I'm pretty sure that they just advocated strip mining, clear-cutting, and whaling with dynamite.
*sighs* I'm a 40 year, or so, member of the Libertarian Party. Not even *I* think like this. Regulating businesses is something the government should do, responsibly and reasonably. The rights belong to the individual and we, the individuals, allow those businesses to exist. The commons are essential to preserve, as much as possible, to ensure we've the ability to make use of our freedoms and better preserve our rights.
The real oddity is that I seem to recall the poster, in a recent thread, saying that corporations didn't pay enough taxes. Now he wants to give them tax breaks.
I attended a private school and then had the chance (after enlisting and getting access to financial aid through the GI Bill) to work with a few people who were called, 'savants.' Some where even called, 'idiot savants.' My Ph.D work, and university work, were done at a rather prestigious institute. (I was fortunate enough to be accepted at MIT and then was accepted into the Ph.D program.)
I say that, to explain this: I understand. I don't retain a whole lot unless I'm using it. What I can do is conceptualize. What I can do, is figure it out (again) if need be. What I can do, is study and retain long enough to test well. If I'm using it then I'm okay. Yet, it's not easy for me to learn new things and retain them. Once I get them, then I understand them and usually have a greater understanding than most. Once I stop using them, they tend to be forgotten pretty quickly as my brain just seem to shunt stuff out and let new stuff in on a regular basis.
Outwardly, of course, this appears to be intelligence. Inwardly, I know the difference. Even though I can conceptualize and grasp a complex subject better than some - there are others far more adept than I and more who can grasp enough of it and retain it properly.
I'd not say that I'm intelligent. Hopefully this doesn't seem too egotistical but I would say that I'm wise. Knowing what you don't know is of greater importance, to me, than trying to know everything. Knowing when to ask (and who to ask) for help, while leaving aside your ego, is more valuable than the tendencies some have to believe they know everything.
No, not a direct comparison but, certainly, markers can be drawn betwixt the two - we're all humans, after all. Point being, history says we'll take a lot of abuse so long as we aren't without hope. This, while irritating to some, probably won't even be a bump in the road. Would that I could, I'd change it.
Someone, in another reply, was talking about how this was an acceptable science experiment. I'm not sure we should be doing science that way. Forcing data doesn't seem to be a good method for science, at any rate. Humans are not some group to be controlled like this.
I've not yet given the above much thought and I'd not thought about it previously. Pardon my terse reply but, frankly, I'm not sure what to think - at this time. I'm unwilling to jump to conclusions without more thought and without being able to articulate it better but there's something that you, too, may have overlooked. What are the ethics of these things?
Aside: I use ethics, the word, intentionally. To me, morals are absolute while ethics are typically absolute but are subject to change, e.g. situational ethics. Both are, of course, subjective.
I seem to recall they asked "is this in your password?" (Or similar.) Then they monitored the output. Then they put the password together. "Is this the first letter of your password?" I think they mentioned something along the lines of being able to narrow it down even further. I did a quick search and I'm not able to recall or find where the article is but I'm pretty sure it was on this site and I think that's what the AC was referring to. I've no idea how accurate the findings were or nor if it is in use anywhere. I am also thinking it might have been with an MRI.
That mentions use of an EEG. I could have sworn it was refined and using either a CT or MRI scan??? However, that article is about the right time-frame, so that may be it it it may have just been conjecture, in the other article, about what the future could hold?
Where do you draw the line, ethically, with utilizing humans as science experiments? I won't even bother arguing that social sciences, as practiced, are not science but there's that to consider if you want to be honest with yourself. I think I was pretty clear about my position - there's no science here (no ethical science, at any rate - if any at all) so why you would think I'd advocate for using the scientific method to determine equal opportunity is a bit strange. I'm quite sure that the human is not something that can be entirely accurately quantified. Instead, we need reason. Not that kind. We need reasonable opportunities for everyone, regardless of their innate traits. Everyone should be allowed to swing for the fence and try to accomplish their dreams. To do that, we first need to realize that not everyone is going to reach those goals and that there will be lots of failures along the way.
Not necessarily with their hand. An unusual amount of time spent brushing it with a brush or combing it with a comb. It could just be something I noticed so now I notice it more and assume it's more than it is?
Anyhow, yeah, if you babble long enough they tell you to shut up. Until you have enough karma the limits are pretty strict. The most you can get is 50 posts per day (that I'm aware of and anyone else that's met the limit claims). I think the post limits go from 10 to 25 to 50. Somewhere around here you can find slash-stats and it appears that the 50 post limit applies to even those with the highest karma.
Some of us just babble to anyone about most anything.:D
Equality is about equal opportunity. Somehow it has been bastardized into expecting equal outcomes. Trying to force it is just stupid and will result in lower quality and yes, this applies to things like trying to force men into a field. Let people do what they want. Let people try anything, give them the freedom to dream big and swing for the fence. Code camps are fine but they should be open to anyone, anything else is discrimination.
Judge by what they do, not by what's between their legs, who they sleep with, or the color of their skin. This is not a complex subject. We're just making it complicated because people are unwilling to accept that equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes. Life's not a mathematical equation. There are many variables. If there's something preventing someone from having an equal opportunity than fix that. Stop trying to ease symptoms without curing the cause. First, determine what (if any) causes there are.
Hmm... I'm going to guess you had a shitty American car from the early 1990s and that it impressed you enough to use it as a username. Which means, you probably got more life out of it than you could have hoped for, have some sort of affinity towards it, and it was not just a bargain but enabled you to be where you are today.
Also, I'd guess that it was a 93 Escort Wagon. Hmm... I'll say, LX version and red or blue but I'm going to guess red. I'd also hazard that you no longer own it and that you no longer own a Ford product, at least not as a daily driver.
Well, the name alone doesn't tell us a whole lot. There's a slim chance that a female would want to tolerate us. Fortunately, what the name doesn't tell us - the signature does tell us. It tells us that there's a female willing to tolerate us. Don't worry, she's not going to rape you. Nor is she some feminist feel good zealot. In fact, she's insightful and intelligent.
This is based on observations and communications. Not some white knight silliness. She's good people and one of the few remaining good people on the site.
Also, the "she's not a real girl!" That's not likely to be important. She probably isn't going to sleep with you. Well, you did express curiosity. Seriously, the transgendered that I know, I've yet to meet one that wasn't a good person at heart. I've met a couple who were prone to melodrama and some that had serious drug issues (worse than mine!) and whatnot... Yet, I've never met one that was malicious. So, I guess that's an observation. It's not worth a lot but it's my personal experience.
I'd not dare say I'm qualified to speak for her but I do say that she's generally a nice person on the 'net. I can't vouch for anything more than that but I'd ask, in this scope, is there anything more important?
I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping there was some sort of form that I could put my username into that would attempt to tell me if I was an asshole or not. I just wanted to see if they got it right.;-)
I figure that it's a trap. They're trying to get you to verify your identity. Sure, they'll remove it from the PUBLIC domain but that doesn't mean they'll be removing it from their data base.
I wonder how accurately that rule has been followed. If someone has the time and interest... (I do not.) I imagine that there were papers done back in the 1970s that utilized computers and specific software. Now, how much of that software is still available for use today? Have those papers been retracted?
Not that I give a shit. I think the guy's an idiot. I just hate the idea that an innocent researcher is caught in the crossfire. (It wasn't his paper was it?)
Hmm... Nope, it looks like it was his paper. Well, then, screw it. It's still be interesting to see if they've followed the rules elsewhere.
In many cases, the only rights they wish to withhold are the rights to the use of the name. I tend to agree but for different reasons. My reasoning is that it is a contract between two people and should be treated as such. There's a separation between church and State. The State should not be in the business of marriage. The State should be handing out civil union contracts. The fundies are able to engage in whatever silly rituals they want and call themselves whatever they want but all prior marriages should be automatically converted to civil unions and we should use only civil unions going forward and stop with this silliness in its entirety. Fuck the fundies. Let them have their silly rituals and names. Keep the State out of it. The whole ordeal could have been rendered null and void with just a wee little bit of thinking.
Nobody ever listens to David. Ever... *sighs* It would have pissed off the fundies to no end but what could they do? It would have solved the whole problem, once and for all. It also would have been an excellent IRL troll. Civil unions for everybody! Including turtles!
Strangely, back home, we've a lot of immigrants of the illegal variety. The current assumption is that they're not actually noticed and so aren't really counted very well. See, they're white. They come from Canada and work in the woods, drive pulp trucks, and things like that. They speak Canadian French so I sort of understand them now but it has taken some work. They're high enough in population that, by conversation, I've managed to pick up on the language fairly well. Well, enough to find a bathroom, order food, and get nookie. La bier est tres bien! Merci!
You make me want to write some open source code, something quick and easy, and disallow its use by white, heterosexual, males. Maybe I'll bang out a quick PHP script that incorporates CAPTCHA or something stupid - something where there are plenty of alternatives. Just to see what happens. To release under my own name or what... Hmm... GitHub?:D
It makes sense. The scientists in the disallowed countries can no longer verify the work using the software. The findings are, to them, unreproducible. They can not further the science. I hope that the paper's author can reproduce the work with something else, easily.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure that they just advocated strip mining, clear-cutting, and whaling with dynamite.
*sighs* I'm a 40 year, or so, member of the Libertarian Party. Not even *I* think like this. Regulating businesses is something the government should do, responsibly and reasonably. The rights belong to the individual and we, the individuals, allow those businesses to exist. The commons are essential to preserve, as much as possible, to ensure we've the ability to make use of our freedoms and better preserve our rights.
The real oddity is that I seem to recall the poster, in a recent thread, saying that corporations didn't pay enough taxes. Now he wants to give them tax breaks.
Only if you're not a table gamer who plays against other gamblers and not against the house. ;-)
I attended a private school and then had the chance (after enlisting and getting access to financial aid through the GI Bill) to work with a few people who were called, 'savants.' Some where even called, 'idiot savants.' My Ph.D work, and university work, were done at a rather prestigious institute. (I was fortunate enough to be accepted at MIT and then was accepted into the Ph.D program.)
I say that, to explain this: I understand. I don't retain a whole lot unless I'm using it. What I can do is conceptualize. What I can do, is figure it out (again) if need be. What I can do, is study and retain long enough to test well. If I'm using it then I'm okay. Yet, it's not easy for me to learn new things and retain them. Once I get them, then I understand them and usually have a greater understanding than most. Once I stop using them, they tend to be forgotten pretty quickly as my brain just seem to shunt stuff out and let new stuff in on a regular basis.
Outwardly, of course, this appears to be intelligence. Inwardly, I know the difference. Even though I can conceptualize and grasp a complex subject better than some - there are others far more adept than I and more who can grasp enough of it and retain it properly.
I'd not say that I'm intelligent. Hopefully this doesn't seem too egotistical but I would say that I'm wise. Knowing what you don't know is of greater importance, to me, than trying to know everything. Knowing when to ask (and who to ask) for help, while leaving aside your ego, is more valuable than the tendencies some have to believe they know everything.
I'm not sure that that is articulated well.
No, not a direct comparison but, certainly, markers can be drawn betwixt the two - we're all humans, after all. Point being, history says we'll take a lot of abuse so long as we aren't without hope. This, while irritating to some, probably won't even be a bump in the road. Would that I could, I'd change it.
Someone, in another reply, was talking about how this was an acceptable science experiment. I'm not sure we should be doing science that way. Forcing data doesn't seem to be a good method for science, at any rate. Humans are not some group to be controlled like this.
I've not yet given the above much thought and I'd not thought about it previously. Pardon my terse reply but, frankly, I'm not sure what to think - at this time. I'm unwilling to jump to conclusions without more thought and without being able to articulate it better but there's something that you, too, may have overlooked. What are the ethics of these things?
Aside: I use ethics, the word, intentionally. To me, morals are absolute while ethics are typically absolute but are subject to change, e.g. situational ethics. Both are, of course, subjective.
I seem to recall they asked "is this in your password?" (Or similar.) Then they monitored the output. Then they put the password together. "Is this the first letter of your password?" I think they mentioned something along the lines of being able to narrow it down even further. I did a quick search and I'm not able to recall or find where the article is but I'm pretty sure it was on this site and I think that's what the AC was referring to. I've no idea how accurate the findings were or nor if it is in use anywhere. I am also thinking it might have been with an MRI.
I did find this:
http://www.wired.com/2012/08/b...
That mentions use of an EEG. I could have sworn it was refined and using either a CT or MRI scan??? However, that article is about the right time-frame, so that may be it it it may have just been conjecture, in the other article, about what the future could hold?
I should have said "what they do scholastically and professionally." ;-) You knew what I meant though, I hope.
Where do you draw the line, ethically, with utilizing humans as science experiments? I won't even bother arguing that social sciences, as practiced, are not science but there's that to consider if you want to be honest with yourself. I think I was pretty clear about my position - there's no science here (no ethical science, at any rate - if any at all) so why you would think I'd advocate for using the scientific method to determine equal opportunity is a bit strange. I'm quite sure that the human is not something that can be entirely accurately quantified. Instead, we need reason. Not that kind. We need reasonable opportunities for everyone, regardless of their innate traits. Everyone should be allowed to swing for the fence and try to accomplish their dreams. To do that, we first need to realize that not everyone is going to reach those goals and that there will be lots of failures along the way.
Not necessarily with their hand. An unusual amount of time spent brushing it with a brush or combing it with a comb. It could just be something I noticed so now I notice it more and assume it's more than it is?
Anyhow, yeah, if you babble long enough they tell you to shut up. Until you have enough karma the limits are pretty strict. The most you can get is 50 posts per day (that I'm aware of and anyone else that's met the limit claims). I think the post limits go from 10 to 25 to 50. Somewhere around here you can find slash-stats and it appears that the 50 post limit applies to even those with the highest karma.
Some of us just babble to anyone about most anything. :D
Equality is about equal opportunity. Somehow it has been bastardized into expecting equal outcomes. Trying to force it is just stupid and will result in lower quality and yes, this applies to things like trying to force men into a field. Let people do what they want. Let people try anything, give them the freedom to dream big and swing for the fence. Code camps are fine but they should be open to anyone, anything else is discrimination.
Judge by what they do, not by what's between their legs, who they sleep with, or the color of their skin. This is not a complex subject. We're just making it complicated because people are unwilling to accept that equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes. Life's not a mathematical equation. There are many variables. If there's something preventing someone from having an equal opportunity than fix that. Stop trying to ease symptoms without curing the cause. First, determine what (if any) causes there are.
Hmm... I'm going to guess you had a shitty American car from the early 1990s and that it impressed you enough to use it as a username. Which means, you probably got more life out of it than you could have hoped for, have some sort of affinity towards it, and it was not just a bargain but enabled you to be where you are today.
Also, I'd guess that it was a 93 Escort Wagon. Hmm... I'll say, LX version and red or blue but I'm going to guess red. I'd also hazard that you no longer own it and that you no longer own a Ford product, at least not as a daily driver.
Well, the name alone doesn't tell us a whole lot. There's a slim chance that a female would want to tolerate us. Fortunately, what the name doesn't tell us - the signature does tell us. It tells us that there's a female willing to tolerate us. Don't worry, she's not going to rape you. Nor is she some feminist feel good zealot. In fact, she's insightful and intelligent.
This is based on observations and communications. Not some white knight silliness. She's good people and one of the few remaining good people on the site.
Also, the "she's not a real girl!" That's not likely to be important. She probably isn't going to sleep with you. Well, you did express curiosity. Seriously, the transgendered that I know, I've yet to meet one that wasn't a good person at heart. I've met a couple who were prone to melodrama and some that had serious drug issues (worse than mine!) and whatnot... Yet, I've never met one that was malicious. So, I guess that's an observation. It's not worth a lot but it's my personal experience.
I'd not dare say I'm qualified to speak for her but I do say that she's generally a nice person on the 'net. I can't vouch for anything more than that but I'd ask, in this scope, is there anything more important?
I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping there was some sort of form that I could put my username into that would attempt to tell me if I was an asshole or not. I just wanted to see if they got it right. ;-)
You're new here, aren't you?
If they do it well then maybe they'll get one user back and I can make the move to putting GhostBSD on bare metal.
I figure that it's a trap. They're trying to get you to verify your identity. Sure, they'll remove it from the PUBLIC domain but that doesn't mean they'll be removing it from their data base.
I believe that if they return within ten years it is a criminal offense.
Can be a person be more shitty than this?
Yes. Look at the situation where these people are running from. Indeed, a person can be much shittier than that.
WTF is Germany supposed to do with that many unskilled laborers anyways?
Send them to work at VW? 'Snot like it's gonna make the output any worse.
I wonder how accurately that rule has been followed. If someone has the time and interest... (I do not.) I imagine that there were papers done back in the 1970s that utilized computers and specific software. Now, how much of that software is still available for use today? Have those papers been retracted?
Not that I give a shit. I think the guy's an idiot. I just hate the idea that an innocent researcher is caught in the crossfire. (It wasn't his paper was it?)
Hmm... Nope, it looks like it was his paper. Well, then, screw it. It's still be interesting to see if they've followed the rules elsewhere.
In many cases, the only rights they wish to withhold are the rights to the use of the name. I tend to agree but for different reasons. My reasoning is that it is a contract between two people and should be treated as such. There's a separation between church and State. The State should not be in the business of marriage. The State should be handing out civil union contracts. The fundies are able to engage in whatever silly rituals they want and call themselves whatever they want but all prior marriages should be automatically converted to civil unions and we should use only civil unions going forward and stop with this silliness in its entirety. Fuck the fundies. Let them have their silly rituals and names. Keep the State out of it. The whole ordeal could have been rendered null and void with just a wee little bit of thinking.
Nobody ever listens to David. Ever... *sighs* It would have pissed off the fundies to no end but what could they do? It would have solved the whole problem, once and for all. It also would have been an excellent IRL troll. Civil unions for everybody! Including turtles!
Strangely, back home, we've a lot of immigrants of the illegal variety. The current assumption is that they're not actually noticed and so aren't really counted very well. See, they're white. They come from Canada and work in the woods, drive pulp trucks, and things like that. They speak Canadian French so I sort of understand them now but it has taken some work. They're high enough in population that, by conversation, I've managed to pick up on the language fairly well. Well, enough to find a bathroom, order food, and get nookie. La bier est tres bien! Merci!
You make me want to write some open source code, something quick and easy, and disallow its use by white, heterosexual, males. Maybe I'll bang out a quick PHP script that incorporates CAPTCHA or something stupid - something where there are plenty of alternatives. Just to see what happens. To release under my own name or what... Hmm... GitHub? :D
It makes sense. The scientists in the disallowed countries can no longer verify the work using the software. The findings are, to them, unreproducible. They can not further the science. I hope that the paper's author can reproduce the work with something else, easily.