Ok, look first of all, we're both going to agree on a few things. 1) Gun ownership is (in general) legal in the United States (given some regulation). 2) The Second Amendment guarantees that right. 3) The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. 4) The Founding Fathers held that the Second Amendment was to secure all our other rights.
Now, we will potentially diverge. Relying upon the Founding Father's intentions is an appeal to authority. The Founding Fathers also codified slavery into the actual document of the Constitution. Does that make slavery automatically ok? Or is it that prior contexts may have changed the facts as they are now.
Culture evolves. That something was permissible before, does not mean that it is or should be permissible now.
Now, here's a huge shocker for you. Just like California banned what was otherwise legal gay marriage with Proposition 8, modern politicians can take away your right to bear arms with an Amendment to the Constitution. And the only thing you could do about it, is hole up in a cave somewhere, and try and fight back.
I am not talking about the Police here. I'm talking about the Police, and the Military. Believe me, if a revolutionary movement were to begin waging war against the United States, the first thing that would happen, is that the Military would get involved.
You might remember that there was a few states that attempted to rebel against the nation, and secure their interests with their second amendment rights, and they lost.
This idea that the 2nd Amendment secures all your other rights was true at the time of the Founding Fathers, however by the fundamental force of war, the United States has already proved in the Civil War, that your 2nd Amendment rights do not secure your other rights.
In a modern society, we have better answers than violence. As a civilized individual, I will note that our "Right to Redress our Grievances" and in layman's parlance, our Right to Sue our Government, secures all of our other rights.
Fundamentally, if it comes down to such a systematic failure of government, that we need take up arms in order to throw off our oppressors, that guns are illegal shall make no difference as to our success or failure. It is rather our drive and determination to overthrow the government, that will bear out us obtaining any and all armament that we need, legal or otherwise, in order to secure our rights anew.
The legal protection of rights makes no sense, unless those rights can be secured through non-violence and non-revolutionary means, because those methods are already illegal. The government cannot physically or possibly take away our ability to revolt; that they can make it illegal is meaningless, because we would still have the ability to do so.
Every government is founded upon alternatively placating, or subduing the people over whom they exert power. England banned the colonists from owning guns, and shot rebels by summary execution, and on the battlefield. However, we still won.
To allude to the mini-series "Shougun", there is no justification for a servant to rise up against his master... that is, unless he wins.
Saddam was brought to justice through military force. Once his power was removed from him, who cared that he held that it was illegal for his guards to hold him, and bear arms against him... he was after all, now powerless to effect any legal consequence for breaking his laws.
I actually don't hate guns... you're simply making assumptions.
What I'm saying is that the gun-death rate of America is high for reasons other than us simply having guns.
As well, I'm saying that police and our military are far better equipped for combat than an armed citizen. An armed citizen attempting to protect his rights with guns against the government will run into typically better trained individuals, who have far more backup. An armed citizen protecting his rights from the government faces a 50 thousand-some to one odds of actual success.
Thus, my point is that even though at the founding of this country, some people may have envisioned the 2nd amendment to secure all of our other rights, the truth of the matter, especially in this day and age is that this argument flatly fails.
Muslims in French ghettos proved that you don't need guns to lead an uprising against the government.
The American culture contains guns, and that's just a fact, and it's neither good, nor bad. It simply is. However, attempting to make a justification for it, rather than simply "it's our culture" is bound to fail, because there is no logical justification for private gun ownership... it simply is.
So, spend less time arguing with someone who isn't trying to take away your guns, just because they disagree that there is no logical justification for private gun ownership. Because you're not dealing with an idiot, you're not dealing with a strawman here, I even have a copy of the application for a concealed weapon permit for my state, and I wonder if my particular situation would be better served if I had a gun to protect myself from the various crazies of my in-laws, who committed burglary, robbery, and theft against me.
The difference between you and I, is that I know that the availability of guns to me is based on cultural standards, and not for some deeper or more meaningful reason. They are simply there. Like forks and knives instead of chopsticks.
My roommate is more or less addicted to WoW, but at least she has a job, and gets out, and so it doesn't consume her life.
Even still, when the last patch came out, something changed, and it broke her firewall exceptions, and blocked her out of the game. Her solution was to entirely reinstall everything from her computer.
Not because power-users reinstall every month, not because it would increase the performance of her machine, not because of anything like that. Rather, solely and singularly because she couldn't play her WoW.
Noted below, "Poker machines and MMOs are very similar", it's totally true. There is a gambling addiction, and if such a behavioral addiction exists, then MMO addiction must exist as well.
This actually sounds like a good idea, we were already planning on doing this after the exams finish, but I'll make sure it happens this time.
I'm fairly sure any interaction with women would cure him as well, just gotta get him drunk enough and in the right club...
I don't know how well this would work for guys. However, I have a friend, and she's not interested in going out to clubs and meeting guys, even though I'm constantly going on dates.
It might be because she has a boyfriend in wow, and has a fulfilling relationship that way already. Sure she would enjoy his physical comfort, but as long as she has her Hitachi Magic Wand...
Waco, Texas. Citizens upset with the way the government were doing things, collected guns, and defended themselves.
The result? The US government went in with bigger guns.
This idea that our 2nd amendment rights secure all of our other rights is ludicrous. Bearing arms against the police to protect against an illegal search and seizure will get you gunned down.
An armed citizen is on average, inexperienced, poorly trained, and generally unwilling to use force of arms against another.
The army must train soldiers to shoot at human-shaped silhouettes by instinct, in order to ensure them the best odds of actually shooting when the need arises.
Police and bodyguards are often trained on human-appearing targets, so that by instinct, they will shot at one when the need arises.
The idea that armed citizens protect our rights against our government is lunacy. It is however, American culture, and again, the reason why we cannot simply ban guns here in the US.
Culture and Mass hysteria are only a few degrees off from each other.
Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!!
That's not actually true. It's something a gun supporter made up and has been repeated by gun nuts ever since. Check the stats - it's just not true.
I read it from a Newspaper article... which I will grant, is not necessarily all that reliable. However, my intent is not to support gun ownership in any way.
It was simply intended to demonstrate the massive disparity of gun-deaths in Australia vs the US...
I think you will agree that Australia has much less gun deaths than the US...
While your assertion that individualism is a bad thing is quite debatable, Americans are still friendlier and more socially stable than socialist European states where riots are normal.
It is debatable, I agree. However, your assertion that Americans are friendlier and more socially stable is also debatable.
I would say the high gun-homicide rates would indicate that Americans actually are less socially stable.
Plus, "rude" and "friendly" is relative to the community. My American father was in Belgium, and tried to started up a conversation with two girls in the elevator of a hospital. I was entirely embarrassed, because in their culture, this was not appropriate behavior.
People in Europe push their way through crowds, and are less concerned with being "nice" to other people, because in the crowded situations that you find yourself in, if you followed the American attitude, of "be nice", you would never get to your destination. The same thing happens in New York, and any other big city, where overcrowding is a big deal.
Individual liberty (or "individualistic" for the "it takes a village" crowd) is the hallmark of American society. Was it always practiced fairly? No. Is it essential to the continuation of this great nation? Yes.
Yes, exactly. We can't get rid of guns in the United States because it's part of our culture. Also, we have more rights than only those explicitly enumerated in the amendments to the Constitution.
Please tell me, why did the homicide rate (gun-related) in Australia tripled AFTER the ban was initiated? Please enlighten me on your logic for that little tidbit. Either you had a stroke halfway through your post or you really don't understand what that statistic means for your argument.
The reason for the gain is not significant. The point is that their rate tripled, and was still significantly lower than ours. This was intended solely to indicate the relative levels of gun deaths in Australia as compared the the United States.
I completely accept that there might be a "doomsday" like scenario that the fundies would point out, that the ban on guns resulted in citizens being unable to defend themselves, and thus increases in gun deaths.
However, the reason for the gun death increase has no relevance to my argument... as well, it would just be a speculation on my part. This is why it was not included.
If anything, the majority of problems in our country stem from the sense of entitlement that people like you spout off about. Nobody owes you anything, so get off your high horse. It's nobody else' job to wipe your ass so quit expecting others to do so for you.
ZOMG! I didn't know that I wasn't owed a public education. Do you know why we have public education? To make the world fair.
I'm sorry, but we're talking about a country that feels that the education of its citizens is important enough to force everyone to foot the bill for everyone else, yet doesn't believe that their citizen's HEALTH is important enough to also foot the bill for.
Plus, I'm trying to think here... I'm complaining that Americans are selfish, and you're trying refute that by saying that my health isn't your problem?
Grow some responsibility to your fellow human being.
What disgusts me most, is that I seem to care more for my fellow human beings despite being an atheist than many Christians who preach "love thy neighbor as you would love yourself."
Right, as my name is "snowgirl" I certainly should be addressed as "sir", and plus, my sig says: "Don't read her posts. She is a man-hating feminazi troll."
Take this as another example. Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!! Yet, they were still well below half of the US firearm homocide rate.
US citizens have a mentality and a culture of "if I don't get caught", and an idea of a lack of responsibility to others. This is what caused the financial meltdown, this is what causes our murder rate to be so high, and this is why we're the only first world nation to not have social healthcare (or maybe we're one of two... has Israel implemented social healthcare yet?)
"Merica" is just too bat-shit crazy individualistic. Who gives a crap about anyone else, as long as I get my guns to shoot people whom I don't like.
I've been working with some civil cases, and this seems to happen a lot with particularly unethical clients.
We had a settlement agreement made in court, in front of a judge, and yet the other party still seems to think that offer+acceptance does not a contract make. So, they've tried to enhance the deal a ton, but we're not having any of it.
Of course, this is he same person who broke into my house in order to steal my briefcase full of evidence against him... ah, what a lovely world we live in... if it's not "yah uh" and "nuh uh" on both sides, it's one side clearly in the right, and the other pulls some petty immature bs to get their way.
When I tell people about the situation, they typically respond, "I find it hard to believe that you're dealing with adults."
Arguments and settlements progress very little beyond the childish ways of tattletales, etc. The court just gives an official air to the whole process.
And since the sum of all the numbers in winning lotto numbers is fairly constant, you should always look for that number, and then always bet on a number sequence that adds up to that!... time reports are reasonably presumed to be randomly distributed. I would not expect them to behave according to Benford's Law.
The whole of mathematics is really just a language of form and structure, a system to systematize and decribe structure and forms (relationships are a type of form).
The whole of mathematics is really just a language of form and structure, a system to systematize and decribe structure and forms (relationships are a type of form).
There was a plagiarism detection system that I actually learned a bit about. The process used latent-semantic analysis. Oddly enough, it was capable of detecting plagiarism even when the person had paraphrased everything, because it actually used huge mathematical matrices to assign semantic meaning to words. It was therefore capable of distinguishing variations of words, not just words themselves.
The method also way an automatic grading system, because it was capable of telling if the student was using words consistently with source texts (too "consistent" and it registered as plagiarism).
The most interesting analysis that I read spoke about two methods for cheating the system. If one knew the field incredibly well, one could construct a bogus text that would be graded well. However, by far, the easiest way to cheat the system, was simply to write a good paper. After all, if in order to produce a bad paper with a good grade one had to understand the topic better than if one were to write a good paper... then such a person deserves an A!!!
The project was called "Plowshare" from the old notion of "Swords to Plowshares". They wanted to see what other uses they could use nuclear weapons for.
The fact that someone would still attempt to propose that we could use nuclear weapons to create artificial water ways is just down right stupid, not because it's obvious, but rather because we already have actual empirical evidence that it would be a Bad Thing(TM).
My dad worked as an engineer for Sandia National Labs, and got involved in, or knew a lot about a ton of really cool projects, like Project Tempest, and Project Plowshare. He also clued me in about how our nuclear weapons are transported for safety... trust me, no one is going to be able to take them... unless some idiot doesn't follow protocol.
It is a wonderfully working system with little need to change, the real change is required of those entering it and realizing that their technical knowledge does not impart superiority over those who out rank them.
No, it doesn't. But their technical knowledge won't be communicated to a person of higher rank who doesn't keep the door open to constructive criticism and ideas. The same problems that plague corporate america and any large bureauacracy plague the military: And that is that the people who are on the front-lines, working the problem, don't have an open line of communication along the chain of command. Decisions flow from top to bottom, but information flows from bottom to top -- and that flow of information is easily and readily obstructed simply because it's human nature to not reveal when things are going badly, or that the plan that came down isn't workable, etc. It's like the telephone game, only instead of passing the message once, it has to be passed on twice -- once up, once down. Is it any surprise that there are major faults?
Enlightenment. I remember running into walls and barriers all the time from my boss, who eventually ran me out of the company, because I was clear about situations, and passed on detailed information.
He didn't want me to do that... he wanted us to keep our group's faults secret. It's funny that they hired me knowing my F/OSS experience and specifically asked me to speak up if I thought things could be done better... and then I get drummed out because I implemented the F/OSS "sin" of being honest and open...
My friend's response was "You're so lucky, you work with nerds out in the open. All I have around here are a bunch of closet ninja nerds!" He went on to say that if you're a nerd in the army it's generally better not to show it.
If you flaunt it like sliced bread has nothing on you, yea, you're going to get treated like a prick.
Well, neglecting for a second that someone acting that way actually is a prick... Isn't that kind of what the geek culture breeds "by hivemind", as was well analogized above?
I mean think about it, geek culture is based on a lot of the same "machismo" ideas that any male-dominated culture is based on... egotism, and penis-length competitions...
N.B.: Please consult my sig before you claim that I'm a man-hating fem-nazi... I already know your opinion, and I don't care, and in many ways, I agree.
Bluetooth doesn't use WEP, does it? I thought WEP was only for wlans.
This is true... however the idea that the original WLAN encryption was stated to be "wired equivalent", and ended up actually being super weak... from this it kind of suggests that "wired equivalent" isn't a very strong transmission security in the first place.
The idea here is that only when transmissions are made explicitly for communication do many people even think about the security of those transmissions. I mean... who would think to encrypt keyboard input data from a wired keyboard to the computer? We only think of information as traveling along established lines, however we forget constantly that information is leaked...
A lesson for everyone here I think is to be aware that all transmission methods are insecure.
This is exactly why I do all my typing with my mouse on an on-screen virtual keyboard. It's much faster too.
On a serious note, it is ironic that literally broadcasting a bluetooth signal over-the-air between a wireless keyboard and computer is apparently more secure than a hardwired keyboard.
Well, it makes sense... after all, WEP is "Wired Equivalent Protection"... It's only when we're actually paying attention that this information is floating out into space that people really seem to notice or care that there are security issues.
No, legal terms have legislated meanings, ad you don't get to make them up as you go along. Googling someone to see if they're a Nazi child molester on the no-fly list is perfectly legal, and as a hiring manager, you can bet I'm going to keep doing it.
If they are a child molester, then that would be found in a criminal record. And that's perfectly legal to get.
If they're a Nazi? Do you really think that this is something that you wouldn't be able to evaluate in a face-to-face interview?
Being on the no-fly list? Unless they're going to be doing a lot of travel for your company, is there a reason why this is a valid reason to deny them employment? I won't deny it would be legal, but is there really any reason to correlate them being on a secret federal no-fly list that is assessed without any oversight by a legal authority and being a bad worker?
Lastly. Here's the biggest problem I see with people searching for people outside of the interview... You interview Mr. Johnson, and you're generally pleased with what kind of a worker he is, but you search him up on the internet, and you find out that he likes to go out and party all night, but you also find out that he is of Jewish decent.
Congratulations, you just stepped into a huge tar pit. Just by knowing that he is of Jewish decent, you have introduced a potentially illegal bias. Not only that, but you've subjected yourself to such an illegal bias, that practicing Jews are legally allowed to state that they are capable of working hours that they would be unable to work because of religious requirements.
I'm sorry, but the liability from looking someone up on the internet and obtaining information that you're not permitted to use in evaluating them for hiring far outweighs the benefits of finding out about their non-work-related interests.
What protections are there for people who are in high-discrimination categories? A lot of people completely forget about this, because duh... people discriminate against people for this stuff.
As a final for instance in discrimination, a person applies for a job, the hiring manager looks them up online, and POW! They're gay. That hiring manage denies them for work. "Well, you're better off not working for that person." People say this, but what it comes down to is "the grapes are too sour." No, the grapes aren't too sour, you can't even GET to those grapes. Coming up with a reason to justify someone else's discriminatory hiring processes is [i]wrong[/i], and this has been known at least as long as Aesop had his fables recorded.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, look first of all, we're both going to agree on a few things. 1) Gun ownership is (in general) legal in the United States (given some regulation). 2) The Second Amendment guarantees that right. 3) The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. 4) The Founding Fathers held that the Second Amendment was to secure all our other rights.
Now, we will potentially diverge. Relying upon the Founding Father's intentions is an appeal to authority. The Founding Fathers also codified slavery into the actual document of the Constitution. Does that make slavery automatically ok? Or is it that prior contexts may have changed the facts as they are now.
Culture evolves. That something was permissible before, does not mean that it is or should be permissible now.
Now, here's a huge shocker for you. Just like California banned what was otherwise legal gay marriage with Proposition 8, modern politicians can take away your right to bear arms with an Amendment to the Constitution. And the only thing you could do about it, is hole up in a cave somewhere, and try and fight back.
I am not talking about the Police here. I'm talking about the Police, and the Military. Believe me, if a revolutionary movement were to begin waging war against the United States, the first thing that would happen, is that the Military would get involved.
You might remember that there was a few states that attempted to rebel against the nation, and secure their interests with their second amendment rights, and they lost.
This idea that the 2nd Amendment secures all your other rights was true at the time of the Founding Fathers, however by the fundamental force of war, the United States has already proved in the Civil War, that your 2nd Amendment rights do not secure your other rights.
In a modern society, we have better answers than violence. As a civilized individual, I will note that our "Right to Redress our Grievances" and in layman's parlance, our Right to Sue our Government, secures all of our other rights.
Fundamentally, if it comes down to such a systematic failure of government, that we need take up arms in order to throw off our oppressors, that guns are illegal shall make no difference as to our success or failure. It is rather our drive and determination to overthrow the government, that will bear out us obtaining any and all armament that we need, legal or otherwise, in order to secure our rights anew.
The legal protection of rights makes no sense, unless those rights can be secured through non-violence and non-revolutionary means, because those methods are already illegal. The government cannot physically or possibly take away our ability to revolt; that they can make it illegal is meaningless, because we would still have the ability to do so.
Every government is founded upon alternatively placating, or subduing the people over whom they exert power. England banned the colonists from owning guns, and shot rebels by summary execution, and on the battlefield. However, we still won.
To allude to the mini-series "Shougun", there is no justification for a servant to rise up against his master... that is, unless he wins.
Saddam was brought to justice through military force. Once his power was removed from him, who cared that he held that it was illegal for his guards to hold him, and bear arms against him... he was after all, now powerless to effect any legal consequence for breaking his laws.
I actually don't hate guns... you're simply making assumptions.
What I'm saying is that the gun-death rate of America is high for reasons other than us simply having guns.
As well, I'm saying that police and our military are far better equipped for combat than an armed citizen. An armed citizen attempting to protect his rights with guns against the government will run into typically better trained individuals, who have far more backup. An armed citizen protecting his rights from the government faces a 50 thousand-some to one odds of actual success.
Thus, my point is that even though at the founding of this country, some people may have envisioned the 2nd amendment to secure all of our other rights, the truth of the matter, especially in this day and age is that this argument flatly fails.
Muslims in French ghettos proved that you don't need guns to lead an uprising against the government.
The American culture contains guns, and that's just a fact, and it's neither good, nor bad. It simply is. However, attempting to make a justification for it, rather than simply "it's our culture" is bound to fail, because there is no logical justification for private gun ownership... it simply is.
So, spend less time arguing with someone who isn't trying to take away your guns, just because they disagree that there is no logical justification for private gun ownership. Because you're not dealing with an idiot, you're not dealing with a strawman here, I even have a copy of the application for a concealed weapon permit for my state, and I wonder if my particular situation would be better served if I had a gun to protect myself from the various crazies of my in-laws, who committed burglary, robbery, and theft against me.
The difference between you and I, is that I know that the availability of guns to me is based on cultural standards, and not for some deeper or more meaningful reason. They are simply there. Like forks and knives instead of chopsticks.
My roommate is more or less addicted to WoW, but at least she has a job, and gets out, and so it doesn't consume her life.
Even still, when the last patch came out, something changed, and it broke her firewall exceptions, and blocked her out of the game. Her solution was to entirely reinstall everything from her computer.
Not because power-users reinstall every month, not because it would increase the performance of her machine, not because of anything like that. Rather, solely and singularly because she couldn't play her WoW.
Noted below, "Poker machines and MMOs are very similar", it's totally true. There is a gambling addiction, and if such a behavioral addiction exists, then MMO addiction must exist as well.
This actually sounds like a good idea, we were already planning on doing this after the exams finish, but I'll make sure it happens this time.
I'm fairly sure any interaction with women would cure him as well, just gotta get him drunk enough and in the right club...
I don't know how well this would work for guys. However, I have a friend, and she's not interested in going out to clubs and meeting guys, even though I'm constantly going on dates.
It might be because she has a boyfriend in wow, and has a fulfilling relationship that way already. Sure she would enjoy his physical comfort, but as long as she has her Hitachi Magic Wand...
Waco, Texas. Citizens upset with the way the government were doing things, collected guns, and defended themselves.
The result? The US government went in with bigger guns.
This idea that our 2nd amendment rights secure all of our other rights is ludicrous. Bearing arms against the police to protect against an illegal search and seizure will get you gunned down.
An armed citizen is on average, inexperienced, poorly trained, and generally unwilling to use force of arms against another.
The army must train soldiers to shoot at human-shaped silhouettes by instinct, in order to ensure them the best odds of actually shooting when the need arises.
Police and bodyguards are often trained on human-appearing targets, so that by instinct, they will shot at one when the need arises.
The idea that armed citizens protect our rights against our government is lunacy. It is however, American culture, and again, the reason why we cannot simply ban guns here in the US.
Culture and Mass hysteria are only a few degrees off from each other.
Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!!
That's not actually true. It's something a gun supporter made up and has been repeated by gun nuts ever since. Check the stats - it's just not true.
I read it from a Newspaper article... which I will grant, is not necessarily all that reliable. However, my intent is not to support gun ownership in any way.
It was simply intended to demonstrate the massive disparity of gun-deaths in Australia vs the US...
I think you will agree that Australia has much less gun deaths than the US...
While your assertion that individualism is a bad thing is quite debatable, Americans are still friendlier and more socially stable than socialist European states where riots are normal.
It is debatable, I agree. However, your assertion that Americans are friendlier and more socially stable is also debatable.
I would say the high gun-homicide rates would indicate that Americans actually are less socially stable.
Plus, "rude" and "friendly" is relative to the community. My American father was in Belgium, and tried to started up a conversation with two girls in the elevator of a hospital. I was entirely embarrassed, because in their culture, this was not appropriate behavior.
People in Europe push their way through crowds, and are less concerned with being "nice" to other people, because in the crowded situations that you find yourself in, if you followed the American attitude, of "be nice", you would never get to your destination. The same thing happens in New York, and any other big city, where overcrowding is a big deal.
Individual liberty (or "individualistic" for the "it takes a village" crowd) is the hallmark of American society. Was it always practiced fairly? No. Is it essential to the continuation of this great nation? Yes.
Yes, exactly. We can't get rid of guns in the United States because it's part of our culture. Also, we have more rights than only those explicitly enumerated in the amendments to the Constitution.
Please tell me, why did the homicide rate (gun-related) in Australia tripled AFTER the ban was initiated? Please enlighten me on your logic for that little tidbit. Either you had a stroke halfway through your post or you really don't understand what that statistic means for your argument.
The reason for the gain is not significant. The point is that their rate tripled, and was still significantly lower than ours. This was intended solely to indicate the relative levels of gun deaths in Australia as compared the the United States.
I completely accept that there might be a "doomsday" like scenario that the fundies would point out, that the ban on guns resulted in citizens being unable to defend themselves, and thus increases in gun deaths.
However, the reason for the gun death increase has no relevance to my argument... as well, it would just be a speculation on my part. This is why it was not included.
If anything, the majority of problems in our country stem from the sense of entitlement that people like you spout off about. Nobody owes you anything, so get off your high horse. It's nobody else' job to wipe your ass so quit expecting others to do so for you.
ZOMG! I didn't know that I wasn't owed a public education. Do you know why we have public education? To make the world fair.
I'm sorry, but we're talking about a country that feels that the education of its citizens is important enough to force everyone to foot the bill for everyone else, yet doesn't believe that their citizen's HEALTH is important enough to also foot the bill for.
Plus, I'm trying to think here... I'm complaining that Americans are selfish, and you're trying refute that by saying that my health isn't your problem?
Grow some responsibility to your fellow human being.
What disgusts me most, is that I seem to care more for my fellow human beings despite being an atheist than many Christians who preach "love thy neighbor as you would love yourself."
You, sir, are a coward.
Right, as my name is "snowgirl" I certainly should be addressed as "sir", and plus, my sig says: "Don't read her posts. She is a man-hating feminazi troll."
You, sir, are an idiot, who can't seem to read.
"Very nice straw man fallacy. Owning a gun doesn't suddenly make someone selfish or inclined to shoot anyone he doesn't like."
Not so much as a straw man as you took that out of context. Being American and therefore batshit-crazy makes you selfish. It's mostly true too.
Thank you for saving me the time of attempting to explain the key point that I'm talking about selfish Americans, not gun owners.
And the List of countries by firearm-related death rate holds that the only country with more firearm homocides than the US, is North Ireland... yeah, where terrorists are bat-shit crazy.
Take this as another example. Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!! Yet, they were still well below half of the US firearm homocide rate.
US citizens have a mentality and a culture of "if I don't get caught", and an idea of a lack of responsibility to others. This is what caused the financial meltdown, this is what causes our murder rate to be so high, and this is why we're the only first world nation to not have social healthcare (or maybe we're one of two... has Israel implemented social healthcare yet?)
"Merica" is just too bat-shit crazy individualistic. Who gives a crap about anyone else, as long as I get my guns to shoot people whom I don't like.
I've been working with some civil cases, and this seems to happen a lot with particularly unethical clients.
We had a settlement agreement made in court, in front of a judge, and yet the other party still seems to think that offer+acceptance does not a contract make. So, they've tried to enhance the deal a ton, but we're not having any of it.
Of course, this is he same person who broke into my house in order to steal my briefcase full of evidence against him... ah, what a lovely world we live in... if it's not "yah uh" and "nuh uh" on both sides, it's one side clearly in the right, and the other pulls some petty immature bs to get their way.
When I tell people about the situation, they typically respond, "I find it hard to believe that you're dealing with adults."
Arguments and settlements progress very little beyond the childish ways of tattletales, etc. The court just gives an official air to the whole process.
And since the sum of all the numbers in winning lotto numbers is fairly constant, you should always look for that number, and then always bet on a number sequence that adds up to that! ... time reports are reasonably presumed to be randomly distributed. I would not expect them to behave according to Benford's Law.
The whole of mathematics is really just a language of form and structure, a system to systematize and decribe structure and forms (relationships are a type of form).
So... mathematics is the vaguest thing possible?
XKCD http://xkcd.com/435/ covered this awhile ago...
AH!!!!!!! YOU BEAT ME... jerk!
The whole of mathematics is really just a language of form and structure, a system to systematize and decribe structure and forms (relationships are a type of form).
So... mathematics is the vaguest thing possible?
http://xkcd.com/435/
Yes, yes it is. In fact, Set Theory is the most general of all things. It's composed of nothing, and sets thereof.
There was a plagiarism detection system that I actually learned a bit about. The process used latent-semantic analysis. Oddly enough, it was capable of detecting plagiarism even when the person had paraphrased everything, because it actually used huge mathematical matrices to assign semantic meaning to words. It was therefore capable of distinguishing variations of words, not just words themselves.
The method also way an automatic grading system, because it was capable of telling if the student was using words consistently with source texts (too "consistent" and it registered as plagiarism).
The most interesting analysis that I read spoke about two methods for cheating the system. If one knew the field incredibly well, one could construct a bogus text that would be graded well. However, by far, the easiest way to cheat the system, was simply to write a good paper. After all, if in order to produce a bad paper with a good grade one had to understand the topic better than if one were to write a good paper... then such a person deserves an A!!!
The project was called "Plowshare" from the old notion of "Swords to Plowshares". They wanted to see what other uses they could use nuclear weapons for.
The fact that someone would still attempt to propose that we could use nuclear weapons to create artificial water ways is just down right stupid, not because it's obvious, but rather because we already have actual empirical evidence that it would be a Bad Thing(TM).
My dad worked as an engineer for Sandia National Labs, and got involved in, or knew a lot about a ton of really cool projects, like Project Tempest, and Project Plowshare. He also clued me in about how our nuclear weapons are transported for safety... trust me, no one is going to be able to take them... unless some idiot doesn't follow protocol.
Oh c'mon, dude!
She's not a random actress, she's a Companion.
Oh, the companion... I thought it was the engine girl... hahaha
Just goes to show you that the sexes don't know what interests the other side....
It is a wonderfully working system with little need to change, the real change is required of those entering it and realizing that their technical knowledge does not impart superiority over those who out rank them.
No, it doesn't. But their technical knowledge won't be communicated to a person of higher rank who doesn't keep the door open to constructive criticism and ideas. The same problems that plague corporate america and any large bureauacracy plague the military: And that is that the people who are on the front-lines, working the problem, don't have an open line of communication along the chain of command. Decisions flow from top to bottom, but information flows from bottom to top -- and that flow of information is easily and readily obstructed simply because it's human nature to not reveal when things are going badly, or that the plan that came down isn't workable, etc. It's like the telephone game, only instead of passing the message once, it has to be passed on twice -- once up, once down. Is it any surprise that there are major faults?
Enlightenment. I remember running into walls and barriers all the time from my boss, who eventually ran me out of the company, because I was clear about situations, and passed on detailed information.
He didn't want me to do that... he wanted us to keep our group's faults secret. It's funny that they hired me knowing my F/OSS experience and specifically asked me to speak up if I thought things could be done better... and then I get drummed out because I implemented the F/OSS "sin" of being honest and open...
My friend's response was "You're so lucky, you work with nerds out in the open. All I have around here are a bunch of closet ninja nerds!" He went on to say that if you're a nerd in the army it's generally better not to show it.
Don't ask, don't tell?
If you flaunt it like sliced bread has nothing on you, yea, you're going to get treated like a prick.
Well, neglecting for a second that someone acting that way actually is a prick... Isn't that kind of what the geek culture breeds "by hivemind", as was well analogized above?
I mean think about it, geek culture is based on a lot of the same "machismo" ideas that any male-dominated culture is based on... egotism, and penis-length competitions...
N.B.: Please consult my sig before you claim that I'm a man-hating fem-nazi... I already know your opinion, and I don't care, and in many ways, I agree.
Bluetooth doesn't use WEP, does it? I thought WEP was only for wlans.
This is true... however the idea that the original WLAN encryption was stated to be "wired equivalent", and ended up actually being super weak... from this it kind of suggests that "wired equivalent" isn't a very strong transmission security in the first place.
The idea here is that only when transmissions are made explicitly for communication do many people even think about the security of those transmissions. I mean... who would think to encrypt keyboard input data from a wired keyboard to the computer? We only think of information as traveling along established lines, however we forget constantly that information is leaked...
A lesson for everyone here I think is to be aware that all transmission methods are insecure.
This is exactly why I do all my typing with my mouse on an on-screen virtual keyboard. It's much faster too.
On a serious note, it is ironic that literally broadcasting a bluetooth signal over-the-air between a wireless keyboard and computer is apparently more secure than a hardwired keyboard.
Well, it makes sense... after all, WEP is "Wired Equivalent Protection"... It's only when we're actually paying attention that this information is floating out into space that people really seem to notice or care that there are security issues.
"... and their actions verge on discrimination."
No, legal terms have legislated meanings, ad you don't get to make them up as you go along. Googling someone to see if they're a Nazi child molester on the no-fly list is perfectly legal, and as a hiring manager, you can bet I'm going to keep doing it.
If they are a child molester, then that would be found in a criminal record. And that's perfectly legal to get.
If they're a Nazi? Do you really think that this is something that you wouldn't be able to evaluate in a face-to-face interview?
Being on the no-fly list? Unless they're going to be doing a lot of travel for your company, is there a reason why this is a valid reason to deny them employment? I won't deny it would be legal, but is there really any reason to correlate them being on a secret federal no-fly list that is assessed without any oversight by a legal authority and being a bad worker?
Lastly. Here's the biggest problem I see with people searching for people outside of the interview... You interview Mr. Johnson, and you're generally pleased with what kind of a worker he is, but you search him up on the internet, and you find out that he likes to go out and party all night, but you also find out that he is of Jewish decent.
Congratulations, you just stepped into a huge tar pit. Just by knowing that he is of Jewish decent, you have introduced a potentially illegal bias. Not only that, but you've subjected yourself to such an illegal bias, that practicing Jews are legally allowed to state that they are capable of working hours that they would be unable to work because of religious requirements.
I'm sorry, but the liability from looking someone up on the internet and obtaining information that you're not permitted to use in evaluating them for hiring far outweighs the benefits of finding out about their non-work-related interests.
What protections are there for people who are in high-discrimination categories? A lot of people completely forget about this, because duh... people discriminate against people for this stuff.
As a final for instance in discrimination, a person applies for a job, the hiring manager looks them up online, and POW! They're gay. That hiring manage denies them for work. "Well, you're better off not working for that person." People say this, but what it comes down to is "the grapes are too sour." No, the grapes aren't too sour, you can't even GET to those grapes. Coming up with a reason to justify someone else's discriminatory hiring processes is [i]wrong[/i], and this has been known at least as long as Aesop had his fables recorded.