The truth is that the different races do have their tendencies, at least in physiology, and probably even to some small degree in personality. The "you can't have it both ways" post is appropriately contextualized and correct in this regard.
But as tendencies are tendencies rather than invariabilities, and since racist prejudgement is typically applied overbroadly, for the sake of devaluing humans, racism as it's generally conceived is a Bad Thing. Fearful, malevolent folks use the fact of racial tendency inappropriately (inaccurately) in the service of their learned fear (unfortunate formative incidents) and self-loathing (as poor self-esteem encourages in a bullying mindset -- racism is really a kind of bullying). With such "motivated cognition" (emotion-driving thinking, rationalizing, etc.), the subtle truths of racial difference are wielded as a perverse, bludgeoning tar brush.
What if one race tends to have better visual acuity? Or worse distance running? Or better procedural thinking? Or worse verbal ability? The real purpose behind everything is that we all have a good time, and that can be done totally despite these tendencies. The one thing that fucks it up for everyone is hatred of others.
Racists, quit being so fearful. Indeed, everyone, quit being so fearful. Because in your fear you become something dangerous. If you want to take action against the scary world, if you want to do something to fight the dangerousness, start with yourself.
The legal question that Obama (following in Bush's footsteps) is posing is this: does the Congress, through the FISA legislation, have the right to restrict the President's power, as Commander-in-Chief, to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance? It's really not as obvious a question as many people think.
I thought the crux of the hoopla (if I might use such a phrase) was that this was about domestic surveillance?
Yeah, it's interesting how news gives us a distorted perception of the world. Especially as we tend to focus on (and thus demand as consumers and thus encourage disproportionately) awful things.
Maybe the world isn't so evil as the news paints it?
You have my sincere sympathy for the pain that assholes have caused you. I went through a lot of bullying myself as a kid.
But don't be so bitter and blinded by rage that you confuse the concept of understanding someone's behavior with the concept of excusing someone's behavior. Refusing to try to understand because you're angry is yet another kind of psychological mistake. No quite on par with being an asshole to others because you were mistreated, but definitely starting down the same road.
Sometimes the roles peers play in promoting bullying is less marginal. Two bullies kick a kid to the ground and bystander peers, through a process of social contagion, join in, particularly if it's a kid they dislike. The group is empowered by the numbers, their individual responsibility diluted to the vanishing point.
The fundamentals of bullying are the same regardless of the variety of manifestations. Understand the underlying elements and it all makes better sense. It's not just about "someone with an anger issue". I recommend reading it again and paying closer attention.
This is "business" in the sense of "profit is the objective, morals are not factored in".
The more consumers accept this kind of attitude, the more they will get it.
You know, as it turns out, even from the perspective of pure profit, adhering to standards still makes sense. (To the degree that consumers have some brains.) You can build customer loyalty by proving yourself to be in a symbiotic relationship with them. Conversely, Microsoft has made me an adversary. Would I be so strongly opposed to using Microsoft products if doing so weren't evidently a way to force yourself to pay for upgrades, limit your options, increase interoperability cost, and basically add "thermal loss" to humanity's computing at large? And I would have to suffer these because Microsoft is trying to finagle profit. I don't accept excessive selfishness in my interpersonal relationships and I don't accept it in my business relationships either.
Build a good product, compete based on its merits. Don't leverage your dominance to screw your competition unfairly while subjecting all users to the crossfire.
No, really, guys, is it something that can be taught? Or is it more like having the knack for programming in the first place? Like having the cleverness to come up with certain algorithms? If you can describe it well enough that you end up with something... that... can... I bet... you end up with a program? Um, Purify? Valgrind? I'm not a programmer, but I think those only go so far, right? So we don't have the knowledge in question codified, I bet, so I suppose there may also be some challenge in trying to train others in it.
Ah, I'm a dumbass and should just RTFA. Sorry.
Okay.
Dumb fuzzing? Is that what I think it is? And, so the vendors are dumb fuzzing but not as successfully as he? Hm. Maybe it's just a matter of giving some pointers. I imagine withholding the bugs will get the vendors' attentions. I love how this is a David -> Goliath spanking.
I felt that the bold claim that "Marijuana actually IS a gateway drug" needed some backing up. That sort of thing you can actually study to some degree. And it's been studied. So far science does not agree that marijuana IS a gateway drug. Tobacco has higher correlation to harder drug use.
Also, "the people who sell pot usually also sell cocaine and other illegal drugs" hasn't been my experience. But I can believe that experience will vary widely. I live in northern California -- that probably makes a difference.
"And for what overlap there is between harder drugs and marijuana, I might suggest that it's not the pot dealers who sell cocaine, but the cocaine dealers who sell pot."
The difference is in the drug. Marijuana isn't as harmful as coke, and many pot dealers know this. Many won't sell coke because it's a dangerous drug. But if you're already selling coke, selling marijuana isn't a problem. Thus it's mostly cocaine dealers selling marijuana, not the other way around.
My point is that if you legalize it, regulate it, and sell it where you sell alcohol and tobacco with the same strict regulations, the social problems go away.
I agree that legalization would make the situation worlds better. By now anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass recognizes that prohibition of relatively harmless substances causes serious trouble. (For reference on relatively harmless:.)
I don't know that selling it "where you sell alcohol and tobacco" is ideal, but it would be the natural thing. Alcohol is harmful and tobacco we mentioned earlier... "Studies have shown that tobacco smoking is a better predictor of concurrent illicit hard drug use than smoking cannabis.[84]"
If you're getting adulterated herb, your market is seriously screwed up. Which, yes, is a product of prohibition. I forgot how good we have it here in Norcal.
It's an interesting progress to watch. (Could have been a dismaying progress, if it were going the other direction.) Marijuana is becoming more legal and nicotine is becoming less legal (via taxation). Almost as if law were trying to match up with that relative harm graph.
A study published by the National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet.[44] A recent study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 schoolchildren before and after replacing their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet.
Maybe you're not so concerned about farm workers' health, but evidently conventional produce has implications even for your health. Om nom nom.
Maybe there's a better way for me to have said it. I was trying to say "move towards more localness" not "be perfectly and completely local".
I wasn't suggesting you throw away anything that's Chinese made. The only thing you have to do is, when you consume, take the more local option more frequently.
If you tried to eliminate every last bit of Chinese-made goods to achieve a kind of perfection, you would just fail. So if your goal were to be perfectly local, you wouldn't even try, you wouldn't even make any beneficial progress. Which is why the subject of the message was "perfect is the enemy of the good".
Slashdot Mirror
The world really isn't as evil a place as some think it is. And it's not really the "evil" monkeys we need to be afraid of, it's the fearful ones.
The world would be a less dangerous place if folks could stop being such hair-trigger fearmonkeys.
The truth is that the different races do have their tendencies, at least in physiology, and probably even to some small degree in personality. The "you can't have it both ways" post is appropriately contextualized and correct in this regard.
But as tendencies are tendencies rather than invariabilities, and since racist prejudgement is typically applied overbroadly, for the sake of devaluing humans, racism as it's generally conceived is a Bad Thing. Fearful, malevolent folks use the fact of racial tendency inappropriately (inaccurately) in the service of their learned fear (unfortunate formative incidents) and self-loathing (as poor self-esteem encourages in a bullying mindset -- racism is really a kind of bullying). With such "motivated cognition" (emotion-driving thinking, rationalizing, etc.), the subtle truths of racial difference are wielded as a perverse, bludgeoning tar brush.
What if one race tends to have better visual acuity? Or worse distance running? Or better procedural thinking? Or worse verbal ability? The real purpose behind everything is that we all have a good time, and that can be done totally despite these tendencies. The one thing that fucks it up for everyone is hatred of others.
Racists, quit being so fearful. Indeed, everyone, quit being so fearful. Because in your fear you become something dangerous. If you want to take action against the scary world, if you want to do something to fight the dangerousness, start with yourself.
# #######
### # #
# # #
# #
# # #
### # #
# #######
OMG.
The legal question that Obama (following in Bush's footsteps) is posing is this: does the Congress, through the FISA legislation, have the right to restrict the President's power, as Commander-in-Chief, to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance? It's really not as obvious a question as many people think.
I thought the crux of the hoopla (if I might use such a phrase) was that this was about domestic surveillance?
Absolutely, Preference Voting of some kind would go a long way.
Though this warning could be more forcefully worded, and not subject to equivocation / showing-up by the perpetrator's text.
http://didierstevens.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/20100329-211313.png
You never did care about that last little cow, huh? After all she did for you?
Might as well burn down the barn while you're at it.
/F <<
/DOS (C:\\\\WINDOWS\\\\system32\\\\calc.exe)
/Unix (/usr/X11R6/bin/xcalc)
/Mac (/Applications/Calculator.app)
/TheAnswerIs (yeah\\\\i/think\\\\so)
>>
/S
>>
Ah, enlightening rhetoric.
Yeah, it's interesting how news gives us a distorted perception of the world. Especially as we tend to focus on (and thus demand as consumers and thus encourage disproportionately) awful things.
Maybe the world isn't so evil as the news paints it?
"No details! Just bad! Bad!"
You have my sincere sympathy for the pain that assholes have caused you. I went through a lot of bullying myself as a kid.
But don't be so bitter and blinded by rage that you confuse the concept of understanding someone's behavior with the concept of excusing someone's behavior. Refusing to try to understand because you're angry is yet another kind of psychological mistake. No quite on par with being an asshole to others because you were mistreated, but definitely starting down the same road.
Yes, there are other psychological problems that can make bullying worse, but bullying is its own phenomenon to begin with.
Conformity, obedience to authority, diffusion of responsibility / bystander effect, anonymity-enabled disinhibition or belittling ("it's just a game"), group mentality... these complicate or exacerbate more fundamental psychological problems.
Did you miss this part?
Sometimes the roles peers play in promoting bullying is less marginal. Two bullies kick a kid to the ground and bystander peers, through a process of social contagion, join in, particularly if it's a kid they dislike. The group is empowered by the numbers, their individual responsibility diluted to the vanishing point.
The fundamentals of bullying are the same regardless of the variety of manifestations. Understand the underlying elements and it all makes better sense. It's not just about "someone with an anger issue". I recommend reading it again and paying closer attention.
People acting like assholes happens for actual reasons. Don't wave away the effort of figuring it out. That will just make you less able to cope.
Want insight? Here's a great starter: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/big-bad-bully
Two orders of magnitude is not 20x, it's 100x.
And for non-intensive applications, that's still fine.
And SQLite isn't actually that slow anyway. It's comparable.
This is "business" in the sense of "profit is the objective, morals are not factored in".
The more consumers accept this kind of attitude, the more they will get it.
You know, as it turns out, even from the perspective of pure profit, adhering to standards still makes sense. (To the degree that consumers have some brains.) You can build customer loyalty by proving yourself to be in a symbiotic relationship with them. Conversely, Microsoft has made me an adversary. Would I be so strongly opposed to using Microsoft products if doing so weren't evidently a way to force yourself to pay for upgrades, limit your options, increase interoperability cost, and basically add "thermal loss" to humanity's computing at large? And I would have to suffer these because Microsoft is trying to finagle profit. I don't accept excessive selfishness in my interpersonal relationships and I don't accept it in my business relationships either.
Build a good product, compete based on its merits. Don't leverage your dominance to screw your competition unfairly while subjecting all users to the crossfire.
"But they did it, too..." is never an excuse for misbehavior.
Anyone tuned in to what was going on in the early days knows that Netscape was behaving badly, too. They don't get a free pass to be assholes either.
And folks were incredulous of the feasibility of banks handing out even just web certificates...
I guess once you've hurdled the barrier of handing someone an object, there's a lot of opportunity.
Hibernate works pretty well here. Not too slow if I don't have much loaded in memory.
The boot sequence has what I think is an awful BIOS POST lag, but something tells me that's going to shorten over time.
Hm. We should probably pressure manufacturers by desiring quick boots; using boot time as a criterion with motherboards we're considering.
Heh.
Huh... that's somehow reminiscent of GoDaddy. That's funny. ... Uh...
Bob Parsons is Darth Vader!? Aw, come on...! You know Bob's a sensitive guy, you can tell from how he looks in all those headshots.
Oh. So is Darth...
Hear hear! You're doing what you can, don't sweat perfection. Encourage your friends to Buy American.
Oh shit, did I just say that out loud?
No, really, guys, is it something that can be taught? Or is it more like having the knack for programming in the first place? Like having the cleverness to come up with certain algorithms? If you can describe it well enough that you end up with something ... that ... can ... I bet ... you end up with a program? Um, Purify? Valgrind? I'm not a programmer, but I think those only go so far, right? So we don't have the knowledge in question codified, I bet, so I suppose there may also be some challenge in trying to train others in it.
Ah, I'm a dumbass and should just RTFA. Sorry.
Okay.
Dumb fuzzing? Is that what I think it is? And, so the vendors are dumb fuzzing but not as successfully as he? Hm. Maybe it's just a matter of giving some pointers. I imagine withholding the bugs will get the vendors' attentions. I love how this is a David -> Goliath spanking.
Look, I found a virtual Wikipedia article on dumb fuzzing, but it wasn't at Wikipedia. It was at one of those homegrown security outfits. ("Fuzzing for Fun and Profit", Jeremy Brown (rush).)
Instead Charlie Miller will show the vendors how to find the bugs themselves.
Well, there's an idea. Is it something that really can be taught?
I felt that the bold claim that "Marijuana actually IS a gateway drug" needed some backing up. That sort of thing you can actually study to some degree. And it's been studied. So far science does not agree that marijuana IS a gateway drug. Tobacco has higher correlation to harder drug use.
Also, "the people who sell pot usually also sell cocaine and other illegal drugs" hasn't been my experience. But I can believe that experience will vary widely. I live in northern California -- that probably makes a difference.
"And for what overlap there is between harder drugs and marijuana, I might suggest that it's not the pot dealers who sell cocaine, but the cocaine dealers who sell pot."
The difference is in the drug. Marijuana isn't as harmful as coke, and many pot dealers know this. Many won't sell coke because it's a dangerous drug. But if you're already selling coke, selling marijuana isn't a problem. Thus it's mostly cocaine dealers selling marijuana, not the other way around.
My point is that if you legalize it, regulate it, and sell it where you sell alcohol and tobacco with the same strict regulations, the social problems go away.
I agree that legalization would make the situation worlds better. By now anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass recognizes that prohibition of relatively harmless substances causes serious trouble. (For reference on relatively harmless:.)
I don't know that selling it "where you sell alcohol and tobacco" is ideal, but it would be the natural thing. Alcohol is harmful and tobacco we mentioned earlier... "Studies have shown that tobacco smoking is a better predictor of concurrent illicit hard drug use than smoking cannabis.[84]"
If you're getting adulterated herb, your market is seriously screwed up. Which, yes, is a product of prohibition. I forgot how good we have it here in Norcal.
It's an interesting progress to watch. (Could have been a dismaying progress, if it were going the other direction.) Marijuana is becoming more legal and nicotine is becoming less legal (via taxation). Almost as if law were trying to match up with that relative harm graph.
Items that are no better?
A study published in 2002 showed that "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Pesticide_residue
A study published by the National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet.[44] A recent study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 schoolchildren before and after replacing their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet.
Maybe you're not so concerned about farm workers' health, but evidently conventional produce has implications even for your health. Om nom nom.
Maybe there's a better way for me to have said it. I was trying to say "move towards more localness" not "be perfectly and completely local".
I wasn't suggesting you throw away anything that's Chinese made. The only thing you have to do is, when you consume, take the more local option more frequently.
If you tried to eliminate every last bit of Chinese-made goods to achieve a kind of perfection, you would just fail. So if your goal were to be perfectly local, you wouldn't even try, you wouldn't even make any beneficial progress. Which is why the subject of the message was "perfect is the enemy of the good".