That's a threat against a specific person! You should be arrested! If only you hadn't posed as annonymous coward we could have known something about you and how to find you. Alas we have to pull up your records from your ISP. Toodles!
I have that kind of experience. Part of it is that some people learn differently. Yes, in middle school/junior high, the material was too easy. I went to a specialized HS for science and math, so when I got there it wasn't not hard enough. However, sometimes I'd get bored in classes because learning about the same kind of stuff all the time is monotonous! There's not enough time in the day after school to do anything meaningful when you have 3 hours of homework to do either:P
I'm pretty sure that Intel uses the fact that they continually meet the expectations of Moore's law as a marketing point. Intel might push a little bit harder on development if it means they couldn't use that in sales anymore. I'm not sure how much, but it's probably something.
Actually I've read part of their constitution and it does have all that stuff in there about free speech etc. However, their constitution, unlike the US constitution, seems to try to be more specific than ours is (it talks about jobs and crime etc). In US history class a while back, my teacher mentioned that it was widely agreed that the key to a good founding document is flexibility, so you have to be general. China's is a lot less general than ours.
In addition, theres usually an escape clause for the government, some kind of gottcha:
Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.
Emphasis mine. Who decides what is normal etc.I know we have that problem in the US when we deal with cults, and extremists. When worded like that, you can pretty much define anything to be abhorrent. That's why the founders of the US said that the government couldn't regulate religion at all, because they were afraid of those gottchas. Then they said that they can get you for "disrupting public order". Well we all know what that means.
I know a couple chinese americans who say they hate china and what it did to their families. I guess the people who wanted to leave most left:P (unless they didn't have the means).
She did have some substantial evidence I agree (although the prevalence of messed up clocks probably should have jogged her memory). However, she didn't give the kid a fair hearing, that's why I say she was acting unfairly (which I admit is possibly different from jumping to conclusions). She had data, but she should still have verified the validity of the data or at least listened to him before getting the kid arrested.
I think that for the most part you are right, but there's a subtle difference here. At vTech there was an incident actually in progress, here she was interrogating a student two weeks after the anointed date (is that fact right?). My only real problem with her actions is that quote where she leaps to conclusions instead of listening to the kid and having him watched while they attempted to correlate evidence. They could wait and call the police later if necessary. The kid should have gotten more rational process than You're a criminal, and criminals lie! or however that quote went.
I find your argument interesting and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. This could be the campaign financing solution of the future. Nothing wrong immediately jumps out at me that aren't features of other proposals. The real challenge is probably to figure out that function. Obviously it has to take into account inflation. You can probably get a good starting point by saying, I want all contributions after 1000000 dollars are raised to have a gain of.433. Something like that.
As someone who did FIRST for three years, I gotta say, it beats the hell out of sitting in class. I love theoretical matters too, but damn, Sitting around doing similar activities all day every day for years and years on end? FIRST is insanely fun because it lets you do something different. Not only that, you learn so much about producing things, team dynamics, and tons of other highly relevant experiences.
Possibly one of the most interesting things that happened in team was that because we spent so much time with each other in and out of the lab, we became the closest friends ever, and a few years later, that's still true for some of us. Also, very interesting was that there were a lot of couples that came out of there;-), so unlike what that troll was implying in a previous thread, the nerds got the girls too:D
What makes you think more awareness of "why they come at you" would change anything? Well if you feel guilty while shooting, your trigger finger will probably be a little slower than usual. The change might be you get killed instead of them.
"There was a major disaster in X. Y of our countryman were killed. Oh, and by the way, Y*10000 locals were killed as well". Yea, that usually kinda pisses me off when the media does that. OTOH, I'm not sure how to phrase that otherwise. Do you not mention your countrymen because they are proportionally insignificant? Maybe you just give a significantly longer passage to the 10000*Y local ppl killed. OTOH, if all those people died in an unavoidable accident, maybe you just shouldn't mention nationality at all other than what country it happened in unless they governments of the respective countries want to make a statement.
I think the dehumanizing/humanizing thing is something in between. You have to reach a point where you can see them as things you need to destroy, and not visualize their reasons for coming at you ("omg I was just ordered to!"), but you need to recognize them as smart agents that bleed as well. They are human, but they matter less than you do.
I think it might be possible that if no group wants to kill another group, then some possibly worthy alternative ideas aren't getting thrown around. However, the only scenarios I can think of where this might happen are pretty far out (Hey let's go do X! Well, we need Y resources to do X and they are tied up in the population. No problem! Just reduce the population....)
Well, your state changed yes, but your state changes constantly. You're never the "you" you were a split second ago. Your mental machinery is mostly unchanged on the macro scale so you're a very similar you to the you that was you a bit ago:D
Depends on what kind of thinking you are talking about. The phonocological loop is probably about as fast as you can possibly speak, but the visospacial sketchpad is about as fast as you can see. And then there is that weird kind of thinking when you are making seemingly unrelated connections. How fast can that happen? Lots of weird stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the yankees ARENT GOING TO WIN>!?!!!?!!!!11111OMGWTFBBQ
That's a threat against a specific person! You should be arrested! If only you hadn't posed as annonymous coward we could have known something about you and how to find you. Alas we have to pull up your records from your ISP. Toodles!
I have that kind of experience. Part of it is that some people learn differently. Yes, in middle school/junior high, the material was too easy. I went to a specialized HS for science and math, so when I got there it wasn't not hard enough. However, sometimes I'd get bored in classes because learning about the same kind of stuff all the time is monotonous! There's not enough time in the day after school to do anything meaningful when you have 3 hours of homework to do either :P
I think the point of the quote is that ONLY those people make giant leaps. Everyone else is incremental.
I'm pretty sure that Intel uses the fact that they continually meet the expectations of Moore's law as a marketing point. Intel might push a little bit harder on development if it means they couldn't use that in sales anymore. I'm not sure how much, but it's probably something.
What I would really like, is some fruit juice that isn't super sweet - and close to 100% real juice. IS THIS SO HARD COOPERATE AMERICA?
Why is this guy at -1? Seems like some mod has an agenda >.>.
I don't think the problem is that they have power, it's that they say it more bluntly. The expression in words reflects the way they want to act.
Actually I've read part of their constitution and it does have all that stuff in there about free speech etc. However, their constitution, unlike the US constitution, seems to try to be more specific than ours is (it talks about jobs and crime etc). In US history class a while back, my teacher mentioned that it was widely agreed that the key to a good founding document is flexibility, so you have to be general. China's is a lot less general than ours.
In addition, theres usually an escape clause for the government, some kind of gottcha:
Article 36.Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.
Emphasis mine. Who decides what is normal etc.I know we have that problem in the US when we deal with cults, and extremists. When worded like that, you can pretty much define anything to be abhorrent. That's why the founders of the US said that the government couldn't regulate religion at all, because they were afraid of those gottchas. Then they said that they can get you for "disrupting public order". Well we all know what that means.
In any case, heres a link: PRC ConstitutionI know a couple chinese americans who say they hate china and what it did to their families. I guess the people who wanted to leave most left :P (unless they didn't have the means).
I find it hilarious that you post something about porn on the intrawebs when everyone else is screaming MORE POWER MORE POWER!
No it doesn't. There's friction on the pin - unless you were considering it an ideal pendulum.
of course the government would probably charge him with a crime for protecting people from a nut
She did have some substantial evidence I agree (although the prevalence of messed up clocks probably should have jogged her memory). However, she didn't give the kid a fair hearing, that's why I say she was acting unfairly (which I admit is possibly different from jumping to conclusions). She had data, but she should still have verified the validity of the data or at least listened to him before getting the kid arrested.
That's not unreasonable I think.
I think that for the most part you are right, but there's a subtle difference here. At vTech there was an incident actually in progress, here she was interrogating a student two weeks after the anointed date (is that fact right?). My only real problem with her actions is that quote where she leaps to conclusions instead of listening to the kid and having him watched while they attempted to correlate evidence. They could wait and call the police later if necessary. The kid should have gotten more rational process than You're a criminal, and criminals lie! or however that quote went.
link?
I find your argument interesting and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. This could be the campaign financing solution of the future. Nothing wrong immediately jumps out at me that aren't features of other proposals. The real challenge is probably to figure out that function. Obviously it has to take into account inflation. You can probably get a good starting point by saying, I want all contributions after 1000000 dollars are raised to have a gain of .433. Something like that.
As someone who did FIRST for three years, I gotta say, it beats the hell out of sitting in class. I love theoretical matters too, but damn, Sitting around doing similar activities all day every day for years and years on end? FIRST is insanely fun because it lets you do something different. Not only that, you learn so much about producing things, team dynamics, and tons of other highly relevant experiences.
Possibly one of the most interesting things that happened in team was that because we spent so much time with each other in and out of the lab, we became the closest friends ever, and a few years later, that's still true for some of us. Also, very interesting was that there were a lot of couples that came out of there ;-), so unlike what that troll was implying in a previous thread, the nerds got the girls too :D
In summary, FIRST - good stuff all around.
Just in case the tinfoil hat scenarios pan out and the doomsday trusted computing initiatives become reality...
It should. I once lost a dime to a skee-ball machine so the attendant came up with a fake dime on a stick. It worked.
I think the dehumanizing/humanizing thing is something in between. You have to reach a point where you can see them as things you need to destroy, and not visualize their reasons for coming at you ("omg I was just ordered to!"), but you need to recognize them as smart agents that bleed as well. They are human, but they matter less than you do.
I think it might be possible that if no group wants to kill another group, then some possibly worthy alternative ideas aren't getting thrown around. However, the only scenarios I can think of where this might happen are pretty far out (Hey let's go do X! Well, we need Y resources to do X and they are tied up in the population. No problem! Just reduce the population....)
Well, your state changed yes, but your state changes constantly. You're never the "you" you were a split second ago. Your mental machinery is mostly unchanged on the macro scale so you're a very similar you to the you that was you a bit ago :D
Depends on what kind of thinking you are talking about. The phonocological loop is probably about as fast as you can possibly speak, but the visospacial sketchpad is about as fast as you can see. And then there is that weird kind of thinking when you are making seemingly unrelated connections. How fast can that happen? Lots of weird stuff.