yah know, I know what your saying, and there have been some bad so called communist regiemes but...
I would not say ONLY in communist countries is everyone suspect... there are plenty of brutal places that havn't chosen communism as the rhetoric to justify their inhumanity
Yah everybody knows that the PC term is Administrative Assistant. Sheesh, I was working in academia and they got it right where I was.
Chief of staff, thats rich. But I suppose it could be worst... imagine being condoleza rice... she has one of the top positions in our government and is STILL a secretary!
I want to second this. When I was looking to brush up on my french, I had a friend strongly recomend pimsleur, and I sought out some samples of their instructions (napster was great wasn't it).
I only went through a couple of lessons, but it was excellent. I definitly wish I had had it as a study aid back when I was in school.
Or whoever tells the least convincing truth goes to jail.
How many times has DNA evidence cleared the name of a person who had either been in jail for years or already executed in the past few years? Who told the more convincing lies in their cases?
Makes me wonder how many innocents are out there left to rot for the lack of evidence that would clear their names.
Sure you can go blow up whatever you want, but if you are caught, they can then start combing your internet logs and try to see who else is in your network, may have helped you, etc.
Hell, you might not know yourself who you have been in contact with, or who has helped you, the best kept secret is one that you don't even know yourself.
However with this, they can get one person, get his accounting logs, and then start looking at web forums. Start looking at odd little servers you conect to with ssh or ssl tunnels.
Then they can go get the ISP logs (assuming its in the right country) for that system.... hop hop hop. Between phone numbers and IP logs, chances are you slipped up somewhere.
Sure its alot of data for even one person, but lets face it, they can quickly come up with some filters to apply to the data. (oh well we can probably filter out traffic to www.slashdot.org or www.cnn.com...)
It could also be useful for proving conspiritorial connections between people that have been sepratly caught.
I am not saying that this is a good thing, mind you. Or even terribly effective. Just that it is accountability here that we are really talking about.
Its like sure you can get a job as an accountant at a big bank, and you can probably squeeze through a mighty big transaction into a bank account that you set up...
but when the accounting kicks in and starts following the money trail, you had best have skipped the country or be ready with an all new identity.
um... you are joking right? Having a linux kernel on the router is great. It means being able to write iptables processing rules for your packets.
It gives you alot of flexibility beyond just being a firewall and ip masquerader. Plus you can do great things if you care about security. Syslog to a loghost dropped packet logs maybe?
Admittedly your setup will work just as well, but this is sleak and can be easily deployed and maintained.
> inform them that they do no OWN the integral parts, that you licensed that from > someone else.
> since you didnt own it, they can not own it.
Actually there is a subtlety here.... THEY licensed. He obtained permission from anagement to use the code, he was doing the work for hire, the company licensed the code from IBM under the GPL.
Put it this way, some of the code is licensed from third parties (namely IBM) and that it would be, as far as you understand it, a violation of the license terms (no need to say "GPL" or anything) for them to do what they intend to do, and they need to contact IBM to see about relicensing it if they want to do otherwise.
If they still intend to proceede... well I would blow the whistle but, thats his perogative really. If he intends to do that then yes, I would job search.
Lets restate this.... you are really taking energy from the train/bus/car
You increase wind resistance quite a bit just by opening the window. In fact, it has been noted that you are actually better off using the A/C than opening the window, because opening the window decreases your fuel economy more than running the A/C.
Now, unless you have one of those 1980s cell phones that are roughly the size of a boombox of the same era, your cell phone uses less energy than your car A/C.
Frankly opening your window to charge your cell phone is incredibly inefficient and should only be contemplated if you were going to open the window anyway.
Now... mounting it on your motorcycle.... then you are talking. However you are still only transfering kinetic energy of the vehicle going forward against the wind into electricity. That kinetic energy is provided by the engine... seems more direct to just get the energy from your alternator.
hardly relevant. calculating odds in your head based on what cards you have seen and know whats in and out of the deck thusly is IMO just good bet making.
Its like poker, You look at what you have, how many hands could beat you (would he need just the right card in his hand or both right cards, does suit matter?), how many "outs" do you have? Thats all card counting really is.
I have no problem with the house having a legitimate edge on games that one woul dplay against it. I don't play those games (well I may play a hand or two of black jack or toss a coin in a slot... but only to kill time while I wait for a seat at a poker table - but I don't just go play them). However, I think a "legitimate edge" is one thats built into the enforcable rules of the game...
If you are just watching the game and making calls based on what cards you see... if the house needs to outlaw smart play to keep its edge, then I think they need to come up with a new scheme.
what will be interesting is to see how they work this new feature into their procedures.
As it is now, I could easily (assuming I could have good counterfits made that were not distinguishable from normal chips in some simple manner) bring fake chips into a casino and use them... the hard part is getting good fakes and putting them into your stacks without arising suspicion.
Remember there are cameras and various forms of security all over the place.
So lets say I do make it to the table with stacks of fairly good counterfit chips. Lets say they are exact minus the RFID tag. OK, so my normal course of action is to go to the poker table, but I could go anywhere.
My goal here is not to make money, but to break even. I can't risk taking fake chips to the cashier, because thats where its very likely to get caught and if they have and RFID, they will definitly be looking for missing chips. (ie they will want to wave my rack of 500 chips over the detector and get exactly 500 valid unique rfid signatures right?)
So I need to exchange all or at least most (if I have 1 or 2 fakes in a set of 500 chips, its going to be easy to claim I won them at a table and they wont care, but if I have a large number, rest assured they will have some questions for me)
Preferably I want these chips going into other people's stacks rather than the dealers. So my best strategy is to fake $5 chips, because they don't use $5 chips in the rake usually, and never use one in a situation where the dealer will use it to make change... this isn't too hard.
Now play a few rounds of poker and you see I have a problem. How do I keep fakes and reals seprate? If my method of getting them to the table is sound (notice I am ignoring this aspect, and with good reason, will get to that) then its easy to start out with a mix of fakes and reals that I can identify and nobody else can by sight.
Each time I win a pot, I get my chips back, plus other peoples, and note, between rounds of betting, the dealer splashes the pot. so I can't easily keep my fakes seprate.
ALl in all the whole thing will work for a little while, but will quickly break down.
Best I can come up with is leave with $500 in real chips, just play to break even, then toss the chips in a backpack and leave. people do this all the time, leave withthe chips to come back later....
Then come back with them racked in the backpack, but with ALL my chips in the backpack (so security doesn't become supiscous if they see me take $500 in chips out of my backpack when the door mounted detectors only registered $100)
Then I play and try to keep the chips seprate.... leave again with all the chips... separate on my own time, and come back with the real chips only.
But by this time they have realised that I am the only person at my table that never cashed in, and everyone else had bogus chips...
Thats what the casinos have, defense in depth. Sure you can pull off a little scam here and there, but by the time it amounts to much, they have put 2 and 2 together.
All they have to do is set the bar high enough that you can't scam enough to make it worth risking. Which is why this will eliminate any worries about fake chips.
The real scams are collusion on the poker table and card counting on black jack... and marking cards etc. (tho I think card counting is bullshit, its not the players fault that he can remember things and do math... its the houses fault for using dealer shoes rather than shuffling every time)
Frankly if you want to make money at the casino do what my roomates and I do... become good at poker. You will make money any time you play against people that take bigger risks than you do over time. It is not hard to become disciplined enough to play better than 90% of the poker players out there.
> The law does say that you can't download the Star Wars movies, but that has > nothing to do with your owning copies of them.
Note that nobody has EVER been prosecuted for downloading content (kiddie porn not withstanding). It is ONLY the offering for download or otherwise distributing content that people have been prosecuted for.
In fact, the way I have read the law, and seen it described, is that once you have a copy, you have it. Regardless of how you aquired it (legal copy, bootleg, download etc... ), you have the same legal rights to use it.
Unless someone else is familiar with a provision in the law that I havn't seen. Still there is absolutly no precident or statue which I am aware of that would lead me to believe there is anything against the law to posessing media which contains copyrighted works depenant upon how they came to be on said media.
I would like to expound upon your excellent point.
Social Security exists for one reason, and that reason has been verified by scientific study, people don't save their own money. Thats not to say YOU don't save your money, or educated wealthy people don't save their money. No. The average joe schmoe, the normal guy, doesn't save money for retirement, and if he does, doesn't save nearly enough.
You can say what you want about how the world should work and how people shoul act. The fact is not only do they not, they did not before the safety-net was there to help them.
So we have a mandatory retirement fund, you pay into it when you work, in the hope that it will pay you when you retire. This has the effect of allowing people to retire before they become physically incapacitated, opening up more jobs for younger people, increasing the standard of living among older people, and taking some of the worry of saving for retirement away (it is still quite advisable to save more, but again, most people wont save enough on their own anyway)
Now that fund works in odd ways, the current working gen pays the current retired gen and it doesn't bank the money so much for us. This is a detail of how its implimented of course, and is subject to change.
Of course if we move to an ageless society, then we remove the need for retirement and retirement savings, and we will all have time to work and play and persue our own interests. Then we wont need social security.
We can then also gut our education system as we will only need offspring enough to cover those who choose not to live forever and those who die of other causes (disasters, accidents and the like) so we should be able to educate what few children there are at a fraction of the cost of the current system
Granted of course. I will be sure to tell that to my sister the next time that she gets a few gallons of government subsidised Milk for her child. Or the next time I see my father laid off and scraping by and manages to pay the mortgage with his unemployment check while he looks for a new job.
I will be sure to let them know exactly what a dismal failure socialism is.
Perhaps if we went back a hundred years and told that to the people who worked untold hours for barley livable pay and had no protections, when being hurt on the job meant you were unemployable and had no safety net and were just dropped to fend for yourself. Yes, maybe if we could go back and let them know what a failure socialism is, we could get out of this socialist hell hole of unemployment, and workers comp and maternitiy leave, and all the other horrible socialist policies that don't work.
Then we can go back to working full days 6 days a week just to pay the rent and feed ourselves with no vacation. Wouldn't that be great?
Well if you want a fight, maybe you can just come over here and we cna roll up our sleeves and have it out. I was attempting to approach the discussion open to being educated on the tennents of national socialism and fascism. I even went to the OED and looked up fascism according to their definition to see if it might help.
However this seems to have just gotten me accused of wanting a fight. Whatever.
This is actually a question that I have tried to resolve before and have met little success. I suppose I should just go off and find some original writtings of Moussolini and/or Hitler since all anyone is interested in doing is tossing around platitudes and blanket statements to leave no room for debate.
Ok fine... I have said it is, you have said it isn't. Would you care to attempt a statement on what you see the tennents of fascism to be vs socialism and why fascism is not a form of socialism?
Or should we stick to blanket statments on the obvious truth of the matter?
Actually he is right, Fascism is a form of socialism. I would call it the "dark underelly of socialism" but, I am also not a national socialist. Socialism at its heart has some pretty general consepts of "social contract" and society being people comming together and working together and all that.
One extreme of this is National Socialism, another extreme is Libertarian Socialism (which may or may not be another word for anarchism depending on who you are talking to), and there are a few others in other dimensions. (Communism being generally considered one of the extremes)
That is to say just because you are a socialist, doesn't mean that you agree with all other socialists. I have debated with a national socialist, they are definitly socialist. They have a strong belief in cultural identity and that different cultural identities can't form a single society. I think they are wrong. However that is (at least one of) their um "kinks".
Actually there is some debate over whether Bush actually is a conservative. He is a neoconservative definitly, but paleoconservatives are quite fond of calling the neoconservatives (and Bush) anything but conservative.
As a socialist myself (and maybe a communist, I don't know, it is a point of debate) I found it to be a quite mind boggling experience to be listening to an interview with Pat Buchanon talking about Bush and his book "Where the right went wrong" and finding myself agreeing with him! I mean, to agree with Pat Buchanon almost had me questioning my political identity... until the talk turned away from Bush and back on to his pet "close the boarders" rhetoric.
could be worst... ever talked with a real graffiti "artist" about their "craft"?
They would have you think that they are the great revolutionaries, fighting the supression of the individual by putting their tag everywhere and thus destroying the mindless uniformity and attacking the collective subconscious or some such.
Now admittedly I like some graffiti.... theres some absolutly beautiful peices of artwork that people have illicitly put up in backalleys on walls. Stunning stuff. Of course thats the stuff that doesn't get washed off, because well, it really does make the place look nice.
If this was what they defended I might be with them, but the vast majority is just a bunch of silly words written in paint marker or scratched into a plexiglass bus window. Crap. Nobody appreciates it but them, it just makes a place look run down and ugly.
"Yah I am a counterculture revolutionary because I can write a word in really funked up letters that nobody can read"
At least these kids if they blame it on GTA, probably wont do it again
Yes dwim is do what I mean. Check out the Jargon file, its a good resource and provides a fine example of why DWIM fails. As such I quote:
Warren Teitelman originally wrote DWIM to fix his typos and spelling errors, so it was somewhat idiosyncratic to his style, and would often make hash of anyone else's typos if they were stylistically different. Some victims of DWIM thus claimed that the acronym stood for 'Damn Warren's Infernal Machine!'.
In one notorious incident, Warren added a DWIM feature to the command interpreter used at Xerox PARC. One day another hacker there typed delete *$ to free up some disk space. (The editor there named backup files by appending $ to the original file name, so he was trying to delete any backup files left over from old editing sessions.) It happened that there weren't any editor backup files, so DWIM helpfully reported *$ not found, assuming you meant 'delete *'. It then started to delete all the files on the disk! The hacker managed to stop it with a Vulcan nerve pinch after only a half dozen or so files were lost.
Your example, while not standards complient is a simple one and we can add a rule that says, if we hit a new TR but without first a new TABLE, then/TR is implied.
This has a problem. It provides positive reinforcement "Hey look, I don't need/TR at all" rather than negative "damn my table doesn't work, oh looks like I forgot a/TR"
Frankly, people should be testing and fixing their markup and thats hard to do without a standards compliant browser.
Also, yah I wonder if mozilla fixed some of the weird ways the old netscape browser exposed its internals. For example, you could open a H1 tag and close it with a/FONT and various other amusements. This was back in 4.x though.
-Steve
Re:Of course he doesn't care about security...
on
Firefox vs. SP2's IE?
·
· Score: 1
I guess it depends who you are working with.
I mean if a person has moest proto-clue or shows the potential of developing it, fine. However when it comes to say... my mother.... thats another story.
When I speak of a better alternative, her eyes glass over (well the one that isn't actually a glass eye already does) and she just doesn't want to hear it. Every attempt at educating her has failed, so I just set it up the best I can and hope for the best.
I mean, standing behind her and trying to talk her through the motions of copying and pasting some text took 10 minutes and just about ended in me breaking down. We are talking about of very embodiment of "unable to follow directions, even very simple, step by step ones"
Believe me, she isn't becomming and advocate for nothing.
So web browsers should be DWIM now? They should forget all that markup and html standards and render everything exactly as the author of the page INTENDED it, regardless of how he wrote it?
As a person who uses firefox almost as often as windows (I use galeon under linux and thats my main environment, but use windows for my laptop and when I game) I have never had a problem with it rendering slashdot wrong. Maybe your local install has something odd going on?
Anyway, intention is everything. And the standards are there so that the author can communicate his intentions. If he can't follow the standards, then HE Is the one not properly communicating his intentions. It may be the fault of his authoring software, or things he learned from broken browsers past, but thats not really the issue.
If you, either through bad accent or imperfect knowledge of english ask me to bring you some ghee when you want some tea, its not really my fault for not reading your mind.
-Steve
Re:Of course he doesn't care about security...
on
Firefox vs. SP2's IE?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This is why when the issue comes up with people I know I tell them this:
"You can do what you want, but I recomend you use firefox, if you continue to use IE I will refuse to help you when your computer gets infected with viruses"
That said, everyone that I have had try firefox has loved it and begun using it exclusivly. Normally I just say "here let me do some setup for you", install firefox, take ie off the desktop and the start menu, and then explain the new web browser to them. Often I just tell them "I upgraded your web browser, its called firefox now"
I know to you or I this sounds very deceptive, but I realised something: its just abstraction. Forget the details of code base and who puts it out. I believe firefox is a better browser, these people don't even know what a "web browser" is. Thats why its called "The Internet" on the desktop shortcut and not "IE" - because "IE" or "firefox" is more detail than most people want.
If you try to tell them "I installed firefox, this is what to use now because ie is bad", then you have a few problems.
1. They don't know what you are talking about anyway so they are scared
This means they worry "oh god is this going to be harder to use?" You can try to tell them its not, but they wont believe you because they saw you do all these weird things and so they know your idea of easy and theirs is way different.
2. They may have used ie before and s far as they are concerned it is great. So when you say "its bad" (or however else you want to qualify or expound upon that) it doesn't jive with their experience, so they assume its just stuff they don't need to care about, or you are just being esoteric...they go back to point 1 and figure this is going to make their life harder for benefits that mean nothing to them anyway.
So all in all, you save both your you alot of trouble by abstracting away "firefox" and "ie" and just going to "I upgraded your web browser" and when they sa y "whats that?" you say "Your internet is better and more secure"
And yes I am being a little bit flip here, with my phrases but I also hate doing windows support and using it for anything other than gaming (tho it is fairly usable with a link to the cygwin port of X in the startup and xterm on the launcher menu)
> While it is true in some cases for hops to add fruitiness--for example the > citrussy hops of the Pacific North West--most often fruitiness in a beer comes > from fermentation byproducts, which are determined by the yeast.
One of my favorite examples was the Wyeast Belgian II strain. I was making a Westmalle trippel clone and couldn't find a bottle of westmalle so I had to look for another yeast.
Turned out excellent with this yeast and it added a wonderful aroma and flavor of bannanas! I was quite surprized given that nothing even resembling fruit was in the wort.
Slashdot Mirror
yah know, I know what your saying, and there have been some bad so called communist regiemes but...
I would not say ONLY in communist countries is everyone suspect... there are plenty of brutal places that havn't chosen communism as the rhetoric to justify their inhumanity
-Steve
Yah everybody knows that the PC term is Administrative Assistant. Sheesh, I was working in academia and they got it right where I was.
Chief of staff, thats rich. But I suppose it could be worst... imagine being condoleza rice... she has one of the top positions in our government and is STILL a secretary!
-Steve
I want to second this. When I was looking to brush up on my french, I had a friend strongly recomend pimsleur, and I sought out some samples of their instructions (napster was great wasn't it).
I only went through a couple of lessons, but it was excellent. I definitly wish I had had it as a study aid back when I was in school.
-Steve
Or whoever tells the least convincing truth goes to jail.
How many times has DNA evidence cleared the name of a person who had either been in jail for years or already executed in the past few years? Who told the more convincing lies in their cases?
Makes me wonder how many innocents are out there left to rot for the lack of evidence that would clear their names.
-Steve
This sounds to me more like accountability.
Sure you can go blow up whatever you want, but if you are caught, they can then start combing your internet logs and try to see who else is in your network, may have helped you, etc.
Hell, you might not know yourself who you have been in contact with, or who has helped you, the best kept secret is one that you don't even know yourself.
However with this, they can get one person, get his accounting logs, and then start looking at web forums. Start looking at odd little servers you conect to with ssh or ssl tunnels.
Then they can go get the ISP logs (assuming its in the right country) for that system.... hop hop hop. Between phone numbers and IP logs, chances are you slipped up somewhere.
Sure its alot of data for even one person, but lets face it, they can quickly come up with some filters to apply to the data. (oh well we can probably filter out traffic to www.slashdot.org or www.cnn.com...)
It could also be useful for proving conspiritorial connections between people that have been sepratly caught.
I am not saying that this is a good thing, mind you. Or even terribly effective. Just that it is accountability here that we are really talking about.
Its like sure you can get a job as an accountant at a big bank, and you can probably squeeze through a mighty big transaction into a bank account that you set up...
but when the accounting kicks in and starts following the money trail, you had best have skipped the country or be ready with an all new identity.
-Steve
What?
um... you are joking right? Having a linux kernel on the router is great. It means being able to write iptables processing rules for your packets.
It gives you alot of flexibility beyond just being a firewall and ip masquerader. Plus you can do great things if you care about security. Syslog to a loghost dropped packet logs maybe?
Admittedly your setup will work just as well, but this is sleak and can be easily deployed and maintained.
-Steve
> inform them that they do no OWN the integral parts, that you licensed that from
> someone else.
> since you didnt own it, they can not own it.
Actually there is a subtlety here.... THEY licensed. He obtained permission from anagement to use the code, he was doing the work for hire, the company licensed the code from IBM under the GPL.
Put it this way, some of the code is licensed from third parties (namely IBM) and that it would be, as far as you understand it, a violation of the license terms (no need to say "GPL" or anything) for them to do what they intend to do, and they need to contact IBM to see about relicensing it if they want to do otherwise.
If they still intend to proceede... well I would blow the whistle but, thats his perogative really. If he intends to do that then yes, I would job search.
-Steve
Lets restate this.... you are really taking energy from the train/bus/car
You increase wind resistance quite a bit just by opening the window. In fact, it has been noted that you are actually better off using the A/C than opening the window, because opening the window decreases your fuel economy more than running the A/C.
Now, unless you have one of those 1980s cell phones that are roughly the size of a boombox of the same era, your cell phone uses less energy than your car A/C.
Frankly opening your window to charge your cell phone is incredibly inefficient and should only be contemplated if you were going to open the window anyway.
Now... mounting it on your motorcycle.... then you are talking. However you
are still only transfering kinetic energy of the vehicle going forward against
the wind into electricity. That kinetic energy is provided by the engine... seems more direct to just get the energy from your alternator.
-Steve
hardly relevant. calculating odds in your head based on what cards you have seen and know whats in and out of the deck thusly is IMO just good bet making.
Its like poker, You look at what you have, how many hands could beat you (would he need just the right card in his hand or both right cards, does suit matter?), how many "outs" do you have? Thats all card counting really is.
I have no problem with the house having a legitimate edge on games that one woul dplay against it. I don't play those games (well I may play a hand or two of black jack or toss a coin in a slot... but only to kill time while I wait for a seat at a poker table - but I don't just go play them). However, I think a "legitimate edge" is one thats built into the enforcable rules of the game...
If you are just watching the game and making calls based on what cards you see... if the house needs to outlaw smart play to keep its edge, then I think they need to come up with a new scheme.
-Steve
what will be interesting is to see how they work this new feature into their procedures.
As it is now, I could easily (assuming I could have good counterfits made that were not distinguishable from normal chips in some simple manner) bring fake chips into a casino and use them... the hard part is getting good fakes and putting them into your stacks without arising suspicion.
Remember there are cameras and various forms of security all over the place.
So lets say I do make it to the table with stacks of fairly good counterfit chips. Lets say they are exact minus the RFID tag. OK, so my normal course of action is to go to the poker table, but I could go anywhere.
My goal here is not to make money, but to break even. I can't risk taking fake chips to the cashier, because thats where its very likely to get caught and if they have and RFID, they will definitly be looking for missing chips.
(ie they will want to wave my rack of 500 chips over the detector and get exactly 500 valid unique rfid signatures right?)
So I need to exchange all or at least most (if I have 1 or 2 fakes in a set of 500 chips, its going to be easy to claim I won them at a table and they wont care, but if I have a large number, rest assured they will have some questions for me)
Preferably I want these chips going into other people's stacks rather than the dealers. So my best strategy is to fake $5 chips, because they don't use $5 chips in the rake usually, and never use one in a situation where the dealer will use it to make change... this isn't too hard.
Now play a few rounds of poker and you see I have a problem. How do I keep fakes and reals seprate? If my method of getting them to the table is sound (notice I am ignoring this aspect, and with good reason, will get to that) then its easy to start out with a mix of fakes and reals that I can identify and nobody else can by sight.
Each time I win a pot, I get my chips back, plus other peoples, and note, between rounds of betting, the dealer splashes the pot. so I can't easily keep my fakes seprate.
ALl in all the whole thing will work for a little while, but will quickly break down.
Best I can come up with is leave with $500 in real chips, just play to break even, then toss the chips in a backpack and leave. people do this all the time, leave withthe chips to come back later....
Then come back with them racked in the backpack, but with ALL my chips in the backpack (so security doesn't become supiscous if they see me take $500 in chips out of my backpack when the door mounted detectors only registered $100)
Then I play and try to keep the chips seprate.... leave again with all the chips... separate on my own time, and come back with the real chips only.
But by this time they have realised that I am the only person at my table that never cashed in, and everyone else had bogus chips...
Thats what the casinos have, defense in depth. Sure you can pull off a little scam here and there, but by the time it amounts to much, they have put 2 and 2 together.
All they have to do is set the bar high enough that you can't scam enough to make it worth risking. Which is why this will eliminate any worries about fake chips.
The real scams are collusion on the poker table and card counting on black jack... and marking cards etc. (tho I think card counting is bullshit, its not the players fault that he can remember things and do math... its the houses fault for using dealer shoes rather than shuffling every time)
Frankly if you want to make money at the casino do what my roomates and I do... become good at poker. You will make money any time you play against people that take bigger risks than you do over time. It is not hard to become disciplined enough to play better than 90% of the poker players out there.
-Steve
Except the ones that you take home as souvenirs.
:)
Course they get quite expensive if you want to collect a whole set
-Steve
> The law does say that you can't download the Star Wars movies, but that has
> nothing to do with your owning copies of them.
Note that nobody has EVER been prosecuted for downloading content (kiddie porn not withstanding). It is ONLY the offering for download or otherwise distributing content that people have been prosecuted for.
In fact, the way I have read the law, and seen it described, is that once you have a copy, you have it. Regardless of how you aquired it (legal copy, bootleg, download etc... ), you have the same legal rights to use it.
Unless someone else is familiar with a provision in the law that I havn't seen. Still there is absolutly no precident or statue which I am aware of that would lead me to believe there is anything against the law to posessing media which contains copyrighted works depenant upon how they came to be on said media.
-Steve
I would like to expound upon your excellent point.
Social Security exists for one reason, and that reason has been verified by scientific study, people don't save their own money. Thats not to say YOU don't save your money, or educated wealthy people don't save their money. No. The average joe schmoe, the normal guy, doesn't save money for retirement, and if
he does, doesn't save nearly enough.
You can say what you want about how the world should work and how people shoul act. The fact is not only do they not, they did not before the safety-net was there to help them.
So we have a mandatory retirement fund, you pay into it when you work, in the hope that it will pay you when you retire. This has the effect of allowing people to retire before they become physically incapacitated, opening up more jobs for younger people, increasing the standard of living among older people, and taking some of the worry of saving for retirement away (it is still quite advisable to save more, but again, most people wont save enough on their own anyway)
Now that fund works in odd ways, the current working gen pays the current retired gen and it doesn't bank the money so much for us. This is a detail of how its implimented of course, and is subject to change.
Of course if we move to an ageless society, then we remove the need for retirement and retirement savings, and we will all have time to work and play and persue our own interests. Then we wont need social security.
We can then also gut our education system as we will only need offspring enough to cover those who choose not to live forever and those who die of other causes (disasters, accidents and the like) so we should be able to educate what few children there are at a fraction of the cost of the current system
-Steve
> Granted, socialism doesn't work...
Granted of course. I will be sure to tell that to my sister the next time that she gets a few gallons of government subsidised Milk for her child. Or the next time I see my father laid off and scraping by and manages to pay the mortgage with his unemployment check while he looks for a new job.
I will be sure to let them know exactly what a dismal failure socialism is.
Perhaps if we went back a hundred years and told that to the people who worked untold hours for barley livable pay and had no protections, when being hurt on the job meant you were unemployable and had no safety net and were just dropped to fend for yourself. Yes, maybe if we could go back and let them know what a failure socialism is, we could get out of this socialist hell hole of unemployment, and workers comp and maternitiy leave, and all the other horrible socialist policies that don't work.
Then we can go back to working full days 6 days a week just to pay the rent and feed ourselves with no vacation. Wouldn't that be great?
-Steve
Well if you want a fight, maybe you can just come over here and we cna roll up our sleeves and have it out. I was attempting to approach the discussion open to being educated on the tennents of national socialism and fascism. I even went to the OED and looked up fascism according to their definition to see if it might help.
/.
However this seems to have just gotten me accused of wanting a fight. Whatever.
This is actually a question that I have tried to resolve before and have met little success. I suppose I should just go off and find some original writtings of Moussolini and/or Hitler since all anyone is interested in doing is tossing around platitudes and blanket statements to leave no room for debate.
Guess thats what I should expect from
-Steve
Ok fine... I have said it is, you have said it isn't. Would you care to attempt a statement on what you see the tennents of fascism to be vs socialism and why fascism is not a form of socialism?
Or should we stick to blanket statments on the obvious truth of the matter?
-Steve
Actually he is right, Fascism is a form of socialism. I would call it the "dark underelly of socialism" but, I am also not a national socialist. Socialism at its heart has some pretty general consepts of "social contract" and society being people comming together and working together and all that.
One extreme of this is National Socialism, another extreme is Libertarian Socialism (which may or may not be another word for anarchism depending on who you are talking to), and there are a few others in other dimensions. (Communism being generally considered one of the extremes)
That is to say just because you are a socialist, doesn't mean that you agree with all other socialists. I have debated with a national socialist, they are definitly socialist. They have a strong belief in cultural identity and that different cultural identities can't form a single society. I think they are wrong. However that is (at least one of) their um "kinks".
-Steve
Actually there is some debate over whether Bush actually is a conservative. He is a neoconservative definitly, but paleoconservatives are quite fond of calling the neoconservatives (and Bush) anything but conservative.
As a socialist myself (and maybe a communist, I don't know, it is a point of debate) I found it to be a quite mind boggling experience to be listening to an interview with Pat Buchanon talking about Bush and his book "Where the right went wrong" and finding myself agreeing with him! I mean, to agree with Pat Buchanon almost had me questioning my political identity... until the talk turned away from Bush and back on to his pet "close the boarders" rhetoric.
-Steve
could be worst... ever talked with a real graffiti "artist" about their "craft"?
They would have you think that they are the great revolutionaries, fighting the supression of the individual by putting their tag everywhere and thus destroying the mindless uniformity and attacking the collective subconscious or some such.
Now admittedly I like some graffiti.... theres some absolutly beautiful peices of artwork that people have illicitly put up in backalleys on walls. Stunning stuff. Of course thats the stuff that doesn't get washed off, because well, it really does make the place look nice.
If this was what they defended I might be with them, but the vast majority is just a bunch of silly words written in paint marker or scratched into a plexiglass bus window. Crap. Nobody appreciates it but them, it just makes a place look run down and ugly.
"Yah I am a counterculture revolutionary because I can write a word in really funked up letters that nobody can read"
At least these kids if they blame it on GTA, probably wont do it again
Dumbasses.
-Steve
Your example, while not standards complient is a simple one and we can add a rule that says, if we hit a new TR but without first a new TABLE, then
This has a problem. It provides positive reinforcement "Hey look, I don't need
Frankly, people should be testing and fixing their markup and thats hard to do without a standards compliant browser.
Also, yah I wonder if mozilla fixed some of the weird ways the old netscape browser exposed its internals. For example, you could open a H1 tag and close it with a
-Steve
I guess it depends who you are working with.
I mean if a person has moest proto-clue or shows the potential of developing it, fine. However when it comes to say... my mother.... thats another story.
When I speak of a better alternative, her eyes glass over (well the one that isn't actually a glass eye already does) and she just doesn't want to hear it. Every attempt at educating her has failed, so I just set it up the best I can and hope for the best.
I mean, standing behind her and trying to talk her through the motions of copying and pasting some text took 10 minutes and just about ended in me breaking down. We are talking about of very embodiment of "unable to follow directions, even very simple, step by step ones"
Believe me, she isn't becomming and advocate for nothing.
-Steve
Ahem
So web browsers should be DWIM now? They should forget all that markup and html standards and render everything exactly as the author of the page INTENDED it, regardless of how he wrote it?
As a person who uses firefox almost as often as windows (I use galeon under linux and thats my main environment, but use windows for my laptop and when I game) I have never had a problem with it rendering slashdot wrong. Maybe your local install has something odd going on?
Anyway, intention is everything. And the standards are there so that the author can communicate his intentions. If he can't follow the standards, then HE Is the one not properly communicating his intentions. It may be the fault of his authoring software, or things he learned from broken browsers past, but thats not really the issue.
If you, either through bad accent or imperfect knowledge of english ask me to bring you some ghee when you want some tea, its not really my fault for not reading your mind.
-Steve
This is why when the issue comes up with people I know I tell them this:
"You can do what you want, but I recomend you use firefox, if you continue to use IE I will refuse to help you when your computer gets infected with viruses"
That said, everyone that I have had try firefox has loved it and begun using it exclusivly. Normally I just say "here let me do some setup for you", install firefox, take ie off the desktop and the start menu, and then explain the new web browser to them. Often I just tell them "I upgraded your web browser, its called firefox now"
I know to you or I this sounds very deceptive, but I realised something: its just abstraction. Forget the details of code base and who puts it out. I believe firefox is a better browser, these people don't even know what a "web browser" is. Thats why its called "The Internet" on the desktop shortcut and not "IE" - because "IE" or "firefox" is more detail than most people want.
If you try to tell them "I installed firefox, this is what to use now because ie is bad", then you have a few problems.
1. They don't know what you are talking about anyway so they are scared
This means they worry "oh god is this going to be harder to use?" You can try to tell them its not, but they wont believe you because they saw you do all these weird things and so they know your idea of easy and theirs is way different.
2. They may have used ie before and s far as they are concerned it is great. So when you say "its bad" (or however else you want to qualify or expound upon that) it doesn't jive with their experience, so they assume its just stuff they don't need to care about, or you are just being esoteric...they go back to point 1 and figure this is going to make their life harder for benefits that mean nothing to them anyway.
So all in all, you save both your you alot of trouble by abstracting away "firefox" and "ie" and just going to "I upgraded your web browser" and when they sa y "whats that?" you say "Your internet is better and more secure"
And yes I am being a little bit flip here, with my phrases but I also hate doing windows support and using it for anything other than gaming (tho it is fairly usable with a link to the cygwin port of X in the startup and xterm on the launcher menu)
-Steve
-Steve
Well I also wasn't using the same yeast as Westmalle Tripel. (at the time it was, for some reason, gone from the area)
Anyway, I kind of like the bananana flavor.
-Steve
> While it is true in some cases for hops to add fruitiness--for example the
> citrussy hops of the Pacific North West--most often fruitiness in a beer comes
> from fermentation byproducts, which are determined by the yeast.
One of my favorite examples was the Wyeast Belgian II strain. I was making a Westmalle trippel clone and couldn't find a bottle of westmalle so I had to look for another yeast.
Turned out excellent with this yeast and it added a wonderful aroma and flavor of bannanas! I was quite surprized given that nothing even resembling fruit was in the wort.
Just malt, water, hops, and candy sugar.
mmm I need to brew that again.
-Steve