"The robot could take a bullet in it's computer and go berserk"

You're kidding right? This from a professor of AI and robotics?

I think he's confusing Short Circuit with real life. If a robot takes a bullet "in it's computer" (system on chip, I guess) it will stop working. End of. There is literally 0% chance that a bullet could change a programs logic in such a way as to "go berserk" but otherwise keep functioning.

>> ^ant:

>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^ant:
Another dashboard camera recording!

In Europe, drivers are encouraged to have dashcams installed as it gives them massive insurance discounts.

Nice. Too bad USA doesn't encourage it.


Nah, we just have something that plugs directly into your car's computer system that tells them you're speeding or decelerating too fast. The kind of information they need in order to drop your claim.

How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.

I agree; this is saying "I don't know", which I think is a legitimate answer, and the only intellectually honest one barring actual knowledge. This was my point that the atheist position is "no" to the proposition "does God exist?", which requires a justification.

As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.

This was my position as an agnostic, so I understand what you mean. It was very difficult to even define what truth could be in that mode of thinking. When I understood that truth was a tangible concept that could be grasped, it blew me away. I will say that you have a good way of knowing whether God exists. If you prayed to Jesus and asked Him what the truth is, He would show it to you.

When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.

The tension is between the objective and the subjective viewpoint. To define a universal concept such as truth, you would need an objective viewpoint. God is the only being which could have such a viewpoint, so therefore, unless God tells us, we have no way of knowing. Finite human beings are locked into their subjective bias. We cannot get outside of the Universe to look in and see what is really going on.

I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".

There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.

That you're interested in the truth, and you are open to what it could be, is a very good thing. When I was agnostic, I felt much the same way. When I found out God is real, I wasn't even specifically looking for Him. I was searching for that truth and it ended up finding me. God rewards that open mindedness, that curiosity and drive to know what is real. What I suggested above is the shortcut; just ask Him and He will show you.

By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all

I agree, and I will submit to you that all other truths are relevant to this question, and in fact, their ultimate reality could only be determined by the answer to that question. The funny thing about it is, the answer to it could only ever be yes. If it is no, you will never hear about it. The only thing you will ever hear is yes.

Your work sounds highly interesting. Could you direct me to any resources which would describe it in more detail?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Hey @hpqp, I'd like to thank you for your reply and let you know I plan to have a furthering of that discussion when I get off work (on lunch break), but I had to address @shinyblurry rock argument.
How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.
As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.
When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.
I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.
By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
Ok, rant over! Back to work, slave!

Hey @hpqp, I'd like to thank you for your reply and let you know I plan to have a furthering of that discussion when I get off work (on lunch break), but I had to address @shinyblurry rock argument.

How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.

As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.

When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.

I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.

By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all

Ok, rant over! Back to work, slave!

@GenjiKilpatrick that is why the idea of bitcoins was pretty awesome to me. It doesn't have the failure of a gold standard (not being able to inflate fast enough to avoid a deflationary spiral), or pure fiat (that can be manipulated behind closed doors to finance all sorts of evils by inflation). All valuation is inevitably fiat, which is why a gold standard actually makes LESS sense than a fiat, so in that, to devise a fiat that can't be manipulated by the inscrutable would be a very good currency indeed! The things you DO with money should be evil or good, not the supply itself! Money controlled by a computer system/formula, just makes sense. But it will never happen, bankers will make sure of that. Cheap money, great for bankers bad for Americans

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

Are you purposely acting dense?
"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.

I give up...I thought this was a real discussion, but it's become clear you aren't interested in that. "Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly, in the middle of a hijacking. That would be called "turning it on". Frankly anyone who would attempt to reprogram an autopilot on a plane while it was in the air should be locked up for many years, and NEVER allowed near any kind of computer ever again. You have a better chance of surviving the hijacking than of some nitwits attempt to write complex programs correctly the first time and to do so in mere minutes.
Let me know when you're willing to read what I fucking write, instead of twisting it to try and make it some attack.


How about reading what you fucking quote first. Tell yourself whatever you need to. ""Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly" -- it doesn't? of course it does. Do you expect the hijacker to land the plane so you can reprogram it?

Read the other quote from the former head of British Airways “suggested ... that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”

It's part of the autopilot system. There's no need to hack into the system and "write complex programs correctly ... in mere minutes."

Why is that so hard to understand?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

Are you purposely acting dense?
"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.


I give up...I thought this was a real discussion, but it's become clear you aren't interested in that. "Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly, in the middle of a hijacking. That would be called "turning it on". Frankly anyone who would attempt to reprogram an autopilot on a plane while it was in the air should be locked up for many years, and NEVER allowed near any kind of computer ever again. You have a better chance of surviving the hijacking than of some nitwits attempt to write complex programs correctly the first time and to do so in mere minutes.

Let me know when you're willing to read what I fucking write, instead of twisting it to try and make it some attack.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.


Are you purposely acting dense?

"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.


“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”

Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

>> ^Stormsinger:

@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.


What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.

On a side note, the NORAD computers probably were hacked.

Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

@blankfist

Research that purporting that teaching is a difficult job based on 6 criteria. I suggest the whole document but here's the jest of it.
______________________________________________
---------->Societal Attitude:
The participants in this study believed that the attitude of society toward the teaching profession was unfair and detrimental to their overall functioning. They did not believe that they were valued, despite their advanced levels of education. In a recent nationwide survey of over 11,000 teachers and teacher candidates, Henke, Chen, Geis, and Knepper (2000) found that only 14.6% of the teachers surveyed were satisfied with the esteem in which society held the teaching profession.

--->Denise, a high school English teacher addressed the issue of respect:

"There is a lack of respect for teachers. It's not just the money, but also the attitude I get from administrators and politicians that teachers are trying to get away with something. We have taken these cushy jobs where all we have to do is stand up in front of a bunch of kids and BS for a few hours, and only work ten months of the year, at that teachers have it easy! Every time we ask for something (like, in my county, that the county pay our contribution to the state retirement system, for example), they make us out to look like whiners - give 'em an inch; they'll take a mile. The truth is, though, that teachers care so deeply and work SO much beyond our "contract hours." I can't tell you how many come in for weeks during the summer, as I do, and take on clubs after school (for which we are not compensated), and work during vacations. This lack of respect for teachers gets me down."
______________________________________________
---------->Financial Issues:
On top of the perception that they are not being valued by society, teachers are notoriously underpaid in our country. Four years after their graduation, Henke et al. (2000) surveyed a large sample of college graduates between 1992-1993. They found that the teachers were tied with clerical staff and service workers for the lowest salaries. A recent report from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT, 2000) found the following to be the case for the 2000-2001 school year:

For new teachers, the $28,986 average beginning salary lagged far behind starting salary offers in other fields for new college graduates. For example, accounting graduates were offered an average $37,143; sales/marketing, $40,033; math/statistics, $49,548; computer science, $49,749; and engineering, $50,033.
The $43,250 average teacher salary fell short of average wages of other white-collar occupations, the report found. For example, mid-level accountants earned an average $52,664, computer system analysts, $71,155; engineers, $74,920; and attorneys, $82,712.
The majority of the participants in this study related that they were simply not paid enough to live comfortably. They drove old cars and lived in inexpensive apartments. Others struggled to save enough money to buy a home.

--->Calvin, a high school science teacher, talked about his pay:

"I love teaching, but I don't know if I love it enough to deprive my family and myself of necessities. I have a baby and another on the way. I can't see how I can ever save enough to make a down payment on a house, even with a second job in the summer."
______________________________________________
---------->Time Scarcity:
Many new teachers were physically and emotionally fatigued to the point of exhaustion. They reported that they worked long days at school, and then took home lesson plans to create, papers to grade, and parents to call. They also worked nights and weekends on school-related work.

--->Jessica, a high school math teacher:

"I work 70 hours a week, and after 3 years it's not getting any better. When Friday night rolls around, all I want to do is fall asleep at 8 p.m.! Obviously that doesn't lead to a very exciting social life, or much of a "life" at all, if I can hardly stay awake long enough to go out to dinner with my friends and family. Even at holidays there are always papers to grade."

--->Fred, a high school English teacher also had difficulty with the amount of time required to do his job, pointing to the effect the time constraints had on family relationships:

The time commitment is the worst. During my first two years of teaching I worked 70-80 hour weeks, including time worked during the school day, in the evenings and over the weekend. Time commitment varies with the subject taught and with experience, but this aspect of the job nearly ran me out of teaching on several occasions and I witnessed one great new teacher leave teaching for this very reason. "It's my job or my marriage," she explained. "I never see my husband, and we're living under the same roof."

______________________________________________
---------->Workload:
The data reveal that it is nearly impossible for a conscientious teacher to complete all that is expected of them in one school day. At the high school level, teachers were teaching five or more classes in a traditional school, and three in a block schedule school. For each class this meant that the teacher's task was to design a complete lesson lasting at least one hour. This lesson had to follow the state curriculum, be engaging and interesting to students, and include various components as required by the school district, such as a warm-up, class activities, and homework. The teachers wanted to use outside resources such as the Internet to connect the material to real world applications. Additionally, they reported that there were often several special needs students in the class, and each of them needed some special accommodation. They found that planning was not a trivial task; it took several hours to design one effective instructional plan.

According to the teachers in this study, class sizes were another difficult feature of the teacher's day. In public high schools, most class sizes ranged from 25 to 35 students for a total of 125-175 students in a traditional school, and 75-105 in a four period block school. Henke et al. (2000) reported that the average number of students taught by secondary teachers each day is 115.8.

--->Abby, a high school history teacher explained the effect of large class sizes:

"Imagine any other professional trying to deal with the needs of this many "customers" at one time. If a physician were seeing patients, and grouped this many together, it is readily apparent how ridiculous it would be to expect her or him to address the needs of each person. The same is true for teachers.
Each student is an individual, with needs and issues that must be addressed. In a class period, the teachers expressed frustration because they could not address the needs of 25 or more students. "

--->Gina, a former high school science teacher described the variety in her workload as well as in her students' abilities:

"What I least expected was the amount of paperwork I had to do. Grading papers, progress reports, parent conferences, English-as-a-Second Language, exceptional students, ADD paperwork, and even work for absent students seem to take more time than "teaching."

To compound the issue, teachers also related many learning issues, where students had questions or misunderstandings that could easily have been cleared up with a few minutes of one-on-one time. They also reported discipline issues that got more serious when they were not addressed. Some students were bored. Some lacked basic skills and could not perform without help. In general, the teachers expressed being frustrated because they are educated professionals who could address these issues, if there were time to get to everyone. There was simply not enough time to address the variety of issues that simultaneously too place. Farkas et al. (2000) reported that 86% of new teachers report that the change most likely to improve teaching is reducing class size.

--->Eva, a high school English teacher summed up her frustration with large class sizes.

"This was not a matter of poor time management; it was a matter of too many students with too many needs and one harried teacher trying to be superhuman. There were times that I had a great lesson plan, only to have it totally derailed because of one or two students who needed individual attention and could not get it."

The total number of students that this professional was expected to evaluate, plan, and care for each day was as many as 150.
______________________________________________
---------->Working Conditions:
School administrators varied in their support of young teachers, and many teachers reported that this support was inadequate. The new teachers felt that they were evaluated and judged, but they would have preferred real feedback and suggestions for improvement of their teaching. They felt that they were often not supported in discipline issues or in conflicts with parents.

--->Carol, a former high school math teacher:

"I was very frustrated with the lack of support from my principal/administration in that after three observations I never got any feedback either in written or verbal form. I never really knew how I was doing. I felt I was doing a good job, but did not think the administration cared one way or the other."

--->Fran, a high school mathematics teacher expressed a need for more funds:

"Teachers should be given all the supplies that they need - $25 is not enough! At all other jobs that I have worked at, whatever you need to do your job is provided."
______________________________________________
---------->Relationships with Students and Parents:
A common problem reported by beginning teachers was student apathy. Many of the novice teachers reported that students had no interest in learning. In addition to attendance problems, a number of students often came to class without pencil, paper, and textbook. It was difficult to force or entice them to participate in classwork, and virtually impossible to get them to do homework.

--->Owen, a former high school mathematics teacher, was frustrated by his students' apathy:

"The vast majority of my students had no interest in learning math and I quickly tired of trying to force them (or entice them). They refused to bring paper or pencil to class, refused to do homework or classwork, and frequently came to class late or not at all. Most of them, to my great surprise, were not at all belligerent or confrontational about their refusal to do anything in class; they just had no intention of working at anything."

--->Mattie, a former high school history teacher, could not deal with the frustration:

"I just became very frustrated teaching to a class of 20 students and about 5 were interested or at least concerned with their grades. I decided not to return, because I was so exhausted and depressed at the end of the year. I just couldn't see "wasting" my time in a classroom where the kids don't care about themselves or what you're trying to accomplish."

--->Eugene, a former high school math teacher, also reported problems with apathy:

"I was frustrated with the apathy of the students. Many days I felt as though I was standing up there talking to myself. It was the longest year of my life. I was an emotional wreck because I felt as if the kids/parents didn't care enough to try or participate."

They're deflecting the moral issue of a news media outlet doing this stuff. Hacking is one problem, but hacking is also a tool. Nobody has an issue with the US military hacking an enemy's computer systems. The question is more WHY someone is hacking. In this case, it's a morally reprehensible justification - to sell newspapers at all moral cost.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

No way this is real. Probably her account or he was quitting anyway to go overseas or something. No one I know would tell their GF/BF a WoW password unless they play it aswell, and if they played chances are they would understand their endless raiding. The guy's reaction was too crazy, there is no way that was real. Who would literally destroy their computer(monitor) as a first reaction? He had to have known it was his girlfriend, no hacker would leave just one character remaining.
The joke is on the girlfriend though, if this is real. He will definately break up with her, and what she doesn't know is that Blizzard can recover deleted characters and items if reported relatively quickly. He could likely get everything back.


I call real, it seems to me like he left the account logged in while popping out for 10 minutes to get a pack of smokes. The reaction is not too extreme as it is (almost) the same as taking the drugs away from a junkie. He left to get some smokes so he could really enjoy his daily fix of MMO and then finds out that the thing he has spent 100's if not 1000's of hours on is gone. The Guildmates, the relationships, the standing in that "tribe", the epic loot that took 52 runs of a hardcore raid to get and so on is all gone. Some people value their online personas more than their RL ones as their online ones might be respected high standing members of a society and their opinions matter, which might not be true in RL.

The primal response to all bad things in life is violence. Ergo kill monitor.

(I am not a lawyer but...)
The joke is not on the GF as she could face charges for unlawfully tampering with somebody else's computer system and destroying data (there is probably a fancy legal term but I can't be bothered to look it up now). Heck he could also probably sue for emotional damage, and get a new computer screen, and probably win too as she was dumb enough to record what she did and state reasons for it, premeditated/shows intent... and she posted it online, increases the emotional trauma of the victim.