And someone who, with deliberation and malice, stabs a person to death for monetary gain has demonstrated that there is something so fundamentally wrong with their sense of decency and compassion that I see no reason to ever trust them again.
No reason huh? I see a reason, they show no remorse and understanding. Lack of understanding is just ignorance.
So, lets us say that this person just happens to be able to do great things, and they also just happened to have a lapse of judgment and killed someone. The "common sense" or logical point of view would be to figure out how to actually rehabilitate the individual, otherwise society is worse off in the long run. This is due to missed opportunity of the person to contribute to society, and the cost of the penal and legal system.
Killers kill and people steal because they do not understand the damage that they do. They may see the outcome, but they are blind to the true total impact to family and society. If they were, and still did the crime, that would mean they truly didn't care and are therefore mentally ill. I feel often this is in fact the case, but I do not believe that drugs are not always the answer, but counseling. I would say I have been mentally ill myself, if but depression. Fortunately for me, society isn't so ill that I didn't turn into my cousins and friends and end up in jail. But then again my health gave me reason to think deeper, so perhaps I am just blessed.
I think you delude yourself to believe corruption is ok. It just isn't. For example, the people are now paying a fairer price for waste management. Why were they able to get it so cheaply before? I can't say for sure, but there IS an answer, and I would venture to say it could be as simple as the mafia was making enough money elsewhere and didn't want to rock the boat and stay beloved by customers. But someone was paying for it, and quite possibly with their livelihoods, life savings and/or lives.
(I don't think that capitalism is the only solution, but that is another argument where we may agree.)
I say forget them. I just quit my job of 5 1/2 years because I was tired of losing hair and eyesight due to the stress, without compensation that would have helped the stress. (Move to a bigger home that I need and get a second car going, etc.) I was worth 30% more according to my bosses boss, and with that I could have moved and fixed the car in about a month.
In my case, the employees (I was in middle management, also considered the most valuable job in the facility...) below me couldn't have done much to change things. But I still say that isn't totally true.
In this Russian cop's case, over a million people have watched this video, and they CAN do something about it. They just have to show that they are willing to die (as he has demonstrated) for the sake of future generations. I decided to quit my job, for the sake of future and current employees. Sure it is coming on our peak season, and me not being there will hurt, but if they can't compensate me then they will have to learn their lesson.
A terrible concept, so says you. While I agree that much of the video was marketing gimmicks, that is what it was supposed to be, marketing the idea to others. So what is wrong with that? The tech is more than cool, it goes along with several ideas that I have had that I just don't know how to implement. This could help out a lot. It's funny that they use toilet paper, because that is an example that I have had. Imagine if we combined Wolfram Alpha with data about all products and also combined with something like this. I could see that buying this product is better as it is "Made in America", or locally grown, or just last longer. American's buy $5 spatulas from Wal-Mart because they are cheaper, but it they knew at the time of purchase that the $10 one would last 3-5x longer, many would make the better choice. This can really help educate and empower Americans, as well as the world.
Why do we want to watch videos inside a web page?... Now get off my lawn!
I don't think that many of us actually "want" to watch video in a browser. I think many of us would agree with you. While Youtube (as far as I am aware) still loses lots of money everyday, it is a vehicle to distribute content to the masses. The pros just can't be denied. Over time I think that we will begin to watch video in different ways as other options become viable and popular.
I have had visions of society using the tools that were given to us. We CAN find solutions, if we only try. We have to identify the problems accurately first, and then instead of excuses, seek the answer.
I just decided while researching a publish date on BarnesandNoble.com to look into the Nook, based on what I have read on Slashdot. (decided not to go to Books-A-Million even though one is in town, I guess just to change it up..) Maybe for the holidays.
The point is, people yearn for knowledge. That is real joy and pleasure, not wasting time pushing buttons... (Have been an avid Counter Strike player, since the betas.) It seems like we are now giving the people what they need as far as "apps".
Well they shouldn't be lax with anyone on this. But do you have specific examples where they have been unfair? Or a site that could show this? John's blog unfortunately seems quite sparse (though maybe his.plan would be a better source).
I agree that they shouldn't be "lax", but I feel that they should follow the spirit of the contest and make decisions to help execute the ultimate goal. Having said that, it should be done fairly, and to the letter. If not given extra time, and that is in the rules, that isn't really in the spirit.
I think that it may have been a good call, but only once the facts are out will it be truly known. If the rules were written with much forethought and righteousness, and the judges had righteous intentions, then the right call was made. Fact is, things happen. One "honest" mistake shouldn't fail you. So in your excitement you didn't see the kink in the fuel line (or whatever happened), I think that a good contest SHOULD overlook that.
While I whole heartedly believe in strictness and discipline, we can't allow ourselves to go overboard. That is not what the contest is about. It is to foster innovation. If you have a machine that will do the job, but a small mistake was made, then by all means try again. It's ok. The point is whether your machine can fly, and within the goals with a reasonable attempt. We aren't on the moon with it just yet.
In other words, it's about whether you can demonstrate you have won the fight, not whether you hit all 43 buttons to King's (Tekken) combo move without ever making a mistake.
I am in shock that we would even debate this. The judge is wrong, end of story. If you can't take the time to get familiar enough to make an adequate ruling, then you shouldn't be ruling on it. Why can't we challenge the courts ability to make an informed decision and for them to either learn the subject matter or get counsel who does know it?
You want to prevent piracy by altering parts to later attempt to prove it was pirated? Ok, do it. Then the pirates will just do the same and systematically substitute synonyms themselves in order to delude this technique. Sure it may not be perfect, but this sounds almost like a challenge by the industry. And you know what happens when you tempt hackers with an apple. As the saying goes, "Security through obscurity has never worked, and it never will." But I bet you can still market it to the drones who think they are paying for adequate technology. And if it reduces piracy out of sheer fear, and just gets people scared, then it is akin to "bad" publicity. Although it may be negative, it could still be considered successful.
I am normally against this sort of thing. But I believe to win any argument, you just have to find out how to turn it around on them. Like the Transformers and G.I. Joe said, "Knowing is half the battle!" Once you figure out how to turn it around on them, execution is usually the easy part.
So, I have decided I am for this. But we must use this technology in government and in big business, lest we have another Enron, etc!
Obviously Texas lawmakers are unfamiliar with the legal principle "Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me!" If I post online that Cmdr Taco is a goat fucker, have I really "harmed" him or his reputation in any way? It's not slander unless a reasonable person would believe it to be true, and no rational person believes Taco actually dates outside his own species (unlike Captain Kirk).
Like OMG, you know that dude that started that weird techy website/., or something? Yea him.. Cmdr Paco, sorry Taco. Well anyway you wouldn't believe because I know I didn't, but this guy named Anonymous Coward said that nasty mother fucker's a goat fucker. Why would anyone want to fuck a goat, ya know, that shit is just sick as fuck. Yegghhscreeeuk
Ten minutes later... Yea Aldenissin said that Cmdr Taco is a muthering fucking goat fucker, like someone had pics or something he said... Of course it's true! You know they wouldn't believe it without pics or someone seen it! I'm not that stupid, but that shit is just fucking crazy, what sick people do.Blleechhh
As time goes by, the words gets out, embelishes get maginfied more and more, and before you know it, wait hold on a second.. OMG I just heard that of all people fucking Cmdr Taco, that slashdot dude is a fucking goat fucker! WTF!
I often see websites where I feel there is a hidden agenda other than to make me happy enjoying the content to make the website owners some money. But people get savvy over time.. and it will start to get obvious. One thing is for sure.. you can only do this at most a few times before individuals start to figure it out, or you have get a new pool every time. Unless, you are looking for possible even more real world scenarios where there are a lot of websites that are frauds...
Of course some firms that are looking for free hosting and does not understand the internet will object, as their 'private documents' now show up in searches. But this is just like some news organizations object that search engines index and link to content, or some lame firms object that people deep link. There are those that understand the technology, and those that choose to think technology does what they wish.
I do see this as different from the case of older versions of MS Windows automatically exposing documents on personal computers to the world. In that case there was an expectation for privacy. In this case there is not.
To your first point, the question I have is this, what is a company to do that has a private intranet and doesn't want a document that is "published" open for everyone to see? I know that MS office reader software is prevalent in my workplace for the call center floor, and now this definitely presents an obstacle for using Google docs in our atmosphere. And to your second, I would agree that it is different.
Thank you for saying exactly what I said, with more filler. Hell, I was probably going to be lazy just post your first sentence word for word, but you just did that.
While you can only lead a horse to water, if you make the water taste good enough or hypnotize him so he doesn't even realize he is drinking... I learned almost everything I did in school so that I could teach the other kids so we could move on to something else because I was bored out of my mind studying the same thing over and over again! But I had a science teacher talk about smegma in high school and I was like WTF is up with this freak. Then I saw all of the questions from even the "cool" kids that day and I realized that HE got it and was a GREAT teacher.
And I was hoping for a big discussion on our election rights being stripped away, but this is how it ends. At the "hands" of a story about "Attractive Women Make Men Temporarily Stupid".
Ponca City, We love you, I can't say how much I hate you.
I have been wondering for some time if we can tie the value of a companies stock not to their perceived future value,but the perceived future value to the community.
It is a hallucinogen, as I have smoked it and experienced them. That or like they said above I imagined it.
But seriously, it does make things happen visually such as a faint snow and other effects. There are auditory effects as well. Hallucinations aren't always seeing something obviously out of place, like a dead friend talking to you.
They'll shoot that AR once a year, when they qual, and that is it.
I'm usually someone's guest at the SHOT show. In the five years I've been going the cop supply people have slowly merged to become indistinguishable from the military supply people, pitching SWAT level gear as indispensible for every beat cop out there. This is almost all pointless chest thumping. Most of that gear will never be used./end quote
Sure I would tend to agree with you, at first. But some do shoot it more than once. Probably even more then you think, if they own it. Especially in the south where I am. But regardless, if the scenario may arise where the equipment IS needed, then it is worth every penny. Should the scenario ever arise, then I would want those officers to feel as familiar with being the person responsible enough to bear those arms as they can (unlike this guy ). that if that time does come they need to act they are able to do so to the best of their ability. Next question, does chest thumping help? Well, my theory again is that in life one must be familiar with things. If getting hype allows your body to aim true when needed, then so be it. Sitting it on your mid cage or your trunk as a job required moving paperweight yea, but personally if it was my rifle, it would be my gun.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you need to read The Creature from Jekyll Island if you think everyone needs to tear up their credit cards.
Nonsense, it is a waste of resources and is illogical. He knows he is going to lose. If not, he is daft for sure.
And someone who, with deliberation and malice, stabs a person to death for monetary gain has demonstrated that there is something so fundamentally wrong with their sense of decency and compassion that I see no reason to ever trust them again.
No reason huh? I see a reason, they show no remorse and understanding. Lack of understanding is just ignorance.
So, lets us say that this person just happens to be able to do great things, and they also just happened to have a lapse of judgment and killed someone. The "common sense" or logical point of view would be to figure out how to actually rehabilitate the individual, otherwise society is worse off in the long run. This is due to missed opportunity of the person to contribute to society, and the cost of the penal and legal system.
Killers kill and people steal because they do not understand the damage that they do. They may see the outcome, but they are blind to the true total impact to family and society. If they were, and still did the crime, that would mean they truly didn't care and are therefore mentally ill. I feel often this is in fact the case, but I do not believe that drugs are not always the answer, but counseling. I would say I have been mentally ill myself, if but depression. Fortunately for me, society isn't so ill that I didn't turn into my cousins and friends and end up in jail. But then again my health gave me reason to think deeper, so perhaps I am just blessed.
I think you delude yourself to believe corruption is ok. It just isn't. For example, the people are now paying a fairer price for waste management. Why were they able to get it so cheaply before? I can't say for sure, but there IS an answer, and I would venture to say it could be as simple as the mafia was making enough money elsewhere and didn't want to rock the boat and stay beloved by customers. But someone was paying for it, and quite possibly with their livelihoods, life savings and/or lives.
(I don't think that capitalism is the only solution, but that is another argument where we may agree.)
I say forget them. I just quit my job of 5 1/2 years because I was tired of losing hair and eyesight due to the stress, without compensation that would have helped the stress. (Move to a bigger home that I need and get a second car going, etc.) I was worth 30% more according to my bosses boss, and with that I could have moved and fixed the car in about a month.
In my case, the employees (I was in middle management, also considered the most valuable job in the facility...) below me couldn't have done much to change things. But I still say that isn't totally true.
In this Russian cop's case, over a million people have watched this video, and they CAN do something about it. They just have to show that they are willing to die (as he has demonstrated) for the sake of future generations. I decided to quit my job, for the sake of future and current employees. Sure it is coming on our peak season, and me not being there will hurt, but if they can't compensate me then they will have to learn their lesson.
A terrible concept, so says you. While I agree that much of the video was marketing gimmicks, that is what it was supposed to be, marketing the idea to others. So what is wrong with that? The tech is more than cool, it goes along with several ideas that I have had that I just don't know how to implement. This could help out a lot. It's funny that they use toilet paper, because that is an example that I have had. Imagine if we combined Wolfram Alpha with data about all products and also combined with something like this. I could see that buying this product is better as it is "Made in America", or locally grown, or just last longer. American's buy $5 spatulas from Wal-Mart because they are cheaper, but it they knew at the time of purchase that the $10 one would last 3-5x longer, many would make the better choice. This can really help educate and empower Americans, as well as the world.
Why do we want to watch videos inside a web page? ... Now get off my lawn!
I don't think that many of us actually "want" to watch video in a browser. I think many of us would agree with you. While Youtube (as far as I am aware) still loses lots of money everyday, it is a vehicle to distribute content to the masses. The pros just can't be denied. Over time I think that we will begin to watch video in different ways as other options become viable and popular.
What about ambidextrous people. I'm just asking.
What about them, other than they obviously have too much "time"on their hands?
I have had visions of society using the tools that were given to us. We CAN find solutions, if we only try. We have to identify the problems accurately first, and then instead of excuses, seek the answer.
I just decided while researching a publish date on BarnesandNoble.com to look into the Nook, based on what I have read on Slashdot. (decided not to go to Books-A-Million even though one is in town, I guess just to change it up..) Maybe for the holidays.
The point is, people yearn for knowledge. That is real joy and pleasure, not wasting time pushing buttons... (Have been an avid Counter Strike player, since the betas.) It seems like we are now giving the people what they need as far as "apps".
Well they shouldn't be lax with anyone on this. But do you have specific examples where they have been unfair? Or a site that could show this? John's blog unfortunately seems quite sparse (though maybe his .plan would be a better source).
I agree that they shouldn't be "lax", but I feel that they should follow the spirit of the contest and make decisions to help execute the ultimate goal. Having said that, it should be done fairly, and to the letter. If not given extra time, and that is in the rules, that isn't really in the spirit.
I think that it may have been a good call, but only once the facts are out will it be truly known. If the rules were written with much forethought and righteousness, and the judges had righteous intentions, then the right call was made. Fact is, things happen. One "honest" mistake shouldn't fail you. So in your excitement you didn't see the kink in the fuel line (or whatever happened), I think that a good contest SHOULD overlook that.
While I whole heartedly believe in strictness and discipline, we can't allow ourselves to go overboard. That is not what the contest is about. It is to foster innovation. If you have a machine that will do the job, but a small mistake was made, then by all means try again. It's ok. The point is whether your machine can fly, and within the goals with a reasonable attempt. We aren't on the moon with it just yet.
In other words, it's about whether you can demonstrate you have won the fight, not whether you hit all 43 buttons to King's (Tekken) combo move without ever making a mistake.
Mod parent up.
I am in shock that we would even debate this. The judge is wrong, end of story. If you can't take the time to get familiar enough to make an adequate ruling, then you shouldn't be ruling on it. Why can't we challenge the courts ability to make an informed decision and for them to either learn the subject matter or get counsel who does know it?
You want to prevent piracy by altering parts to later attempt to prove it was pirated? Ok, do it. Then the pirates will just do the same and systematically substitute synonyms themselves in order to delude this technique. Sure it may not be perfect, but this sounds almost like a challenge by the industry. And you know what happens when you tempt hackers with an apple. As the saying goes, "Security through obscurity has never worked, and it never will." But I bet you can still market it to the drones who think they are paying for adequate technology. And if it reduces piracy out of sheer fear, and just gets people scared, then it is akin to "bad" publicity. Although it may be negative, it could still be considered successful.
stick their fingers in the dyke
Somehow I feel like we are the dykes, and apparently we seem to be loving it.
I am normally against this sort of thing. But I believe to win any argument, you just have to find out how to turn it around on them. Like the Transformers and G.I. Joe said, "Knowing is half the battle!" Once you figure out how to turn it around on them, execution is usually the easy part.
So, I have decided I am for this. But we must use this technology in government and in big business, lest we have another Enron, etc!
Obviously Texas lawmakers are unfamiliar with the legal principle "Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me!" If I post online that Cmdr Taco is a goat fucker, have I really "harmed" him or his reputation in any way? It's not slander unless a reasonable person would believe it to be true, and no rational person believes Taco actually dates outside his own species (unlike Captain Kirk).
Like OMG, you know that dude that started that weird techy website /., or something? Yea him.. Cmdr Paco, sorry Taco. Well anyway you wouldn't believe because I know I didn't, but this guy named Anonymous Coward said that nasty mother fucker's a goat fucker. Why would anyone want to fuck a goat, ya know, that shit is just sick as fuck. Yegghhscreeeuk
Ten minutes later... Yea Aldenissin said that Cmdr Taco is a muthering fucking goat fucker, like someone had pics or something he said. .. Of course it's true! You know they wouldn't believe it without pics or someone seen it! I'm not that stupid, but that shit is just fucking crazy, what sick people do.Blleechhh
As time goes by, the words gets out, embelishes get maginfied more and more, and before you know it, wait hold on a second.. OMG I just heard that of all people fucking Cmdr Taco, that slashdot dude is a fucking goat fucker! WTF!
I often see websites where I feel there is a hidden agenda other than to make me happy enjoying the content to make the website owners some money. But people get savvy over time.. and it will start to get obvious. One thing is for sure.. you can only do this at most a few times before individuals start to figure it out, or you have get a new pool every time. Unless, you are looking for possible even more real world scenarios where there are a lot of websites that are frauds...
Of course some firms that are looking for free hosting and does not understand the internet will object, as their 'private documents' now show up in searches. But this is just like some news organizations object that search engines index and link to content, or some lame firms object that people deep link. There are those that understand the technology, and those that choose to think technology does what they wish.
I do see this as different from the case of older versions of MS Windows automatically exposing documents on personal computers to the world. In that case there was an expectation for privacy. In this case there is not.
To your first point, the question I have is this, what is a company to do that has a private intranet and doesn't want a document that is "published" open for everyone to see? I know that MS office reader software is prevalent in my workplace for the call center floor, and now this definitely presents an obstacle for using Google docs in our atmosphere. And to your second, I would agree that it is different.
Thank you for saying exactly what I said, with more filler. Hell, I was probably going to be lazy just post your first sentence word for word, but you just did that.
No such thing bad student. Only bad teacher.
Mr. Miyagi, The Karate Kid
While you can only lead a horse to water, if you make the water taste good enough or hypnotize him so he doesn't even realize he is drinking... I learned almost everything I did in school so that I could teach the other kids so we could move on to something else because I was bored out of my mind studying the same thing over and over again! But I had a science teacher talk about smegma in high school and I was like WTF is up with this freak. Then I saw all of the questions from even the "cool" kids that day and I realized that HE got it and was a GREAT teacher.
And I was hoping for a big discussion on our election rights being stripped away, but this is how it ends. At the "hands" of a story about "Attractive Women Make Men Temporarily Stupid". Ponca City, We love you, I can't say how much I hate you.
I have been wondering for some time if we can tie the value of a companies stock not to their perceived future value,but the perceived future value to the community.
... NO good ISP does this, by definition.
Well mine does, and it is absolutely COMCASTIC! My turtle is now a much faster... turtle.
It is a hallucinogen, as I have smoked it and experienced them. That or like they said above I imagined it. But seriously, it does make things happen visually such as a faint snow and other effects. There are auditory effects as well. Hallucinations aren't always seeing something obviously out of place, like a dead friend talking to you.
They'll shoot that AR once a year, when they qual, and that is it. I'm usually someone's guest at the SHOT show. In the five years I've been going the cop supply people have slowly merged to become indistinguishable from the military supply people, pitching SWAT level gear as indispensible for every beat cop out there. This is almost all pointless chest thumping. Most of that gear will never be used. /end quote
Sure I would tend to agree with you, at first. But some do shoot it more than once. Probably even more then you think, if they own it. Especially in the south where I am. But regardless, if the scenario may arise where the equipment IS needed, then it is worth every penny. Should the scenario ever arise, then I would want those officers to feel as familiar with being the person responsible enough to bear those arms as they can (unlike this guy ). that if that time does come they need to act they are able to do so to the best of their ability. Next question, does chest thumping help? Well, my theory again is that in life one must be familiar with things. If getting hype allows your body to aim true when needed, then so be it. Sitting it on your mid cage or your trunk as a job required moving paperweight yea, but personally if it was my rifle, it would be my gun.