> So is it "gee-eye-eff", "giff" or "jiff"?
Step one: learn Italian.
Step two: now "gif" is pronounced "gif".
This is how it feels to have a sane language.
You may curl up and cry now.

True slashdotters do not read the links either.

It goes both way.

Joins: UF|slaughterer
[AA]wjcked: slaugherer, your ping sucks!
UF|slaughterer: sry
[AA]wjcked: stop mating calls to whales LOLOLOL
UF|slaughterer: f*ck you

I really don't like the way these issues are presented.
Vaccination is a PROCESS. Like eating.
Vaccination is good? yes, as a discovery.
Injecting whatever kind of vaccine for whatever kind of illness is good? Entirely different problem.

In related news, primitive hand stencils in caves are now likely considered as the first crude attempts at nail painting.

Uh.. this is slashdot, you DO NOT observe the article anyway, or strange things may occur.

Speaking of strange, why do we keep calling stuff like this "strange"? at a microscopic level matter behave differently, ok. Had we mostly experience of quantum states, we would classify classical mechanic strange.
It is what it is. Model it with known concepts if you can, but don't try to fit everything in existing categories.

Except we never had a chance to choose.

Because if we had any real and informed choice between product A whose money stays in the local economy and product B foxconn style, we'd have chosen A even if we had to fork more money.
Because it's better to fork more money and have an income and some rights, like western economies did before the 90s, than race to the bottom and have the whole economy race with you. "Sorry, for us to be competitive you have to work more hours". "Sorry, for us to be competitive you have to work for less". "Sorry, for us to be competitive you have to get lost".

Instead, in practice, we have to choose between brand A and B, both supported by the same financial system that in the 1990s decided to bring down western economy by lowering consumption using job flexibility as an excuse to take a sense of security away. No matter what economic indicators say, no sense of security means less consumption.

> It always amazes me on Slashdot what negative attitude some posters have.

On one hand, those who do, do; those who don't... rant on forums.
On the other hand, for all the products and ideas out there, if you always say "meh" you are statistically more right than if you always said "wow".
On the other other hand, even successful products suck. The ipod still sucks (no plain storage of music as files) the iphone and androids still suck (powerful as 15yr old computers, do 10% of what 15yr old pc can do and 300% of what PC cannot do and you don't want them to do either, namely locating you and eavesdropping on you all the time).
On the other other other hand, Ranting is justified only if you try to do something about it too.

You are perfectly right, but the system is working as intended, it is very simple: what do people in charge use to control the others? currently, money. Therefore money must be the most powerful medium. Therefore all interference to the power of money must be removed. Culture, scruples, old style political, religious and military power. Some removals are healthy, some not. The overall effect is subtle and powerful slavery.The story of the last centuries is the story of the progressive removal of such impediments.

Are current HR practices turning workers into expendable drones with no whatsoever care for anything in their company except the money? Perfect. That is paired with managers who have no whatsoever care, and even knowledge about the product they sell. How in hell they get to power positions? Simple, they interface with, and obey the rules of the financial system.

> there needent be designers at all

It's worse than that, there is no need for the concept of "there" "need" designer". That cuts both way because it invalidates most atheism reasoning as well. In fact religions "a god told me that..." are more logically acceptable than "if there were a god, then..."

> We could all be living in the 10^10^10^10th iteration of Wolfram's Rule 30
Yes... well... provided that the concept of "number" has any comparable meaning in the remaining 10^10^10^10-1 iterations. Once you get out this universe, you get out of the logic that "rules" it (because it doesn't rule anything, it merely models), unless you want to make a logic system a god ruling over all iterations, which is not even religion, it is idolatry.

n00b

> If we are a simulation, we may be able to discern exactly what we're simulating, and why.

No wai and I can prove it.

You have an mp3 player with two songs in it. The random playing algorithm makes it play the first song, the second song, the first again the second again and so on, because when it has to choose the next song there is only the other one available.

The normal playing algorithm plays the first song then the second song then the first song and so on EXACTLY LIKE the random playing algorithm.

Without looking at the mode, relying on your ears only, you would likely theorize that it's playing sequential, and some nerd would come up with the theory that it's playing random, some other nerd would argue about occam's razor and bullshit like that. In truth there is no way to discern the truth of the programming until you get to see the mode.

Think about it as plato's cave revisited.

Before we go into philosophy, I warn that being a computation is different from "being the result of a computation". The mold can be simulated.

Jobs is already dead...

AC, please, He's just living different.

> fantasy is fantasy.

No doubt about it. But the control freaks attack fantasy too. So you spend time bothering about electrons in your PC and don't spend energy defending yourself in the real life.
They lose the battle in the virtual world, you feel you have achieved something while nothing changed in practice. Good (for them). They win the battle in the virtual world, they have put another limitation in the way you think. Good (for them).

This is why police states and totalitarian regimes bother with seemingly irrelevant aspects.

Now, I am not implying the Red Cross is fascist. I can surely get their POV about the subject, it's understandable they are sensitive to some themes.
There's a saying that goes like "you don't talk about rope with the family of the one that has been hanged". Very true. But you don't want to be banned from talking about rope everywhere, no way.