the idea of phages and this? Maybe develop a phage that infects HIV infected cells specifically?
Actually, it makes me wonder... what about a bacteria that is specifically designed to have an outer coating that causes HIV to try and infect it, but is designed to, upon insertion of the HIV genome, inactivates the HIV genome and reproduces itself instead (maybe with its own reproductive abilities turned off until infection)
Then you inject it.... HIV attacks it, and it spreads like chaff throughout the body and redirecting HIV into a sort of "tar pit". Then if the HIV infection ends up not surviving... the bacteria stop reproducing.
Dude, I know and agree, thats why I used the word marker....it just worked so much better for the joke. Seriously dude, humor 101. Gotta get the details right if you want your "Score: 5 funny".
I mean, anyone who has not had their head stuck in the ground for the past 30 years should be well aware of the whole antibiotics/superbug issue. The only possible exceptions being the evolution deniers and, I bet even many of them have some twisted concept that reconciles their philosophy with superbugs.
However, I was reading that there is a new class of antibiotics in development, which are based on immune system antigens and, for some reason (anyone know more?) are thought to, because of their mechanism of action, not be susceptible to the same problem of evolving the bacteria to survive them.
I don't know if its true or how they work but, if the article I saw a while back is right, then, they could be useful here. Then again, this just seems like a bad idea overall.
In other news, the teams in counter strike will no longer be known as the terrorists and the counter-terrorists. Instead, the weapons have been removed and replaced with paint ball guns, and the teams will be known as "accounting department" and "marketing department".
Animations of soldiers dieing and hitting the ground will be replaced with characters raising their marker and walking off the field.
Though, truth be told, I doubt it would look good on me. My face really looks best with a goatee or full beard. I shaved down to a mustache last year so I could be William Murderface for halloween. The consensus was that I should never go fully clean shaven again.
Slashdot Mirror
A perfect example of an event so rare that it should never be used as a reason for a policy. Terrorist acts are just not that hard. Highway deaths are the equivalent of a 9/11 every few months. Random chance is better at killing people here than terrorists are. Anyone quaking in their boots over it still is a fucking moron.
That shouldn't have resulted in a single change of policy. Not the creation of the TSA or DHS. Not the PATRIOT act... nothing. It was a single event with no follow up by a pissant organization that never had any hope of doing us any real damage without us helping them along by spending billions of our own dollars.
-Steve
The other sad thing is that we still haven't paid for it.
There is no way it was successfull for the US, it was a stupid and unnecessary pissing match from day one. An embarassment for the country. I am still against having a standing army. We have no need to have forces outside of our borders. Its a shameful waste.
-Steve
Well duh.
I was simply posing a question with my thoughts on the subject. I think these rules can go to far, and in going too far, can be bad for the company.
Also, the purpose of my company is NOT to make money. Not at all. We are more like a budgeted department of several companies than a company on our own. Though technically we are separate, imaging having customers who consume your services, but don't pay for them..instead they get to decide how much they will pay once a year. (we are fixing this by phasing in charge backs but... thats a whole different can of worms and isn't even intended to change the model for most things)
In any case, I know these questions are "above my pay grade", and I prefer to keep them there. However, I have seen how eroding morale (one of our management's specialties) hurts output. The rule that I was thinking of came about from a corruption scandal. The only problem is, they went way too far to the point that they actually make a point to tell people that you can't even accept a free pen from a vendor. I mean, a pen. Then its rules about whether you can eat lunch supplied by a vendor (which takes into account things like whether its off site and whether its a free event (no) or one we paid for (yes) ).
I mean, I can see some of it, the base concept of the rules is right. Of course, its not even clear why we needed new rules since... when the corruption was exposed, they had no problem firing the people involved. Seems the old rules worked just fine... oh well. In any case, its something that I occasionally think about.
-Steve
While its true, the words do not make logical sense as written, you know the meaning. In fact, this is a very very common idiomatic expression. Feel free to read up on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom
If it were not for such things, we wouldn't have such gems as "fuck you", which, I might need to point out, is not a suggestion that we have sex.
-Steve
This is something that occurred to me recently at one of our corporate love-fests....
There is right, and then there is right. Certainly, its true... the company has the right to buy whatever copier it wants, and place whatever restrictions on it, which they like etc.
I don't dispute this at all. What I do dispute is that well... ok "Confidential Do not copy" may be a good one. The first use that comes to mind is actually trying to catch people using the copier for personal things. Now, I will say yes, the company has every right.... ... but... does it actually serve the cause of creating respect for the company and the rules amongst employees if the actions that the company takes, however "right" seem petty? I mean, I grab mechanical pencils and toss them in my work folder with my notebook to take notes at meetings. Sometimes I whip out the old note pad and pencil off hours for personal reasons. Am I stealing pencil lead? Am I stealing lined paper? (actually, I buy my own pad of graph paper, because I like it, but, I could just as easily use their lined paper in my note pad). Am I misusing company property?
I mean, yes, in a very technical sense. However, its not like I am stealing RAM from the desktops (its happened actually). I am not taking equipment home for my own use, its a piece of paper and pencil that I grabbed and used out of convinience, because I carry them with me anyway and take my pack home with me (with the company laptop). If someone tried to give me shit for it, it would seriously degrade any respect that I had for them on account of such utter pettiness.
This isn't really the policy that made me think of this, but, its not too far off in terms of "right but over the top".
-Steve
Well honestly, I don't really care how much "Success" we have over there with prosecuting the taliban or whoever. Nothing we do is going to bring anybody back, rebuild any buildings, or change the situations that cause some small number of people to occasionally decide to blow something up or otherwise kill some people.
They are just not a really big concern, nor should they be. Big deal, some people kill other people occasionally, no reason for us to turn around and do the same thing. This sort of frivolous use is exactly why we should avoid a standing army.
-Steve
I can't help but laugh at that one.
Actually, I would say that the problem here is that, your assessment is exactly the one that seems to be used by both sides. So long as that is the perceived situation, there doesn't appear to be any solution but to have them fight it out and go with the winner (which would be Isreal, we are talking about one side that can utterly wipe the other off the face of the planet, and one that can't).
I would like to think that the reality is, that this assessment is flawed in that "massive casualties" on each side are valued more than massive casualties on the other side. Either way, its peoples lives.
I tend to think that the reality is more nuanced. If Isreal backs off, yes, there would be more casualties. However, I don't see the Palestinians maintaining an elevated level of casualties in such a situation. Its just plain hard to justify continued attacks against someone who is backing down and giving you reasonable things that you asked for.
My own application of game theory is that, in the medium term, such a strategy would drive a wedge within the Palestinian opposition and erode anti-isreali sentiment.
The bigger problem that I see, is Isreal internally weathering the short term storm and not swinging back towards ultra nationalism and changing course back.
Essentially, I would liken such a process to a couple of bipolar people who hate taking their meds.
Thats the problem with game theory, in these situations, you can't assume a "nation" is a single rational actor. Its a play of internal actors playing out their own games, for the chance to control the overall strategy.
Imagine... playing risk, but instead of having players, each color is a group of people who are constantly playing a game of poker on the side to determine who makes the moves. I think thats a far better way to think about it.
-Steve
And if you go to Romania, you find people who still think that Vlad Tepes gets a bum rap. He was the king who staved off the Arab invasions. Though his methods have been were quite draconian (ba dum ting) and seldom lauded by anyone else.
You find similar kernels of truth throughout many types of, what seem like, extreme rhetoric. I think the problem with perspective comes in that its a bit like climbing a mountain top. Each piece of evidence, each argument is built upon others. When viewed from the outside of their own context, its easy to think people had to be crazy to be Nazis, or Al Queda, but, from some perspectives, even the people we hold up as heros would be in the same crazy boat. However, each foot you go up one peak, brings you that much further from being able to see the view from atop another.
If you view the US as violent, hypocritical (torture anyone?), meddling in your people's affairs, bent on slowly destroying your way of life, and too big and powerful to take on through direct confrontation, then terrorist actions start to become.... entirely rational. How else do you fight such an enemy? I have said many times that I would think quite dimly of the person who feels otherwise should the day come that Chinese boots march on our soil.
I have heard from people here "We went over to help them". Its nice to have a good intention in your heart but, how can you expect "them" to see it that way? If Chinese soldiers rolled onto our beaches and began forming a new government here, would you accept their "help"? Would you say to your brothers, sisters, parents, and friends "Oh look, they came to help us! Lets welcome our new friends with open arms!"?
More and more I have come to the opinion that such an open attitude is a better one than the one which I have often espoused. However, that doesn't mean that I expect people, as a rule, to adopt it.
It is quite rare that one mans evil supervillian isn't somebodies hero.
-Steve
Isn't this just more examples that show the point?
Yes a "sniper shot from 2 miles" is "safer for the good guys" but... are they really still the good guys at that point?
Being able to kill someone from 2 miles away is a power. At least, its about as close to a super power as any individual human being (or team of two) is going to come. So... its easy to rationalize "Well hes a bad guy, we might lose many men if we assault the bad guy, but one shot, and bang we did good".
But... a sniper shot from 2 miles away is a de facto denial of due process. There is no appeal. There is no mitigating circumstance, no evidence to the contrary, no day in court.
We see it over and over. Give someone power, and they will find an excuse to use it. We didn't need to use the military to go after Al Queda in Afghanistan, we could have used the FBI to squeeze them and their conspriators. Would it have taken longer? Yes. Would more people have died in the long run? Maybe, maybe not, hard to say.
However, it wouldn't have compromised our ideals of a fair trial and due process. Yet, since we have a military and a built in "excuse".... the decision to be "heros" was made, and we immediately started acting like villians.
-Steve
Aside from being dead, I would much rather these things be run by a pot smoker like sagan. It seems like most everything else in the terms of our social systems are designed by alcoholics and crack heads, and the worst addicts of all Teetotalers (self-righteousness is a hell of a drug)
-Steve
Of course... are we not laying the blame in the wrong place?
Why are you being denied access to the plane? Why again? Is it because someone posted something on facebook? No... its because there are morons out there who think that they are somehow making the world safer by pulling names out of their ass and adding them to lists.
Its the very fact that a "no fly list" even exists that is the REAL problem here. Ditto on employers trolling facebook for dirt. Its stupid.
-Steve
You may be right, but, its not clear that this is the only cause or solution, for that matter.
I tend to think this problem is driven, mostly, by large unions with unified currency. Sure, it makes things easier, but, exchange rates between areas allow individual areas to fluctuate independantly as they need to. Look at greece, if they had their own currency, inflation would happen, local development would follow, increasing exports, which would lead to it being seen as on a come back, and bring in outside investment.
I would advocate it here in the US, a central authority for currency made sense when we needed it to simplify things and information moved very slowly... these days, it seems a large number of individual currencies could be much more easily managed.
-Steve
Your analogy is not very good since a person smoking in a restaurant probably knows what he is doing is not allowed. Even so the first line of action is usually to...ask him to stop.
This is more like, a guy in the restraunt is walking around with his fly down. Does it make sense to immediately kick him out for exposing his underwear in your classy joint? Or does it make sense to have a waiter politely point out the problem and suggest that he fix it?
Now certainly, if he refuses to fix it, thats one thing, but, if he was genuinely unaware (as most infected system owners are) then he will probably be thankful that you called his attention to a problem rather than treating him like some sort of trouble making asshole.
-Steve
So we are in vociferous agreement? You start by bashing my analogy and then saying that your policy is to do exactly what I laid out? Excellent. If I ever need an ISP again, and you are in my area... I you may have a customer.
Overall, even tho this is not deadly force, the same sort of general concept applies. If you are going to use force to stop something, you should exhaust any other reasonable options first. Making an honest attempt to contact someone and inform them of whats going on is definitely that. It sounds like your procedure is great.
-Steve
> Finding a death penalty for homosexuality fascinating? It should be horrifying. Same thing for atheism or denying
> Islam.
You do realize, I hope, that there is a difference between "I find it fascinating" and "I agree with it" or "I like it". You seem not. I find many aspects of the holocaust fascinating too, even though I have nothing against jews. Hell... I admonish our own soldiers and police for their willingness to use violence to solve problems, I certainly don't condone it in any other circumstances.
So yes, a fascinating. Also, most every Iranian I have met has also lamented the invasion by the arabs and the forced conversion of people to Islam. Its really not fair to paint their culture with one big brush.
-Steve
Too bad the police don't do this. "We would love to go to their house Mrs, but they havn't paid their fees, so we don't enforce ourr silly laws there"
I would so gladly not pay that fee. Tho... $75 for fire coverage? Id pay twice that or more!
-Steve
Thats pretty much what he said. Actually, homosexuality in their culture is a whole topic unto itself. What was interesting to me was the way he seemed to imply that there is a difference between "public morality" and "private". Have you ever seen how many "witnesses" are required to accuse someone of certain things (like being a homosexual) under sharia law, for example?
What he seemed, to me, to be espousing was the idea that "what you do in private is between you and god, but, what other people see you do, is another matter". In some ways it reminds me of a japanese woman who was interviewed for the book "Lust in Translation" (never read it, but heard several stories about it) who was not mad at her husband for having an affair, as she had her own, but was mad that he was careless and allowed her to find out about it.
Having known a few Iranian ex-pats, I must say, they have a fascinating culture, and one thats very different from our own in many ways.
-Steve
Very true but... I would also point out that ISP customers are...paying customers.
It seems to me like cutting them off is an acceptable solution but, just like the use of deadly force may be legal in some situations, it shouldn't be a matter of "shoot first and ask questions later" either.
I would say, cutting them off is acceptable in circumstances when either a) the end user can't be contacted in a reasonable amount of time b) the end user refuses to acknowledge the problem or take steps to fix it in a reasonable amount of time
Reasonable amount of time, of course, depends on the situation. A machine that is actively participating in a DOS or impacting other users directly is a different case than one thats infected and idle. In any case, its just plain good customer service to contact your customers when there is a problem.
-Steve
Hey man, you can't mark with lead paint, think of the children!
yah, I would mercilessly ridicule those people. You may have enjoyed my recent facebook comment at someone who was bitching about the use of the word "retarded", I was happy to agree with her, people who use the word retarded are being very mentally challenged. :)
-Steve
Though, thats within the population of people known to be infected. You can't make HIV involve within my body, since my body is not currently a resevoir for HIV (and lets hope it stays that way).
These antibiotics are, as I understand, given in low doses across the population, meaning that multiple organisms are involved on a massive scale. What do you do when a portion of the bacterial population evolves to defend against A in a way that protects it against B, and part against C?
Otherwise, its a neat hack. I was thinking, wouldn't it be cool to combine the idea of phages and this? Maybe develop a phage that infects HIV infected cells specifically?
Actually, it makes me wonder... what about a bacteria that is specifically designed to have an outer coating that causes HIV to try and infect it, but is designed to, upon insertion of the HIV genome, inactivates the HIV genome and reproduces itself instead (maybe with its own reproductive abilities turned off until infection)
Then you inject it.... HIV attacks it, and it spreads like chaff throughout the body and redirecting HIV into a sort of "tar pit". Then if the HIV infection ends up not surviving... the bacteria stop reproducing.
just a thought.
-Steve
Dude, I know and agree, thats why I used the word marker....it just worked so much better for the joke. Seriously dude, humor 101. Gotta get the details right if you want your "Score: 5 funny".
I mean, anyone who has not had their head stuck in the ground for the past 30 years should be well aware of the whole antibiotics/superbug issue. The only possible exceptions being the evolution deniers and, I bet even many of them have some twisted concept that reconciles their philosophy with superbugs.
However, I was reading that there is a new class of antibiotics in development, which are based on immune system antigens and, for some reason (anyone know more?) are thought to, because of their mechanism of action, not be susceptible to the same problem of evolving the bacteria to survive them.
I don't know if its true or how they work but, if the article I saw a while back is right, then, they could be useful here. Then again, this just seems like a bad idea overall.
-Steve
In other news, the teams in counter strike will no longer be known as the terrorists and the counter-terrorists. Instead, the weapons have been removed and replaced with paint ball guns, and the teams will be known as "accounting department" and "marketing department".
Animations of soldiers dieing and hitting the ground will be replaced with characters raising their marker and walking off the field.
-Steve
Comedy? I always just thought it looked cool.
Though, truth be told, I doubt it would look good on me. My face really looks best with a goatee or full beard. I shaved down to a mustache last year so I could be William Murderface for halloween. The consensus was that I should never go fully clean shaven again.
-Steve