Obama's "scientific approach" appears eerily similar to the approaches that his predecessor used in response to crisis events... In other words not specifically scientific at all.
... a sign of some elements of Texas pushing harder for secession from the rest of the country? If so, I say bring it on...
Better yet, let's just sell Tejas back to Mexico before they have the chance to secede. Not only would that that solve the Texas Problem, it would bring some money into the Federal treasury.
I think that is based on the assumption that Mexico would want Texas. I suspect Mexico has enough problems of its own and would not be interested in the deal. Besides, if we sold Texas to Mexico, then angry anti-Mexico Texans might try to immigrate into the US.
The question people should be asking is, "Why should I turn my children over to a government school in the first place?"
You don't have to. You are free to send your children to a private school if you prefer. Nobody is forcing you to send your child to a public school; you are just required to send your child to a school.
The conservatives often complain that we spend too much money on education costs. But yet they then want to rewrite all the textbooks to meet their own versions of history. In the end, aren't they just increasing the costs of education, by forcing schools to buy new textbooks that meet the new standards? This seems counter to the "free market", "don't tread on me" idealism that they were pushing not too long ago...
Not necessarily. As usual our intrepid editorial staff did a total horseshit job of summarizing, describing, and likely reading, the article. The article is about webpages that don't need to be remade anymore in truth. It largely talks about all the craptacular new social networking sites that are all trying to copy each other for no good reason. So while slashdot doesn't have much of a reason to exist anymore, it isn't a new site either so it doesn't really apply.
On the other hand the list does describe some of the "new" crap that has been added here recently...
If the editors read the stories before posting them, they would have realized that the last item on the list describes the most recent slashdot initiatives...
The summary emphasized the word "confidential". Really, the important key word here should have been "voluntary". What are the consequences of not giving a sample? If they don't care if you give a sample or not, then why would this be an issue? If you're smart enough to go to Berkeley you should be smart enough to be aware of the current pros and cons of giving a DNA sample.
And how else is an utterly fact free 'explanation' that justifies Google's actions to be interpreted
I encourage you to go back to my post and read it again. If you read it with your eyes open you will find that I did not justify google's actions, in spite of what you are trying to claim. For that matter the very line you just quoted was where I said that I do not agree with their choice.
How else is a statement utterly lacking in condemnation of Google's action to be interpreted
While condemnation and exoneration could be interpreted as opposites, there are options in between the two as well. I have now stated multiple times that I do not agree with their choice of action.
In the same light we seldom see political advertising that pushes facts, most political ads (the ones on slashdot being excellent examples) instead push rumors, half-truths, and outright lies.
And after making stuff up to exonerate Google
In no way does that exonerate google. In no way did I try to say that I agree with what they have done - rather I will here state clearly that I do not agree with their choice. How on earth you read that to "exonerate google" is a question I would like to know the answer to.
you finish off with some political slurs.
That was not a political slur. It was merely an observation of how fact-lacking the political ads are. I'm not sure which side you think that was a "slur" against, but I will say here that there is adequate blame to go around to reach the ads from all sides of a political contest. Hell, much of the political advertising thrives on the exploiting the grey zone between "fact lacking" and outright lies.
As much as some people like to think otherwise the simple truth of spam is that spammers send spam to make money. And this guy was just taking it to another level; he was working to improve the rate at which his spam gets through. This really shouldn't surprise anyone who has one iota of sense regarding how spam works and why it actually exists.
Hell we could actually call this "a victory for western capitalism in Russia". Alternately you could say he is just a newer iteration of Viktor Bout.
The problem is that the two are not often compatible. The site for older men trolling for younger women likely intentionally does some obfuscation to hide what they are after. The cougar site, however, is relatively unambiguous by name. In the same light we seldom see political advertising that pushes facts, most political ads (the ones on slashdot being excellent examples) instead push rumors, half-truths, and outright lies.
Watching my apache logs, I see lots of very similar "fingerprints" like they refer to. However, a lot of it leads to dead ends. For example, I see a lot of users who connect through RoadRunner, running Windows Vista, using Firefox3. That doesn't really tell me much. Sure I can attempt to locate where they are geographically by their IP address, but that isn't all that useful either if I really want to say "that was John Smith". After all, even if I know that two visits on different days were the same originating IP, same OS and same browser, I can't really say for sure that it was the same person.
Now of course, if the distribution of operating systems (and browsers) on PCs was more even it would be easier to be more confident about identifying return visitors. But as it is there are a lot of PCs out there that aren't upgrading their OS for any of a number of reasons.
The story has been tagged "getarealos", presumably in response to the DOS-based limitation. But yet DOS has OS right in it - can you really be more real than an OS with OS in the name?
There have been suggestions over time that Newton may have been homosexual. And that just doesn't bode well with conservative teachings - after all, why would god make a smart person not be a heterosexual bible thumper?
Except that he isn't killing NASA. If you RTFA you'll see that his proposal is for NASA to go to Mars, and get out of the business of low-earth lifting.
In other words, he is supporting the outsourcing of some of what NASA currently does. Why his predecessor didn't propose the same is beyond me.
If they are concerned about this satellite hitting other satellites, it would seem that traffic up there is getting pretty high. We know that of course there are varying reasons for launching satellites and some launches are done with little information shared on their purpose or location.
Nonetheless, is there an agency anywhere that has a good estimate of how many satellites are up there, where they are, and in which direction they are travelling? Is it something that NASA and others would start to pay more attention to when/if they start going for moon/mars/other-far-away-places missions?
As for using the middle button to paste - why? I've always wondered this... why not just use CTRL+V?
In a standard X windows configuration, when text is selected with the mouse, it is generally automatically copied. Then middle button then is the paste function; hence you are saving both the Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V. It can be quite useful for working with larger documents - especially if you are rewriting large bits of code.
Granted, the whole idea probably came about so that people who had to take their hand off the keyboard to use the mouse could work a bit faster. If your mouse is a trackpoint stick in the middle of the keyboard, it isn't as much of an advantage, but can still be useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama's "scientific approach" appears eerily similar to the approaches that his predecessor used in response to crisis events... In other words not specifically scientific at all.
... a sign of some elements of Texas pushing harder for secession from the rest of the country? If so, I say bring it on...
Better yet, let's just sell Tejas back to Mexico before they have the chance to secede. Not only would that that solve the Texas Problem, it would bring some money into the Federal treasury.
I think that is based on the assumption that Mexico would want Texas. I suspect Mexico has enough problems of its own and would not be interested in the deal. Besides, if we sold Texas to Mexico, then angry anti-Mexico Texans might try to immigrate into the US.
The question people should be asking is, "Why should I turn my children over to a government school in the first place?"
You don't have to. You are free to send your children to a private school if you prefer. Nobody is forcing you to send your child to a public school; you are just required to send your child to a school.
... a sign of some elements of Texas pushing harder for secession from the rest of the country? If so, I say bring it on...
The conservatives often complain that we spend too much money on education costs. But yet they then want to rewrite all the textbooks to meet their own versions of history. In the end, aren't they just increasing the costs of education, by forcing schools to buy new textbooks that meet the new standards? This seems counter to the "free market", "don't tread on me" idealism that they were pushing not too long ago...
They make the 3d mouse that I use at work; I could see that being a very useful way to interact with or manage certain types of entertainment ...
Slashdot should be #1 on that list.
Not necessarily. As usual our intrepid editorial staff did a total horseshit job of summarizing, describing, and likely reading, the article. The article is about webpages that don't need to be remade anymore in truth. It largely talks about all the craptacular new social networking sites that are all trying to copy each other for no good reason. So while slashdot doesn't have much of a reason to exist anymore, it isn't a new site either so it doesn't really apply.
On the other hand the list does describe some of the "new" crap that has been added here recently...
If the editors read the stories before posting them, they would have realized that the last item on the list describes the most recent slashdot initiatives...
Are there really a lot of fundies in Australia too? I always thought it was a very laid back sort of country.
There may not be a lot of them there, but they are loud and have money. See: Rupert Murdoch.
I hope it's for a daemon...
The summary emphasized the word "confidential". Really, the important key word here should have been "voluntary". What are the consequences of not giving a sample? If they don't care if you give a sample or not, then why would this be an issue? If you're smart enough to go to Berkeley you should be smart enough to be aware of the current pros and cons of giving a DNA sample.
And how else is an utterly fact free 'explanation' that justifies Google's actions to be interpreted
I encourage you to go back to my post and read it again. If you read it with your eyes open you will find that I did not justify google's actions, in spite of what you are trying to claim. For that matter the very line you just quoted was where I said that I do not agree with their choice.
How else is a statement utterly lacking in condemnation of Google's action to be interpreted
While condemnation and exoneration could be interpreted as opposites, there are options in between the two as well. I have now stated multiple times that I do not agree with their choice of action.
In the same light we seldom see political advertising that pushes facts, most political ads (the ones on slashdot being excellent examples) instead push rumors, half-truths, and outright lies.
And after making stuff up to exonerate Google
In no way does that exonerate google. In no way did I try to say that I agree with what they have done - rather I will here state clearly that I do not agree with their choice. How on earth you read that to "exonerate google" is a question I would like to know the answer to.
you finish off with some political slurs.
That was not a political slur. It was merely an observation of how fact-lacking the political ads are. I'm not sure which side you think that was a "slur" against, but I will say here that there is adequate blame to go around to reach the ads from all sides of a political contest. Hell, much of the political advertising thrives on the exploiting the grey zone between "fact lacking" and outright lies.
... make money.
As much as some people like to think otherwise the simple truth of spam is that spammers send spam to make money. And this guy was just taking it to another level; he was working to improve the rate at which his spam gets through. This really shouldn't surprise anyone who has one iota of sense regarding how spam works and why it actually exists.
Hell we could actually call this "a victory for western capitalism in Russia". Alternately you could say he is just a newer iteration of Viktor Bout.
The problem is that the two are not often compatible. The site for older men trolling for younger women likely intentionally does some obfuscation to hide what they are after. The cougar site, however, is relatively unambiguous by name. In the same light we seldom see political advertising that pushes facts, most political ads (the ones on slashdot being excellent examples) instead push rumors, half-truths, and outright lies.
Watching my apache logs, I see lots of very similar "fingerprints" like they refer to. However, a lot of it leads to dead ends. For example, I see a lot of users who connect through RoadRunner, running Windows Vista, using Firefox3. That doesn't really tell me much. Sure I can attempt to locate where they are geographically by their IP address, but that isn't all that useful either if I really want to say "that was John Smith". After all, even if I know that two visits on different days were the same originating IP, same OS and same browser, I can't really say for sure that it was the same person.
Now of course, if the distribution of operating systems (and browsers) on PCs was more even it would be easier to be more confident about identifying return visitors. But as it is there are a lot of PCs out there that aren't upgrading their OS for any of a number of reasons.
The story has been tagged "getarealos", presumably in response to the DOS-based limitation. But yet DOS has OS right in it - can you really be more real than an OS with OS in the name?
why omit Newton
There have been suggestions over time that Newton may have been homosexual. And that just doesn't bode well with conservative teachings - after all, why would god make a smart person not be a heterosexual bible thumper?
Apparently the malamanteau page may (or may not) be the place to pre-order battletoads. I was wondering what happened to the other battletoads pre-order site, now I know!
... since several slashdot members seem seldom (if ever) hesitant to use undefined terms.
him killing NASA really struck a nerve
Except that he isn't killing NASA. If you RTFA you'll see that his proposal is for NASA to go to Mars, and get out of the business of low-earth lifting.
In other words, he is supporting the outsourcing of some of what NASA currently does. Why his predecessor didn't propose the same is beyond me.
Did anyone think to ask him under oath if he actually walked on the moon? Just sayin ...
If they are concerned about this satellite hitting other satellites, it would seem that traffic up there is getting pretty high. We know that of course there are varying reasons for launching satellites and some launches are done with little information shared on their purpose or location.
Nonetheless, is there an agency anywhere that has a good estimate of how many satellites are up there, where they are, and in which direction they are travelling? Is it something that NASA and others would start to pay more attention to when/if they start going for moon/mars/other-far-away-places missions?
As for using the middle button to paste - why? I've always wondered this... why not just use CTRL+V?
In a standard X windows configuration, when text is selected with the mouse, it is generally automatically copied. Then middle button then is the paste function; hence you are saving both the Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V. It can be quite useful for working with larger documents - especially if you are rewriting large bits of code.
Granted, the whole idea probably came about so that people who had to take their hand off the keyboard to use the mouse could work a bit faster. If your mouse is a trackpoint stick in the middle of the keyboard, it isn't as much of an advantage, but can still be useful.
If we're parking vehicles in spaces they can't get out of, aren't we only making the congestion and parking problems in large cities worse?