Continuing down this road, you might end up with an MMORPG with a collection of the silliest monsters known to man all fighting the players and each other.
Damn, it's actually beginning to sound like a good idea.
Why would we want another space station? What extra knowledge would that give us? For example, you can do geology at a moon base, I'd like to see you do that from a space station. A moon base could be a useful exercise in setting up planetary colonies. You won't get that knowledge from another space station.
If we send humans anywhere, it should be the moon. But personally, I'd prefer sending robots elsewhere in the solar system.
Sending people anywhere in space requires incredible amounts of infrastructure to provide safe habitation, food, oxygen and so on. For the cost of getting people to the moon and keeping them their for any significant period of time, you could send probably dozens of unmanned expeditions all over the solar system. Not to mention that the capabilities of robots will inevitably come close or even overtake humans. Investing that money in better robotics would probably be much better for space exploration.
So what? 'Politician' is a word describing people. What's your point?
My point is that while race is something you're born with, and hence no basis on which to judge an individual (much less deride them), being a hooker is a job choice. If you choose a sleazy job I can and will mock you. Comparing 'nigger' to 'hooker' is comparing apples and oranges.
Or how about this one:
Windows Vista is not, as the Web's chorus of caustic critics claim, little more than a warmed-over Windows XP. Funny how that quote didn't make it either.
Funny how the summary doesn't include things from the article like:
Vista is infinitely more pleasant to use than its predecessors. There's more logic to its folder structure and naming scheme. Things are easier to find. Fewer steps are required to perform common tasks, especially when it comes to networking. It's almost like someone has an agenda or something.
And another thing. How many people who you give this to are going to fully understand the concept of a LiveCD versus an OS on the harddrive? Even if anyone actually tries this, how many people are going to fully grasp that it runs poorly because the entire OS is on the CD, and how many people do you think are just going to look at it and say 'What is this? Wow, it runs like shit. Glad I've got Windows'? I very much doubt the net result will help Linux adoption.
Freedom from proprietary software I love that. What a great selling point. Why would I want to be free from proprietary software? The source code of OSS is just as opaque to the ordinary user as the source code of proprietary software. People care about functionality.
Freedom from ignorance That's great too. Stick an Ubuntu LiveCD in your CD drive and you'll be free of any and all ignorance you might currently possess! Not to mention that ignorance is a luxury. The less you need to know about how a piece of software works, the better designed it is. Should you need to know about refining oil in order to fill up your gas tank?
Freedom from the same cookie-cutter applications and nagware with annoying splash screens from hell. Oh come on. How many linux applications are just clones of their windows counterparts? Look at OO. And splash screens, you have to be kidding.
Freedom to know what the heck all this Ubuntu buzz is their reading on Digg and Slashdot all the time (and I could go on). Best. Rationalisation. Ever. Hey, you could say running malware gives users the freedom to know what the heck all this buzz is about malware! That sounds awesome!
I think this is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Why would anyone want to routinely run from a LiveCD. Ubuntu from a LiveCD runs like shit, and what about downloading stuff? The moron suggests you just put it flash drive. Yeah, and then I'm going to take out the LiveCD and run the file I just downloaded on my normal OS. So I'm still going to need virus protection, and I'm still going to need to be sane about where I get files from on the internet, but I'll just add ages of fucking around with a LiveCD. And how about bookmarks? You going to explain to people how that's going to work? Or how about in the time it takes to download a LiveCD, tweak it to your liking, and burn it, you just install a free anti-virus program, a free firewall and firefox?
A LiveCD will be about as useful as a coaster as it will be as an 'IFD'. If some moron gave me one of these things I would have absolutely no choice but to beat some sense into them.
Will politicians stop interfering with science when scientists stop interfering with politics?
Take for example, the pressure from scientists to implement the Kyoto protocol. A decision on whether or not to implement the Kyoto protocol is surely outside the domain of science, as it is a decision that must weight scientific data on the likely outcomes of global warming against non-scientific data on the economic effects of the Kyoto protocol. Do scientists have the advisors to balance the former against the latter? I'd argue not, and that therefore their advocacy for the Kyoto protocol is distorted. We would be better off if scientists presented neutral data.
I find it unreasonable that scientists bash the Bush and Howard administrations for not signing the Kyoto protocol when scientists only have half of the available data.
It's all very well to decry politicians interfering in science, but surely scientists should be held to the same standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Continuing down this road, you might end up with an MMORPG with a collection of the silliest monsters known to man all fighting the players and each other.
Damn, it's actually beginning to sound like a good idea.
Of course, as a slashdotter, I find earth sex hard enough, let alone space sex.
Holy shit, low gravity fucking! And people say space science is a waste of money.
Why would we want another space station? What extra knowledge would that give us? For example, you can do geology at a moon base, I'd like to see you do that from a space station. A moon base could be a useful exercise in setting up planetary colonies. You won't get that knowledge from another space station.
If we send humans anywhere, it should be the moon. But personally, I'd prefer sending robots elsewhere in the solar system.
It's going to take some serious economies of scale before moon-mining becomes profitable.
I agree, though the moon would be better.
s/their/there. Sorry, slashdotters.
Sending people anywhere in space requires incredible amounts of infrastructure to provide safe habitation, food, oxygen and so on. For the cost of getting people to the moon and keeping them their for any significant period of time, you could send probably dozens of unmanned expeditions all over the solar system. Not to mention that the capabilities of robots will inevitably come close or even overtake humans. Investing that money in better robotics would probably be much better for space exploration.
I wonder if he would get modded flamebait if he was praising Ubuntu and concluded "Now if only XP worked this well...."?
Wait, no I don't.
So what? 'Politician' is a word describing people. What's your point?
My point is that while race is something you're born with, and hence no basis on which to judge an individual (much less deride them), being a hooker is a job choice. If you choose a sleazy job I can and will mock you. Comparing 'nigger' to 'hooker' is comparing apples and oranges.
It's doubleplusungood slashthink, comrades. Keep modding him flamebait.
Oh, so is 'hooker' a race now?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
What's the difference between a Ferrari and a dead hooker?
I don't have a Ferrari in my garage.
That'll show the sanctimonious bastard.
And another thing. How many people who you give this to are going to fully understand the concept of a LiveCD versus an OS on the harddrive? Even if anyone actually tries this, how many people are going to fully grasp that it runs poorly because the entire OS is on the CD, and how many people do you think are just going to look at it and say 'What is this? Wow, it runs like shit. Glad I've got Windows'? I very much doubt the net result will help Linux adoption.
Yes, but stupid people tend not to file very good bug reports.
Freedom from ignorance That's great too. Stick an Ubuntu LiveCD in your CD drive and you'll be free of any and all ignorance you might currently possess! Not to mention that ignorance is a luxury. The less you need to know about how a piece of software works, the better designed it is. Should you need to know about refining oil in order to fill up your gas tank?
Freedom from the same cookie-cutter applications and nagware with annoying splash screens from hell. Oh come on. How many linux applications are just clones of their windows counterparts? Look at OO. And splash screens, you have to be kidding.
Freedom to know what the heck all this Ubuntu buzz is their reading on Digg and Slashdot all the time (and I could go on). Best. Rationalisation. Ever. Hey, you could say running malware gives users the freedom to know what the heck all this buzz is about malware! That sounds awesome!
I think this is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Why would anyone want to routinely run from a LiveCD. Ubuntu from a LiveCD runs like shit, and what about downloading stuff? The moron suggests you just put it flash drive. Yeah, and then I'm going to take out the LiveCD and run the file I just downloaded on my normal OS. So I'm still going to need virus protection, and I'm still going to need to be sane about where I get files from on the internet, but I'll just add ages of fucking around with a LiveCD. And how about bookmarks? You going to explain to people how that's going to work? Or how about in the time it takes to download a LiveCD, tweak it to your liking, and burn it, you just install a free anti-virus program, a free firewall and firefox?
A LiveCD will be about as useful as a coaster as it will be as an 'IFD'. If some moron gave me one of these things I would have absolutely no choice but to beat some sense into them.
Will politicians stop interfering with science when scientists stop interfering with politics?
Take for example, the pressure from scientists to implement the Kyoto protocol. A decision on whether or not to implement the Kyoto protocol is surely outside the domain of science, as it is a decision that must weight scientific data on the likely outcomes of global warming against non-scientific data on the economic effects of the Kyoto protocol. Do scientists have the advisors to balance the former against the latter? I'd argue not, and that therefore their advocacy for the Kyoto protocol is distorted. We would be better off if scientists presented neutral data.
I find it unreasonable that scientists bash the Bush and Howard administrations for not signing the Kyoto protocol when scientists only have half of the available data.
It's all very well to decry politicians interfering in science, but surely scientists should be held to the same standard.