I just got a job with a social network that promotes active lifestyles. As a result, they want us to be active as employees. Although it's a very small office, they had a shower installed so employees could take a break to go work out, come back, and clean up. If we work out 6 times a month, we get paid an extra $40 at the end of the month (enough to pay for most gym memberships here). While the actual job has unavoidable periods of sitting, at least the company encourages us to get moving when we're able.
Censorship is nice when it's used on ideas you despise. It's not so great once a new administration flies in and turns the censor ray on you. It's best not to set a precedent.
This points out a serious flaw in the whole idea of cloud reliability by redundancy. You may have a million servers running across multiple countries, but if the distributed software for each virtual server has a bug, every server across the globe is affected. That's a single point of failure.
My greatest fear with brain enhancement technology is that it creates a super-class of humans. Those who have the ability to pay for the technology will have a majorly unfair advantage against those who don't, creating a dangerously elite group of people.
I should say "A successful movement has a well-defined goal and an end game with a mature means to reach it."
There are many problems in the world. However, Anon reminds me of a shark in a large school of fish. The shark attacks this way and that, but it can't focus on just one fish. It's constantly-shifting focus causes it to lose all of its targets in the end (almost maybe a few go down through sheer luck).
If Anonymous were a legitimate organization worth respecting, they wouldn't be doing stupid shit like uploading an intercepted FBI/Scotland Yard conversation regarding their own investigation. Even if the U.S. were equivalent to Nazi Germany, I still wouldn't endorse Anon. A legitimate movement has a well-defined goal and an end game with a mature means to reach it.
Please avoid personal attacks on Slashdot just because you don't agree. Yours was particularly tasteless and inflammatory.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it would seem that revolutions gained high traction through Facebook and Twitter because those services already had a huge user base (and therefore a huge potential audience). If you create your own social network catering to people already in your movement, you can't really expect the massive increase in followers you would gain through already-popular networks.
If you think of it in harsh terms, this is merely another social network knock-off, fueled by what will probably be a short-lived movement.
So if I wanted to efficiently pack small spheres, that would only help me if I stored them in a bunch of long, thin cylinders. I guess if the long, thin cylinders could be packed together efficiently, that wouldn't be an issue.
I recently read the IEEE paper "How to be a Star Engineer" (Google it, it's a great read). The researcher conducted a study on common traits shared among the industry's top performers. Turns out that being extremely intelligent was not really a significant factor. In fact, the star engineers failed to demonstrate a commonality in any of the traditionally emphasized areas of cognitive, psychological, social, or organizational superiority. It essentially boils down to how they used their existing skills in a smart, positive manner. Effective teamwork and communication are listed as huge factors, so I don't see how an IQ test can really be the magic bullet to finding a great employee.
First of all, I love science. It is a great tool for understanding our universe based on the resources we have to fuel our research. The scientific method gives us a foundation on which to build our knowledge, but it only generates undeniable facts under strictly controlled environments. All else can be considered evidence but can't honestly be considered truth.
The annoying thing about evidence is that it falls victim to a degree of subjectivity. No one is completely objective (unless one tossed out any and all non-empirical data), so interpretation and extrapolation of the evidence will always be influenced by philosophical and ideological values. I'm not necessarily talking about religion. Even the most rigid-minded scientist has a philosophical view of how the universe should function. After all, how do you objectively define what deserves attention and what does not? Even if it concerns the survival of the human race, who's to say that our survival is worth pursuing? That's where science ends and humanity begins.
I do agree with you there... there are some violent acts that will burn a much more painful and vivid image in your mind. I had a similar experience. In my original post, I was thinking more of say, shooting people in Halo. Most mainstream movies and games tend to glaze over the horrific physical and emotional pain, which is why I think most people can probably stop thinking "Hey someone's having their life taken away" and focus more on the plot of the movie/game. Although I do know exceptions, most people are able to keep movie violence and reality separate.
It just takes discernment. Superman's violence isn't the same as, say, Hostel.
I think you are misunderstanding the motives. Christians are not giving excessive violence a thumbs-up as an acceptable lifestyle. Rather, they are concerned by the effect a video game has on the viewer in real life. As a Christian myself, I don't think forcefully imposing my belief on anyone is right or effective, even though I do believe there is a defined absolute morality; it's a choice you have to make yourself. I also do think parents need to police their own children. I'm just trying to explain why sex is a bigger deal than violence to those who consider sex and sex-related purity of thought sacred.
Which is most likely to cause a responsive change in the viewer: watching violence, or watching sex/nudity?
We've had article after article on here about how violent video games are not shown to produce violent individuals.
I know Slashdot isn't exactly a bastion of Christian ideals, but surely you can understand that people who hold sex to be sacred don't want their children to be exposed to it in a disrespectful or objectifying context. Images of nudity are often burned into an individual's mind; that's a purely biological response. You don't have to agree that it's wrong to expose children to sex in video games, but surely one can understand that -- barring some exceptional cases -- violence doesn't have nearly the same kind of effect on the mind.
Although I live in the region listed as having the lowest salaries for IT, I think it's worth noting that I also live in a state with no income tax and a very appealing income to cost-of-living ratio. I was recently researching a job position in Chicago, and spent some time determining how my salary would need to change in order to maintain the same standard of living I have in east TN. Long story short, I hit the salary ceiling for the job in question before reaching an income offering the comforts I have now.
You might think that I would enjoy a technology-rich driving experience; I'm a software developer, after all. However, my ideal driving experience involves a close connection between me and the road. I want to be in control, and I don't mean I want a lot of LED readouts telling me what the car is doing for me... I want the smooth mechanical feel as I change the gears. I want to feel the engine roar responsively as I press the accelerator. And why would the need for great handling even be questioned?
I definitely don't want another big gadget to keep synchronized with my others.
Considering I haven't seen it (as evidenced in my comment), I don't think it's too much of a silly assumption. It's how Skype for PC handles low-bandwidth connections (scaling down quality rather than framerate, hence pixelation and artifacts). But, it's a joke, so I don't mind if it looks silly.:)
There were classes I took in college in which the only way for me to take notes fast enough was to type them. Even if that wasn't the case, it was much easier to organize and share notes that are in electronic form. Sure, it may be distracting if someone in front of you is browsing on Facebook, and sure, that may be an abuse of their use of a laptop in class. However, this is a fairly minor distraction for those around. Just wait until you get a job where your cube mates are all arguing about and sending you constant email updates while you are just trying to finish your bread-winning work for the day.
Slashdot Mirror
lol, they do. A lot of these guys just run on the street during their break and come straight back.
I just got a job with a social network that promotes active lifestyles. As a result, they want us to be active as employees. Although it's a very small office, they had a shower installed so employees could take a break to go work out, come back, and clean up. If we work out 6 times a month, we get paid an extra $40 at the end of the month (enough to pay for most gym memberships here). While the actual job has unavoidable periods of sitting, at least the company encourages us to get moving when we're able.
I played with saws, hammers, and the like at age three until I got in trouble for punching my brother in the head while still holding a nail.
Censorship is nice when it's used on ideas you despise. It's not so great once a new administration flies in and turns the censor ray on you. It's best not to set a precedent.
He didn't say it was the 3-foot circle they were aiming for.
This points out a serious flaw in the whole idea of cloud reliability by redundancy. You may have a million servers running across multiple countries, but if the distributed software for each virtual server has a bug, every server across the globe is affected. That's a single point of failure.
First! Analyze this anon comment, suckers!
My greatest fear with brain enhancement technology is that it creates a super-class of humans. Those who have the ability to pay for the technology will have a majorly unfair advantage against those who don't, creating a dangerously elite group of people.
I should say "A successful movement has a well-defined goal and an end game with a mature means to reach it."
There are many problems in the world. However, Anon reminds me of a shark in a large school of fish. The shark attacks this way and that, but it can't focus on just one fish. It's constantly-shifting focus causes it to lose all of its targets in the end (almost maybe a few go down through sheer luck).
If Anonymous were a legitimate organization worth respecting, they wouldn't be doing stupid shit like uploading an intercepted FBI/Scotland Yard conversation regarding their own investigation. Even if the U.S. were equivalent to Nazi Germany, I still wouldn't endorse Anon. A legitimate movement has a well-defined goal and an end game with a mature means to reach it.
Please avoid personal attacks on Slashdot just because you don't agree. Yours was particularly tasteless and inflammatory.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it would seem that revolutions gained high traction through Facebook and Twitter because those services already had a huge user base (and therefore a huge potential audience). If you create your own social network catering to people already in your movement, you can't really expect the massive increase in followers you would gain through already-popular networks.
If you think of it in harsh terms, this is merely another social network knock-off, fueled by what will probably be a short-lived movement.
So if I wanted to efficiently pack small spheres, that would only help me if I stored them in a bunch of long, thin cylinders. I guess if the long, thin cylinders could be packed together efficiently, that wouldn't be an issue.
I recently read the IEEE paper "How to be a Star Engineer" (Google it, it's a great read). The researcher conducted a study on common traits shared among the industry's top performers. Turns out that being extremely intelligent was not really a significant factor. In fact, the star engineers failed to demonstrate a commonality in any of the traditionally emphasized areas of cognitive, psychological, social, or organizational superiority. It essentially boils down to how they used their existing skills in a smart, positive manner. Effective teamwork and communication are listed as huge factors, so I don't see how an IQ test can really be the magic bullet to finding a great employee.
A normal-sized octopus arranged these vertebrae into a giant tentacle pattern just to freak out everyone
First of all, I love science. It is a great tool for understanding our universe based on the resources we have to fuel our research. The scientific method gives us a foundation on which to build our knowledge, but it only generates undeniable facts under strictly controlled environments. All else can be considered evidence but can't honestly be considered truth.
The annoying thing about evidence is that it falls victim to a degree of subjectivity. No one is completely objective (unless one tossed out any and all non-empirical data), so interpretation and extrapolation of the evidence will always be influenced by philosophical and ideological values. I'm not necessarily talking about religion. Even the most rigid-minded scientist has a philosophical view of how the universe should function. After all, how do you objectively define what deserves attention and what does not? Even if it concerns the survival of the human race, who's to say that our survival is worth pursuing? That's where science ends and humanity begins.
I do agree with you there... there are some violent acts that will burn a much more painful and vivid image in your mind. I had a similar experience. In my original post, I was thinking more of say, shooting people in Halo. Most mainstream movies and games tend to glaze over the horrific physical and emotional pain, which is why I think most people can probably stop thinking "Hey someone's having their life taken away" and focus more on the plot of the movie/game. Although I do know exceptions, most people are able to keep movie violence and reality separate.
It just takes discernment. Superman's violence isn't the same as, say, Hostel.
I think you are misunderstanding the motives. Christians are not giving excessive violence a thumbs-up as an acceptable lifestyle. Rather, they are concerned by the effect a video game has on the viewer in real life. As a Christian myself, I don't think forcefully imposing my belief on anyone is right or effective, even though I do believe there is a defined absolute morality; it's a choice you have to make yourself. I also do think parents need to police their own children. I'm just trying to explain why sex is a bigger deal than violence to those who consider sex and sex-related purity of thought sacred.
Which is most likely to cause a responsive change in the viewer: watching violence, or watching sex/nudity?
We've had article after article on here about how violent video games are not shown to produce violent individuals.
I know Slashdot isn't exactly a bastion of Christian ideals, but surely you can understand that people who hold sex to be sacred don't want their children to be exposed to it in a disrespectful or objectifying context. Images of nudity are often burned into an individual's mind; that's a purely biological response. You don't have to agree that it's wrong to expose children to sex in video games, but surely one can understand that -- barring some exceptional cases -- violence doesn't have nearly the same kind of effect on the mind.
Although I live in the region listed as having the lowest salaries for IT, I think it's worth noting that I also live in a state with no income tax and a very appealing income to cost-of-living ratio. I was recently researching a job position in Chicago, and spent some time determining how my salary would need to change in order to maintain the same standard of living I have in east TN. Long story short, I hit the salary ceiling for the job in question before reaching an income offering the comforts I have now.
Procrastination is a lot more enjoyable with an empty bladder.
Forget the iPad. The Blackberry Playbook is obviously the right choice for a playbook!
You might think that I would enjoy a technology-rich driving experience; I'm a software developer, after all. However, my ideal driving experience involves a close connection between me and the road. I want to be in control, and I don't mean I want a lot of LED readouts telling me what the car is doing for me... I want the smooth mechanical feel as I change the gears. I want to feel the engine roar responsively as I press the accelerator. And why would the need for great handling even be questioned?
I definitely don't want another big gadget to keep synchronized with my others.
Considering I haven't seen it (as evidenced in my comment), I don't think it's too much of a silly assumption. It's how Skype for PC handles low-bandwidth connections (scaling down quality rather than framerate, hence pixelation and artifacts). But, it's a joke, so I don't mind if it looks silly. :)
...to see live pixelated video of my friends' nostrils courtesy of AT&T.
There were classes I took in college in which the only way for me to take notes fast enough was to type them. Even if that wasn't the case, it was much easier to organize and share notes that are in electronic form. Sure, it may be distracting if someone in front of you is browsing on Facebook, and sure, that may be an abuse of their use of a laptop in class. However, this is a fairly minor distraction for those around. Just wait until you get a job where your cube mates are all arguing about and sending you constant email updates while you are just trying to finish your bread-winning work for the day.