Here's a concept, how about instead of asking everyone to do things for you, do it yourself? Outfit your home with solar panels and then sell the electricity back to the power company.
That's fine, and I heartily encourage people to do so. But this doesn't stop coal burning from affecting my health or my climate.
Can't make a rational, well-thought-out argument for why it's a great idea to fuck up the environment, so instead you mock their username? Here's an idea:
Here's an idea, if you don't want to get mocked, regardless of the conversation topic, then consider not using a sex joke as a username.
That was a long time ago, and times and people change.
Most of the people say that current day living is worse than two generations ago, so if there is any undoing, they are not exactly undoing the progress.
Only in an overly-romanticized version of the 50s and 60s. If you were white (and the right type of white), Christian, and straight, then you were ok as long as you toed the line. If you were anything else, and there were quite a few of them, or a woman who sought something higher than being a bored housewife, life was substantially worse than it is today.
I remember his initial iPhone announcement/unveiling, where he talked about phones with hard keyboards built into the display and how much it sucked that display space was taken by these buttons you only sometimes used.
We get it. You don't like Apple. We'll all pretend for your benefit that the Android ecosystem hasn't "borrowed" any features from Apple and the Android is the one true system from which all good things originate.
I think claims that Android stole from Apple tend to be wildly overblown. Now Samsung stealing ideas from Apple? Now you've really got something.
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHA! Damn that was a funny joke!!! Have you considered a career in comedy? You'd doubtless end up as one of the all time comedy greats in all of recorded human history.
I only wish it were a joke, but sadly that's the reality we live in.
He may be honest, but he's also wrong. Yes, of course "real work" needs to be done to turn ideas into reality, but those ideas are at least as important as the work themselves. "Real work" in service of bad ideas is entirely wasted, and there are plenty of Silicon Valley companies turning out useless apps and software products that won't go anywhere that talented people have spent a lot of time making.
Linus is wrong, and "innovation," however you want to define it, is damned important.
No, because to the left, judgment is not passed based on what you do or the content of your character (you know, merit), but your identity (skin color, what's between your legs, what you do in bedroom, whether you are a "D" or an "R" regardless of the specific policies or ideas you support)
When did the current administration start caring about lies?
Don't get me wrong, all politicians lie, but the currenr group of fools seem to be the most cavalier I've seen with their lies (plus bad at it).
In general, they want to be the ones who tell the lies. They don't want to be the ones being lied to. When you lie to Pence about your son's security clearance, Pence don't like that.
The US is a signee of all four Geneva Convention treaties. There were three additional protocols, though the US has only ratified the third, but not the other two. The various treaties that the US has signed: GC I: Amelioration of the wounded and sick in the armed forces (1949) GC II: Amelioration of the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked in the naval forces (1949) GC III: Treatment of prisoners of war (1929/1949) GC IV: Protection of civilian persons in times of war (1949) P III: Protection of anyone wearing Red Cross, Red Crescent, or Red Crystal to denote medical/religious personnel (2005) Signed but not ratified: P I: Protection of victims of international armed conflicts (1977). P II: Protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (1977)
The Geneva Convention treaties are signed by a number of countries who seek to use them as a weapon against their enemy ("they broke the convention treaties, they should be tried for war crimes!") while they don't follow them themselves.
"the general trend of casually insulting people" - yep, I hate this too.
If I paraded through the town singing "Rakarra is the secret ruler of Mars and he is trying to kill us all with his mind control waves", would you really consider that an attack on yourself?
First, I might be quite intrigued by it, and I would certainly hope I could live up to the reputation. What an honor, what a responsibility!
But really, it would feel like satire, or just playful banter. I wouldn't take it seriously, no. But it was discovered that all 34 of the "toxic users" were Administrators or Wikipedia employees does not sound like playful banter to me, it feels a bit more like a stinging rebuke. Reading that, it would be hard for me to come to another conclusion than you really do think that Wikipedia moderators and administrators are bad, toxic people. It's a sentiment I've seen here more than once, echoed sometimes in summaries of actual Slashdot articles.
I've edited Wikipedia a number of times, and most of my contributions were insta-reverted. Until the culture of "n00b-bashing" is eradicated from wikipedia, they could use a little satirical scrutiny.
I think the culture could certainly come under scrutiny.
People don't rush for those jobs because it is a hard job with low pay in which you don't pick up skills to use elsewhere.
That's right. But I'm talking about people with NO jobs who complain there aren't any jobs (there are a ton of them in California and elsewhere), but they feel custodial work, crop picking, other "dead end" work is beneath them and they can't bring themselves to do it. Someone has to do it, and for the most part it isn't going to be done by machines either for the foreseeable future, regardless of the ever-rosey technologists' dreams. It's not racist to say that a certain segment of society is willing to do these jobs when a certain segment of society is willing to do them, but another is not. It DOES have the overall effect of segregation, but for the most part it's self-segregation.
Racist maybe, but racist against whites. It's an acknowledgement that Hispanics, in some cases illegal, are doing the jobs that are otherwise hard to fill. I don't notice white people flocking to the CA central valley to be crop pickers.
1/3 of California state funding comes from the Feds Almost $100,000,000,000.00. So not sure what your smoking out there in California.
Here's what ends up happening: the feds take an enormous amount of money from the state residents. Then some of that money is given back to the state, with strings attached. If DJT decided to cut off all federal funding, and the state refused to send one dollar to Washington, the state residents would end up keeping more of their money, and the state would be better funded.
This is the nastiness of removing state power and giving it to the federal government that conservatives are so up in arms about whenever there's a Democratic President.
So, are you folks going to sue the Sierra Club for the damages?
Ten years ago, environmental groups sued the state of California over this emergency spillway, and not for the reasons you might think -- they sued because the emergency spillway was an earth spillway (as in, just regular earth) and not a concrete spillway. Well the state never got around to making it a proper concrete spillway, and with the recent storms, a hole has opened in the spillway. This is the emergency spillway, not the main spillway which has been releasing water into the river as fast as it is able, but runoff from the incredible December/January storms have overfilled the dam and now it's spilling over into the emergency spillway.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the proposed Keystone pipeline would be longer, no? In any case it would seem we possess the technology.
The keystone pipeline goes mostly through flat land and it wouldn't pump even a tiny fraction of the amount of water that needs to move from one side of the state to the other. California's aqueduct goes through three mountain ranges, and has a current pumping capacity of 32 million square meters/day, the keystone pipeline will have a capacity of 132 thousand square meters/day. Not that either meet their absolute maximum capacity!
But hey, we got more welfare and crony projects like the Bullet-CrazyTrain.
Yes, the train that will cost $68.4 billion and fulfill the same transportation demand as spending $119.0 billion on 4,295 new lane-miles of highway plus $38.6 billion on 115 new airport gates and 4 new runways ($158 billion total). Let's not build it because we need that $68.4 billion for other things, right?
Problems with the high-speed rail come down to many of its promises being broken.
First, when California Proposition 1A was passed by California voters, it was a $9 billion bond, and was sold as being the CA voter part of the $33 billion budget for the high-speed rail project. The other $24 billion was expected to be covered by matching federal funds and private investment, neither of which ever materialized. Some of it was predicated on receiving funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the future of which isn't bright. But what a shock, the official project-announced minimum was up to $68 billion as of 2012, and I have a bridge to sell you if you believe the final price tag will be anything as low as that. So now voters are on the hook (because apparently we just can't back out of this) for at least ten times the initial promised investment. And what are they getting for it? Well...
Second, the train is NOT high-speed (anymore). In some places, it's going to share existing low-speed lines with Amtrak, that disaster of reliability. The original speed promises are now considered 'impossible' though for the most part reduced speeds would still be considered "high speed rail." But only in certain sections. LA to San Diego is still planned to be high-speed.
Third, ridership estimates by 2030 put out by independent agencies are about half that of the High Speed Rail Authority's projections. This is important, as Prop 1A required that the train system be 'self-supporting,' IE, its fares pay for the continuous maintenance. If the ridership isn't that high, then fares will go up. And most people don't need a SF-to-LA by way of San Joaquin. The freeways are packed because they're trying to get from their job to their home, and the freeways won't help out at all. Even a super-fast train is not much good if it doesn't go where you need it to.
Overall, James Fallows of the Atlantic summed it up nicely: "It will cost too much, take too long, use up too much land, go to the wrong places, and in the end won't be fast or convenient enough to do that much good anyway."
The reason they're saying the hydro downsides don't apply is because it has little to do with hydro power. The storage and damming is going to happen regardless, because having water supply is going to outweigh any other type of consideration. If you can get the hydro power for free, then you have no reason to not do it except for spite. But you can't blame the downsides of damming on hydro power if damming will happen with or without power generation.
Well which was it? Water supply would mean you'd keep it as full as possible
In most years you can do both, because you can collect the rainwater and release it at a reasonable rate into the river instead of all at once during a storm, and you can also collect the water for water supply and still have enough.
This year has been unusually wet, and has overflowed the dam despite a moderate water release. In periods of extreme drought, it's insufficient for water supply, though it works pretty well as flood control.
It was clearly not intended to be a truthful statement. No Slashdot reader could genuinely believe it to be true. How, then, can it constitute an attack?
A statement has to be true for it to be an attack? All I know is if I was a Wikipedia editor, and was honestly trying to do the best job I could, which I believe most of them actually are, I'd probably feel kindof shitty. It's snark criticizing volunteer work without knowing the person or what they actually do. It doesn't help the discussion at all, it's part of the general trend of casually insulting people so we can look superior, be funny, or just generally feel better about ourselves. It's mild as far as these things go, so I don't know that I would have bothered using a mod point on it, but it falls into that category.
Look buddy, every elf and hobbit knows that the moon is male, for Tilion the hunter is one who steers the flower through Telperion through the night sky. Duh. And the sun is shepherded by Arien, a Maiar maiden. Everyone knows this, were you asleep during history class?
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a concept, how about instead of asking everyone to do things for you, do it yourself? Outfit your home with solar panels and then sell the electricity back to the power company.
That's fine, and I heartily encourage people to do so. But this doesn't stop coal burning from affecting my health or my climate.
Can't make a rational, well-thought-out argument for why it's a great idea to fuck up the environment, so instead you mock their username? Here's an idea:
Here's an idea, if you don't want to get mocked, regardless of the conversation topic, then consider not using a sex joke as a username.
No, ideas are a dime a dozen. You probably come up with a dozen ideas every hour, from the mundane to fantasy.
Ideas are a dime a dozen, but great ideas are rare.
KKK has been founded by the democrats.
That was a long time ago, and times and people change.
Most of the people say that current day living is worse than two generations ago, so if there is any undoing, they are not exactly undoing the progress.
Only in an overly-romanticized version of the 50s and 60s. If you were white (and the right type of white), Christian, and straight, then you were ok as long as you toed the line. If you were anything else, and there were quite a few of them, or a woman who sought something higher than being a bored housewife, life was substantially worse than it is today.
I remember his initial iPhone announcement/unveiling, where he talked about phones with hard keyboards built into the display and how much it sucked that display space was taken by these buttons you only sometimes used.
We get it. You don't like Apple. We'll all pretend for your benefit that the Android ecosystem hasn't "borrowed" any features from Apple and the Android is the one true system from which all good things originate.
I think claims that Android stole from Apple tend to be wildly overblown. Now Samsung stealing ideas from Apple? Now you've really got something.
Like rounded rectangles?
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHA! Damn that was a funny joke!!! Have you considered a career in comedy? You'd doubtless end up as one of the all time comedy greats in all of recorded human history.
I only wish it were a joke, but sadly that's the reality we live in.
He may be honest, but he's also wrong. Yes, of course "real work" needs to be done to turn ideas into reality, but those ideas are at least as important as the work themselves. "Real work" in service of bad ideas is entirely wasted, and there are plenty of Silicon Valley companies turning out useless apps and software products that won't go anywhere that talented people have spent a lot of time making.
Linus is wrong, and "innovation," however you want to define it, is damned important.
Minix was a better design. .
I don't know whether to moderate this -1 flamebait or +1 funny. Let's just go with "+0, Ok?"
No, because to the left, judgment is not passed based on what you do or the content of your character (you know, merit), but your identity (skin color, what's between your legs, what you do in bedroom, whether you are a "D" or an "R" regardless of the specific policies or ideas you support)
Strawman.
When did the current administration start caring about lies?
Don't get me wrong, all politicians lie, but the currenr group of fools seem to be the most cavalier I've seen with their lies (plus bad at it).
In general, they want to be the ones who tell the lies. They don't want to be the ones being lied to.
When you lie to Pence about your son's security clearance, Pence don't like that.
The US is a signee of all four Geneva Convention treaties. There were three additional protocols, though the US has only ratified the third, but not the other two. The various treaties that the US has signed:
GC I: Amelioration of the wounded and sick in the armed forces (1949)
GC II: Amelioration of the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked in the naval forces (1949)
GC III: Treatment of prisoners of war (1929/1949)
GC IV: Protection of civilian persons in times of war (1949)
P III: Protection of anyone wearing Red Cross, Red Crescent, or Red Crystal to denote medical/religious personnel (2005)
Signed but not ratified:
P I: Protection of victims of international armed conflicts (1977).
P II: Protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (1977)
The Geneva Convention treaties are signed by a number of countries who seek to use them as a weapon against their enemy ("they broke the convention treaties, they should be tried for war crimes!") while they don't follow them themselves.
"the general trend of casually insulting people" - yep, I hate this too.
If I paraded through the town singing "Rakarra is the secret ruler of Mars and he is trying to kill us all with his mind control waves", would you really consider that an attack on yourself?
First, I might be quite intrigued by it, and I would certainly hope I could live up to the reputation. What an honor, what a responsibility!
But really, it would feel like satire, or just playful banter. I wouldn't take it seriously, no. But it was discovered that all 34 of the "toxic users" were Administrators or Wikipedia employees does not sound like playful banter to me, it feels a bit more like a stinging rebuke. Reading that, it would be hard for me to come to another conclusion than you really do think that Wikipedia moderators and administrators are bad, toxic people. It's a sentiment I've seen here more than once, echoed sometimes in summaries of actual Slashdot articles.
I've edited Wikipedia a number of times, and most of my contributions were insta-reverted. Until the culture of "n00b-bashing" is eradicated from wikipedia, they could use a little satirical scrutiny.
I think the culture could certainly come under scrutiny.
I'm not sure what the point is. It's still a huge amount of water to artificially pump, especially up mountain ranges.
People don't rush for those jobs because it is a hard job with low pay in which you don't pick up skills to use elsewhere.
That's right. But I'm talking about people with NO jobs who complain there aren't any jobs (there are a ton of them in California and elsewhere), but they feel custodial work, crop picking, other "dead end" work is beneath them and they can't bring themselves to do it. Someone has to do it, and for the most part it isn't going to be done by machines either for the foreseeable future, regardless of the ever-rosey technologists' dreams. It's not racist to say that a certain segment of society is willing to do these jobs when a certain segment of society is willing to do them, but another is not. It DOES have the overall effect of segregation, but for the most part it's self-segregation.
UGH. You're right, I flubbed the notation. The numbers are correct, but they should all be cubic meters.
Nice little racist a$$h0le comment there.
Racist maybe, but racist against whites. It's an acknowledgement that Hispanics, in some cases illegal, are doing the jobs that are otherwise hard to fill. I don't notice white people flocking to the CA central valley to be crop pickers.
1/3 of California state funding comes from the Feds Almost $100,000,000,000.00. So not sure what your smoking out there in California.
Here's what ends up happening: the feds take an enormous amount of money from the state residents. Then some of that money is given back to the state, with strings attached. If DJT decided to cut off all federal funding, and the state refused to send one dollar to Washington, the state residents would end up keeping more of their money, and the state would be better funded.
This is the nastiness of removing state power and giving it to the federal government that conservatives are so up in arms about whenever there's a Democratic President.
when the Sierra Club sued
So, are you folks going to sue the Sierra Club for the damages?
Ten years ago, environmental groups sued the state of California over this emergency spillway, and not for the reasons you might think -- they sued because the emergency spillway was an earth spillway (as in, just regular earth) and not a concrete spillway. Well the state never got around to making it a proper concrete spillway, and with the recent storms, a hole has opened in the spillway. This is the emergency spillway, not the main spillway which has been releasing water into the river as fast as it is able, but runoff from the incredible December/January storms have overfilled the dam and now it's spilling over into the emergency spillway.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the proposed Keystone pipeline would be longer, no? In any case it would seem we possess the technology.
The keystone pipeline goes mostly through flat land and it wouldn't pump even a tiny fraction of the amount of water that needs to move from one side of the state to the other. California's aqueduct goes through three mountain ranges, and has a current pumping capacity of 32 million square meters/day, the keystone pipeline will have a capacity of 132 thousand square meters/day. Not that either meet their absolute maximum capacity!
Yes, the train that will cost $68.4 billion and fulfill the same transportation demand as spending $119.0 billion on 4,295 new lane-miles of highway plus $38.6 billion on 115 new airport gates and 4 new runways ($158 billion total). Let's not build it because we need that $68.4 billion for other things, right?
Problems with the high-speed rail come down to many of its promises being broken.
First, when California Proposition 1A was passed by California voters, it was a $9 billion bond, and was sold as being the CA voter part of the $33 billion budget for the high-speed rail project. The other $24 billion was expected to be covered by matching federal funds and private investment, neither of which ever materialized. Some of it was predicated on receiving funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the future of which isn't bright. But what a shock, the official project-announced minimum was up to $68 billion as of 2012, and I have a bridge to sell you if you believe the final price tag will be anything as low as that. So now voters are on the hook (because apparently we just can't back out of this) for at least ten times the initial promised investment. And what are they getting for it? Well...
Second, the train is NOT high-speed (anymore). In some places, it's going to share existing low-speed lines with Amtrak, that disaster of reliability. The original speed promises are now considered 'impossible' though for the most part reduced speeds would still be considered "high speed rail." But only in certain sections. LA to San Diego is still planned to be high-speed.
Third, ridership estimates by 2030 put out by independent agencies are about half that of the High Speed Rail Authority's projections. This is important, as Prop 1A required that the train system be 'self-supporting,' IE, its fares pay for the continuous maintenance. If the ridership isn't that high, then fares will go up. And most people don't need a SF-to-LA by way of San Joaquin. The freeways are packed because they're trying to get from their job to their home, and the freeways won't help out at all. Even a super-fast train is not much good if it doesn't go where you need it to.
Overall, James Fallows of the Atlantic summed it up nicely: "It will cost too much, take too long, use up too much land, go to the wrong places, and in the end won't be fast or convenient enough to do that much good anyway."
The reason they're saying the hydro downsides don't apply is because it has little to do with hydro power. The storage and damming is going to happen regardless, because having water supply is going to outweigh any other type of consideration. If you can get the hydro power for free, then you have no reason to not do it except for spite. But you can't blame the downsides of damming on hydro power if damming will happen with or without power generation.
Well which was it? Water supply would mean you'd keep it as full as possible
In most years you can do both, because you can collect the rainwater and release it at a reasonable rate into the river instead of all at once during a storm, and you can also collect the water for water supply and still have enough.
This year has been unusually wet, and has overflowed the dam despite a moderate water release.
In periods of extreme drought, it's insufficient for water supply, though it works pretty well as flood control.
It was clearly not intended to be a truthful statement. No Slashdot reader could genuinely believe it to be true. How, then, can it constitute an attack?
A statement has to be true for it to be an attack?
All I know is if I was a Wikipedia editor, and was honestly trying to do the best job I could, which I believe most of them actually are, I'd probably feel kindof shitty. It's snark criticizing volunteer work without knowing the person or what they actually do. It doesn't help the discussion at all, it's part of the general trend of casually insulting people so we can look superior, be funny, or just generally feel better about ourselves. It's mild as far as these things go, so I don't know that I would have bothered using a mod point on it, but it falls into that category.
Look buddy, every elf and hobbit knows that the moon is male, for Tilion the hunter is one who steers the flower through Telperion through the night sky. Duh.
And the sun is shepherded by Arien, a Maiar maiden. Everyone knows this, were you asleep during history class?