Good post. The anti-GMO crowd is as foolish and dangerous as the anti-vaccine crowd. And, like the anti-vaccine crowd, they are self-deluded, and convinced that they are right, despite the absolute lack of any evidence.
The only point they have in their favor is the questionable behaviors of certain companies, which are a consequence of some bad laws we have, not anything to do with the technology.
Yeah. I switch between Firefox & Chrome, do a fair amount of browsing and gaming, and I don't think I've ever ran anything that used WebGL. Has it just not hit yet, or is it like VML, and will never be commonly used?
Dude, calm down. You're talking to a troll that's just trying to get you riled up. I doubt he believes what he's saying, he's just having fun pushing your buttons. He's anonymous for a reason, a cowardly reason. Ignore him.
Explain what right of yours is being infringed by the conversation you're overhearing? Your right not to be offended? Your right to control other peoples speech? Your right to not ever be challenged?
It also performs better than HTML5 + javascript. If you create an animation or game, it requires a MUCH beefier computer to run it at the same level in HTML5 as in flash. So, doesn't that mean HTML5 is even more of a resource hog?
Nothing goes on facebook, no like button gets clicked, unless I'm perfectly fine sharing that with the whole world. But... there's not much I'm honestly worried about the whole world knowing. Why should I be scared to let my political, social, religious, sexual opinions known? If there IS something I don't want people to know, I don't 'like' it, since the whole stinking POINT of 'liking' something is to announce something publicly.
They wouldn't say you're homosexual. They don't know that. They would just say that your history of likes puts you in a category that is composed of x% homosexuals. Since that's TRUE, and they can mathematically back it up, there is absolutely no libel claim at all.
These people do know statistics and how to properly run regressions. They aren't stupid.
You might think that, but the numbers plus some math would prove you wrong. Ten correlating factors that are each only slightly significant can peg a person with near certainty. Not absolute, but near enough. If you want to market to homosexuals, a list that is comprised of 90% homosexuals is good enough.
Granted, it was a joke. The trouble is, there are not just a few people on slashdot who will gladly and vociferously proclaim their superiority because they don't have a facebook account, don't have a cellphone, or don't own a television. You've got to give us some clue that you aren't deadly and arrogantly serious. I suggest the sarcasm punctuation mark: '~'. As in:
People who are smart usually have a low emotional IQ, but thats not necessarily true.
I'd say it's usually not true. Smart people often have excellent emotional insight. There's just a particular class of easily recognized high-IQ, low-EQ individuals (who all hang out at Slashdot, of course). Those people, partially because of their low EQ, think that low EQ correlates with high IQ... probably because that describes them, their friends, and most of the people they work with.
There are marvelously intelligent businessmen, politicians, artists, even actors... but because they may have stronger emotional sensibilities than us, they express their intelligence in different ways.
The country is a collection of people, so what you are saying simplifies down to the claim that some people should be 'ran' for the benefit of other people. This is the problem that socialism always runs up against; it's not reconcilable with a free society.
Annual leave owing to employees is written up as a debt owing (from the company to the employee) here, so looks bad in the books.
That actually is the law in the US as well. The relative lack of vacation-usage in the US (which is not as dramatic as many of the posters here make it out to be) is more a cultural behavior than legal.
Previously there was nothing stopping resellers from doing exactly that, slapping Apple logos all over the place and dressing staff in apple branded clothes.
Actually there was something stopping that; Apple trademarks on their company name and logo. Not to mention probably laws against simple fraud and various consumer protection statutes.
This trademark is not intended to stop stores from representing themselves as Apple stores; it's to try to cement a competitive advantage by restricting the ability of competitors to use similar storefront design techniques.
I agree. Or, rather, they'll be around for decades, but the Apple we know is already fading. Already, they've lost the cutting edge coolness factor, which was their greatest asset. Their corporate behavior is being recognized as atrocious. Their marketing strategy has lost its focus, and has become scattershot. In ten years they'll be a Nokia.
Slashdot Mirror
Good post. The anti-GMO crowd is as foolish and dangerous as the anti-vaccine crowd. And, like the anti-vaccine crowd, they are self-deluded, and convinced that they are right, despite the absolute lack of any evidence.
The only point they have in their favor is the questionable behaviors of certain companies, which are a consequence of some bad laws we have, not anything to do with the technology.
If it's effectively random, it'll improve the weather in half the places. If it's not random, it'll improve the weather in half the places.
The world's ecosystem has generally thrived when the planet was warmer than it is today.
Yeah. I switch between Firefox & Chrome, do a fair amount of browsing and gaming, and I don't think I've ever ran anything that used WebGL. Has it just not hit yet, or is it like VML, and will never be commonly used?
Dude, calm down. You're talking to a troll that's just trying to get you riled up. I doubt he believes what he's saying, he's just having fun pushing your buttons. He's anonymous for a reason, a cowardly reason. Ignore him.
Sadly, I think he was serious. If you look at his posting history, this fits in with his other opinions. Kind of boggles the mind, doesn't it?
Wow am I glad I don't live in the US if that's the usual response to a rape claim.
It's not. In fact, the Ohio case is unusual enough that it made national news as a scandal.
Explain what right of yours is being infringed by the conversation you're overhearing? Your right not to be offended? Your right to control other peoples speech? Your right to not ever be challenged?
It certainly is. But...
It also performs better than HTML5 + javascript. If you create an animation or game, it requires a MUCH beefier computer to run it at the same level in HTML5 as in flash. So, doesn't that mean HTML5 is even more of a resource hog?
Although I'll concede flash is buggier.
Note: He's basically retracted that piece. He later admitted he shouldn't have made that judgement because he doesn't know enough about videogames.
Well, maybe they thought they had 'Democrat' covered when they detected drug use.
"how can she be married to someone who could beat her, even though he never has?"
Hey, that's progressive feminist logic.
Nothing goes on facebook, no like button gets clicked, unless I'm perfectly fine sharing that with the whole world. But... there's not much I'm honestly worried about the whole world knowing. Why should I be scared to let my political, social, religious, sexual opinions known? If there IS something I don't want people to know, I don't 'like' it, since the whole stinking POINT of 'liking' something is to announce something publicly.
No, there's just a correlation.
They wouldn't say you're homosexual. They don't know that. They would just say that your history of likes puts you in a category that is composed of x% homosexuals. Since that's TRUE, and they can mathematically back it up, there is absolutely no libel claim at all. These people do know statistics and how to properly run regressions. They aren't stupid.
You might think that, but the numbers plus some math would prove you wrong. Ten correlating factors that are each only slightly significant can peg a person with near certainty. Not absolute, but near enough. If you want to market to homosexuals, a list that is comprised of 90% homosexuals is good enough.
Granted, it was a joke. The trouble is, there are not just a few people on slashdot who will gladly and vociferously proclaim their superiority because they don't have a facebook account, don't have a cellphone, or don't own a television. You've got to give us some clue that you aren't deadly and arrogantly serious. I suggest the sarcasm punctuation mark: '~'. As in:
A new punctuation mark. That'll catch on~
People who are smart usually have a low emotional IQ, but thats not necessarily true.
I'd say it's usually not true. Smart people often have excellent emotional insight. There's just a particular class of easily recognized high-IQ, low-EQ individuals (who all hang out at Slashdot, of course). Those people, partially because of their low EQ, think that low EQ correlates with high IQ... probably because that describes them, their friends, and most of the people they work with.
There are marvelously intelligent businessmen, politicians, artists, even actors... but because they may have stronger emotional sensibilities than us, they express their intelligence in different ways.
You're not understanding your value as an example. It's not in the way you'd like to think.
Look up some actual studies instead of just regurgitating memes. MSNBC, for example, is worse. CNN not as bad.
The country is a collection of people, so what you are saying simplifies down to the claim that some people should be 'ran' for the benefit of other people. This is the problem that socialism always runs up against; it's not reconcilable with a free society.
Annual leave owing to employees is written up as a debt owing (from the company to the employee) here, so looks bad in the books.
That actually is the law in the US as well. The relative lack of vacation-usage in the US (which is not as dramatic as many of the posters here make it out to be) is more a cultural behavior than legal.
Well, I certainly don't think anybody is obligated to feed me.
The inherent contradictions in the summary and article will be ignored by anybody who will feel better by ignoring them.
Previously there was nothing stopping resellers from doing exactly that, slapping Apple logos all over the place and dressing staff in apple branded clothes.
Actually there was something stopping that; Apple trademarks on their company name and logo. Not to mention probably laws against simple fraud and various consumer protection statutes.
This trademark is not intended to stop stores from representing themselves as Apple stores; it's to try to cement a competitive advantage by restricting the ability of competitors to use similar storefront design techniques.
Apple doesn't have much longer I think.
I agree. Or, rather, they'll be around for decades, but the Apple we know is already fading. Already, they've lost the cutting edge coolness factor, which was their greatest asset. Their corporate behavior is being recognized as atrocious. Their marketing strategy has lost its focus, and has become scattershot. In ten years they'll be a Nokia.