Man, here's an idea, just go to images.google.com and type in tea party and look through the signs. There's quite a few examples of blatant racism. Now my question to you is, where are the tea party leaders condemning this? If you can't find that, then that seems pretty much like de-facto proof that it is tolerated.
I know a little pop psych too. It's called "projection". How many of these alleged psychological problems are really with the tea party people and how many are your own flaws which you attempt to "project" onto a group you don't like?
There was nothing even vaguely resembling pop psychology what I posted.
And seriously, I realize this is an internet-argument and therefore blah blah blah, but seriously, could you get any less classy?
Citation please for the actions of significant tea party racism (beyond that of US norm) or for that matter significant tolerance of racism (again beyond that of US norm). Surely you can vomit a half dozen links on command like those other guys. Until then, reasonable minds are going to have to assume that you're full of shit.
The basis for my claim is simple. I don't need to link it to you cause you've already seen it:
Pictures of tea party protests with a significant percentage of the signs being blatantly racist. I could link them to you, but I know you've seen them. Now *maybe* these signs don't represent the views of the majority, HOWEVER, I'd challenge you to find me a single example of a prominent Tea Party member decrying these signs or chastising the people holding them. If you can't, then that pretty much proves my point that, at minimum, racism is *tolerated* by the Tea Party.
Other groups, as you say, may well have racists -- but you can bet they don't feel comfortable speaking those views OPENLY and if they do, they're quickly shouted down and condemned. That's the simple difference.
[quote]If these people were really interested in "national unity", they probably wouldn't have put that building with the role it has there. They probably just want to get their narrative into the 9/11 myth and a nice building is classier than billboards.[/quote]
This whole situation is a train wreck. I regret mentioning it. In fact, I regret making my post. Not that I was wrong, just that I don't need to let myself sink into a silly flame war.
At any rate, let me summarize this situation and why it's so sad:
1) Group wants to build mosque. Because it'll be close to ground zero (though, for the record, no closer than the nearest strip club), they want to have a special area dedicated to promoting peace and understanding between religions.
2) Some people react badly to this. They naturally (to them it's natural) assume malicious intent, and see it as "rubbing salt on an open wound". This assumption of malice only occurs because they have prejudices against Muslims. Some of them are aware of their bigotry, many are not. If they didn't naturally assume that muslims were out to get them, they'd have no problems.
3) The group wishing to build the mosque is saddened, but vows they will not be deterred by bigotry, which they recognize as the source of the opposition.
4) The protesters take the refusal to back-down in #3 as *proof* that they have malicious intent. If they really wanted it to be about peace and unity, they would just build somewhere else, right? This after-the-fact rationalization allows them to continue to remain blind to their own prejudices -- despite the fact that the logic is a bit circular. This doesn't matter, the brain makes it work -- and even supplements it by digging up out of context quotes and such. Rationalization, after all, is the brains best weapon against self-realization. Cognitive Dissonance is how we preserve our sense of self. If we see ourselves as non-bigots, our brain will do whatever it takes to preserve that illusion.
And, yeah . . . like I said, it's a train wreck. From the outside, it's obvious to see both perspectives and you can see the inherent tragedy. Neither side believes they are wrong. Both sides believe they are only trying to do what's right, and are convinced the other side is wrong, and furthermore that they know they are wrong.
The people who want to build the mosque for the sake of unity, are causing exactly the opposite -- but only because they've riled up some bigots. They refuse to give in to bigotry, so they continue to cause discord instead of unity.
There's no such thing as an "honest guy" (at least in the context you mean it) who is highly qualified. Anybody qualified would recognize the necessity of politics to get things done. You hate politicians for being politicians, but politics is how things get done. Frustratingly slow? Sure, but if you don't stroke some egos, make some compromises and pay some lip-service, you can't get the votes you need to do anything accomplished. That's the sad truth. There's a reason all the idealists slowly turn into politicians (see: Barrack Obama).
It's the classic "No way are we racist, look, there's a black guy!"
The fact of the matter is that racism is endemic within the Tea Party, and if it's not, then its clearly tolerated. The most vocal members of the movement frequently make blatantly racist statements. The majority of the protest signs carry racist sentiments. And shall we discuss the immigration views the tea party espouses? If you prefer, I might accept the argument that the tea party stance on immigration isn't racism, merely xenophobia -- but I think reasonable minds will agree its definitely some form of bigotry.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin expects people to "refudiate" people who want to build a mosque as a symbol of national unity, but does the Tea Party ever call out their racist members? Do they ever hold them to account for their words? Of course not. It's a racist movement. Are there a few black people? Sure, but only a *few*. Not unexpected from a group that attracts oddballs.
And lastly, you're kidding yourself if you think anybody is "afraid" of what the Tea Party stands for, other than the rise of domestic terrorism it portends (we've already seen too much of this, sadly). From a political standpoint, it's the best gift liberals ever got. A schism right down the middle of the conservative backbone of America. It's amazing! Republican politicians are in an impossible situation.
If they don't pick a side, they risk losing both sides, and yet in most parts of the country they need the votes from BOTH sides to win their elections. For every Republican that'll only vote for you if you pay lip service to the Tea Party, there's one that doesn't want to vote for an extremist that does. Liberals are absolutely loving it. It's a trainwreck.
You do realize that they aren't censoring Chinese search results, right?
They were originally, like everyone else, but currently they are not. Google.cn just links you back to Google.hk for searches, and Google.hk is unfiltered. You still have to contend with with the Great Firewall, of course, so having uncensored results doesn't mean you can access censored material -- but at least you know what you aren't being allowed to see.
The media and politicians really seem to like this idea, so it's a decent way to get funding for your study -- but is it really a problem we should be worried about? Video game playing is a form of recreation. Plenty of people spend more than 30 hours a week doing something they love, and very few of them are ever referred to as "addictions". We never talk about people being "addicted" to Golf because they go out and play Golf twice a week and watch a bit of Golf on TV in other free moments. The amount of time you spend on a form of recreation can suddenly make the difference between a perfectly healthy past-time and an "addiction". What about youths "addicted" to basketball? Hell, what about a passive activity that's arguably even more dangers: addicted to television?
I'm not saying that some people don't spend an unhealthy amount of time playing video games and then obsess about them when they're not playing. But unlike proper drug addictions, these people are not ruining their lives in pursuit of their hobby. They aren't happy, well-adjusted individuals who "everybody really liked until the video games got him". They are people who are unhappy with almost every aspect of their life, and find the enjoyment in video games to be the only source of enjoyment they can look forward to. In short, "Video Game Addiction" is not a disease, its a symptom -- probably of depression. With that in mind, it does make sense that you could "treat" it with anti-depressants -- but should we really be focused on treating symptoms? Hell, it's not even really a symptom so much as it is a form of self-medication. I'm willing to bet that depressed individuals who develop video-gaming habits are probably much less likely to kill themselves. . .
Oh, I know there are stories in the Newspaper about marriages being "destroyed" by World of Warcraft or whatever, but I'm pretty sure that if you show me a person who withdrew into World of Warcraft to avoid his marriage, I can probably show you a marriage that wasn't particularly happy in the first place.
They do a decent job vs easy targets, but typically result to frantic arm waving and insults when trying to promote their libertarian political views. On the one hand, its hard to make a good argument in 30 minutes, let alone make it entertaining (the insults and boobs help). On the other hand, they're often wrong which sort of undermines the purpose of the show . . .
It's a shame they don't just stick to ridiculing new-age, get-rich-quick, anti-science nonsense. They're always best when they avoid politics.
Your argument is a bit circular (since you cite the 10th amendment, part of the Constitution, as the basis for your claim that you don't need the Constitution to grant you rights) and is entirely semantic, why bother? Either way, we all agree you have the right to dispose of your waste by some other means if you do not like how the city does it. Unless you just feel like you're entitled to a refund of taxes to compensate you for using some other service.
All the models, textures, sounds, etc are stored client side. Items, some maps (but not all I guess), triggers, scripts, etc are stored server-side. Any time a new patch comes out, the new items can't be seen until the servers come up because they get "data mined" by sending API requests to the servers using random itemids. The graphics for the new items are in the client files, but the numbers that make the item what it is -- those are all server side. There are lots of advantages to having this stuff server-side, such as the ability to hotfix the game without a client patch. Blizzard has mentioned in the past they they hotfix several items a week, the ability to do that alone is probably a huge driving factor in the way they've set up the game.
No its definately all server-side, though cached client-side on occasion (which is how the server operators are able to get their hands on it).
If you've ever been playing WoW when the server goes down, you can keep running around cause the client doesn't time you out right away as its still waiting for the server to communicate with it. When you do this, if you keep running far enough in one direction you'll eventually just hit a place where the world 'ends' because you don't have the map data beyond that point.
Boycotts are not quite the same thing. They're reactive instead of proactive. A company does something you don't like, and then you TRY to get enough people to care to boycott. I'm talking about organizing people beforehand and being very clear about what you don't want done.
I don't have to deal with Vodafone, but I get so much ridiculous crap from AT&T I've started to wonder how long before *customers* have to form unions to protect themselves from this sort of garbage. One person threatening to take their business elsewhere gets no notice, but if you could organize and get thousands of customers willing to "strike" together, maybe we could actaully have telcos that don't act like they're monopolies. I think a little bit of collective bargaining could really help us out on the monthly fees department too.
Since I'm such a fun guy, I have on occasion taken pictures of signs lacking in punctuation, and then tweeted the picture a long with my "corrected" version.
Unfortunately, I just don't have the balls to actually go buy some paint and make my corrections. Here's two examples:
"Private Lot? No, Student Parking!"
"Jesus loves you? Why? Die a victim with the devil. When you can live a victor with Jesus Christ, don't. Die in your sins."
Obviously, since the original signs lacked punctuation there's no way to be 100% sure I've preserved the intended meaning . . .
As you say, it may be beneficial to wake up "during an attack", but by the same token it's not very adaptive to wake up every time some random animal a mile away makes a loud mating call. Then you end up tired and unfocused when you go out hunting the next day and a tired hunter may end up being a hungry hunter. There's a balance in there, somewhere. Too deep is bad, but too light is just as maladaptive.
I see it like this: it's sorta like when you see someone with toilet paper stuck to their shoe. It's easier just to say nothing at all than to actually point out an embarrassing fact. But unless you're taking a certain sadistic glee in pointing it out, you're actaully doing that person a favor. I'm just pointing out his internet toilet paper.
They can carry night-vision cameras or even 'see-through-walls' Far IR cameras.
Seriously? If we're gonna talk about equipment that hypothetically *could* be attached to the drone, you might as well say "They could be equipped with toxic case, small bombs, and laser guns. They could launch GPS-guided sharks at unsuspecting people in swimming pools below. The sharks could be injected with adrenaline and be dunked in human blood just prior to being launched."
They could do all that, or they could just attach a damn camera to it and take some damn photographs for Google Earth.
Is your shift key broken or did a capitalized letter run over your dog? I'm not the sort of person to jump down someone's throat for making a grammatical error. Errors are, after all, unintended -- and I, like most, make them all the time. But what I find much harder to ignore is a person who simply decides to ignore a grammatical convention as a matter of style or lazyness, especially when doing so saves him no time and only serves to give the writer a douchey affectation.
Grammatical conventions exist for a reason. It's significantly harder to parse a paragraph of text when you can't tell at a glance where sentences are beginning and ending. Perhaps you read one word at a time, but many of us parse text in larger chunks and simply leaving out punctuation, or, in your case, capital letters can significantly slow down the speed at which a person is able to read what you have written.
It's not saving you any time. It doesn't make you seem laid back and informal. In fact, unless you are trying to impersonate a 12 year old girl, its not doing anything for you. If you are not a 12 year old girl, and the person reading your post knows this, then he/she will likely assume that you are a douchebag. Please bear this in mind in the future.
But with the Nexus 1 discontinued, and Eric Schmidt having announced there will be no Nexus 2, where does that leave people going forward into the future?
You say that, but do you recall what happened when he did give the passwords to them? They were immediately included in a legal filing against him which was part of the PUBLIC record -- meaning any idiot could see them. They had to shut their network down for days while they changed all the passwords on everything after they realized what an idiotic thing they'd done.
It sort of made his reasoning of "I'm not giving you the passwords cause you'll do something stupid with them" seem really, really justified.
And as I recall, it wasn't that he refused to give them over -- it was that he refused to give them over to "just anyone". He wanted to be sure that it was someone who wouldn't screw it up. Yes, he's an arrogant bastard who clearly and obviously looks down upon the people he works for -- but some of that seems to be justified. They clearly are at least a *bit* incompetent.
You mean people who buy who $105k cars typically have a high income? I never would have guessed at such a shocking conclusion. Let's face it, there aren't many choices. Yes, the Chevy Volt is coming as is the Nissan Leaf, but neither is here yet. Perhaps once there's an option on the market that costs significantly less than $105k, we'll see a shift in the interested demographic.
I don't care if they have my genes, I just don't want humanity to get wiped out. If they do, then who will resurrect everyone who ever lived using their fantastic near-magic technology in the far-flung future? Humanity going extinct really messes with my plans to live forever.
I imagine some people have, or plan to have, children which they will have some degree of fondness towards. As it may effect their children, or their children's children, it might be of some concern to you.
Also, I'm pretty sure an unusually high percentage of Slashdot readers are not planning on dying. I mean, that's pretty much what science is for, right? I'm very concerned about how this asteroid will affect my robot-body . . .
Slashdot Mirror
FFS.
If you spent 5 seconds with Google you'd find dozens of examples. I don't see why I have to do it for you.
Here: It took me literally seconds to find *dozens* of examples:
http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-delegates-vote-to-repudiate-racist-elements-within-the-tea-pary/ (6 or 7 pictures at this one)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/art.obama.protest.sign.cnn.jpg
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2008/10/custom_1223838327176_racistbf5.png
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20090916TeaParty01.jpg
Man, here's an idea, just go to images.google.com and type in tea party and look through the signs. There's quite a few examples of blatant racism. Now my question to you is, where are the tea party leaders condemning this? If you can't find that, then that seems pretty much like de-facto proof that it is tolerated.
I know a little pop psych too. It's called "projection". How many of these alleged psychological problems are really with the tea party people and how many are your own flaws which you attempt to "project" onto a group you don't like?
There was nothing even vaguely resembling pop psychology what I posted.
And seriously, I realize this is an internet-argument and therefore blah blah blah, but seriously, could you get any less classy?
Well, it's still better than my flash performance on the iPhone . . . Watching the same episode of Bones on my iPhone, I got 0 FPS.
Citation please for the actions of significant tea party racism (beyond that of US norm) or for that matter significant tolerance of racism (again beyond that of US norm). Surely you can vomit a half dozen links on command like those other guys. Until then, reasonable minds are going to have to assume that you're full of shit.
The basis for my claim is simple. I don't need to link it to you cause you've already seen it:
Pictures of tea party protests with a significant percentage of the signs being blatantly racist. I could link them to you, but I know you've seen them. Now *maybe* these signs don't represent the views of the majority, HOWEVER, I'd challenge you to find me a single example of a prominent Tea Party member decrying these signs or chastising the people holding them. If you can't, then that pretty much proves my point that, at minimum, racism is *tolerated* by the Tea Party.
Other groups, as you say, may well have racists -- but you can bet they don't feel comfortable speaking those views OPENLY and if they do, they're quickly shouted down and condemned. That's the simple difference.
[quote]If these people were really interested in "national unity", they probably wouldn't have put that building with the role it has there. They probably just want to get their narrative into the 9/11 myth and a nice building is classier than billboards.[/quote]
This whole situation is a train wreck. I regret mentioning it. In fact, I regret making my post. Not that I was wrong, just that I don't need to let myself sink into a silly flame war.
At any rate, let me summarize this situation and why it's so sad:
1) Group wants to build mosque. Because it'll be close to ground zero (though, for the record, no closer than the nearest strip club), they want to have a special area dedicated to promoting peace and understanding between religions.
2) Some people react badly to this. They naturally (to them it's natural) assume malicious intent, and see it as "rubbing salt on an open wound". This assumption of malice only occurs because they have prejudices against Muslims. Some of them are aware of their bigotry, many are not. If they didn't naturally assume that muslims were out to get them, they'd have no problems.
3) The group wishing to build the mosque is saddened, but vows they will not be deterred by bigotry, which they recognize as the source of the opposition.
4) The protesters take the refusal to back-down in #3 as *proof* that they have malicious intent. If they really wanted it to be about peace and unity, they would just build somewhere else, right? This after-the-fact rationalization allows them to continue to remain blind to their own prejudices -- despite the fact that the logic is a bit circular. This doesn't matter, the brain makes it work -- and even supplements it by digging up out of context quotes and such. Rationalization, after all, is the brains best weapon against self-realization. Cognitive Dissonance is how we preserve our sense of self. If we see ourselves as non-bigots, our brain will do whatever it takes to preserve that illusion.
And, yeah . . . like I said, it's a train wreck. From the outside, it's obvious to see both perspectives and you can see the inherent tragedy. Neither side believes they are wrong. Both sides believe they are only trying to do what's right, and are convinced the other side is wrong, and furthermore that they know they are wrong.
The people who want to build the mosque for the sake of unity, are causing exactly the opposite -- but only because they've riled up some bigots. They refuse to give in to bigotry, so they continue to cause discord instead of unity.
Based on what previous rulings do you suppose Kagan is likely to support this?
There's no such thing as an "honest guy" (at least in the context you mean it) who is highly qualified. Anybody qualified would recognize the necessity of politics to get things done. You hate politicians for being politicians, but politics is how things get done. Frustratingly slow? Sure, but if you don't stroke some egos, make some compromises and pay some lip-service, you can't get the votes you need to do anything accomplished. That's the sad truth. There's a reason all the idealists slowly turn into politicians (see: Barrack Obama).
It's the classic "No way are we racist, look, there's a black guy!"
The fact of the matter is that racism is endemic within the Tea Party, and if it's not, then its clearly tolerated. The most vocal members of the movement frequently make blatantly racist statements. The majority of the protest signs carry racist sentiments. And shall we discuss the immigration views the tea party espouses? If you prefer, I might accept the argument that the tea party stance on immigration isn't racism, merely xenophobia -- but I think reasonable minds will agree its definitely some form of bigotry.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin expects people to "refudiate" people who want to build a mosque as a symbol of national unity, but does the Tea Party ever call out their racist members? Do they ever hold them to account for their words? Of course not. It's a racist movement. Are there a few black people? Sure, but only a *few*. Not unexpected from a group that attracts oddballs.
And lastly, you're kidding yourself if you think anybody is "afraid" of what the Tea Party stands for, other than the rise of domestic terrorism it portends (we've already seen too much of this, sadly). From a political standpoint, it's the best gift liberals ever got. A schism right down the middle of the conservative backbone of America. It's amazing! Republican politicians are in an impossible situation.
If they don't pick a side, they risk losing both sides, and yet in most parts of the country they need the votes from BOTH sides to win their elections. For every Republican that'll only vote for you if you pay lip service to the Tea Party, there's one that doesn't want to vote for an extremist that does. Liberals are absolutely loving it. It's a trainwreck.
You do realize that they aren't censoring Chinese search results, right?
They were originally, like everyone else, but currently they are not. Google.cn just links you back to Google.hk for searches, and Google.hk is unfiltered. You still have to contend with with the Great Firewall, of course, so having uncensored results doesn't mean you can access censored material -- but at least you know what you aren't being allowed to see.
The media and politicians really seem to like this idea, so it's a decent way to get funding for your study -- but is it really a problem we should be worried about? Video game playing is a form of recreation. Plenty of people spend more than 30 hours a week doing something they love, and very few of them are ever referred to as "addictions". We never talk about people being "addicted" to Golf because they go out and play Golf twice a week and watch a bit of Golf on TV in other free moments. The amount of time you spend on a form of recreation can suddenly make the difference between a perfectly healthy past-time and an "addiction". What about youths "addicted" to basketball? Hell, what about a passive activity that's arguably even more dangers: addicted to television?
I'm not saying that some people don't spend an unhealthy amount of time playing video games and then obsess about them when they're not playing. But unlike proper drug addictions, these people are not ruining their lives in pursuit of their hobby. They aren't happy, well-adjusted individuals who "everybody really liked until the video games got him". They are people who are unhappy with almost every aspect of their life, and find the enjoyment in video games to be the only source of enjoyment they can look forward to. In short, "Video Game Addiction" is not a disease, its a symptom -- probably of depression. With that in mind, it does make sense that you could "treat" it with anti-depressants -- but should we really be focused on treating symptoms? Hell, it's not even really a symptom so much as it is a form of self-medication. I'm willing to bet that depressed individuals who develop video-gaming habits are probably much less likely to kill themselves. . .
Oh, I know there are stories in the Newspaper about marriages being "destroyed" by World of Warcraft or whatever, but I'm pretty sure that if you show me a person who withdrew into World of Warcraft to avoid his marriage, I can probably show you a marriage that wasn't particularly happy in the first place.
They do a decent job vs easy targets, but typically result to frantic arm waving and insults when trying to promote their libertarian political views. On the one hand, its hard to make a good argument in 30 minutes, let alone make it entertaining (the insults and boobs help). On the other hand, they're often wrong which sort of undermines the purpose of the show . . .
It's a shame they don't just stick to ridiculing new-age, get-rich-quick, anti-science nonsense. They're always best when they avoid politics.
Your argument is a bit circular (since you cite the 10th amendment, part of the Constitution, as the basis for your claim that you don't need the Constitution to grant you rights) and is entirely semantic, why bother? Either way, we all agree you have the right to dispose of your waste by some other means if you do not like how the city does it. Unless you just feel like you're entitled to a refund of taxes to compensate you for using some other service.
All the models, textures, sounds, etc are stored client side. Items, some maps (but not all I guess), triggers, scripts, etc are stored server-side. Any time a new patch comes out, the new items can't be seen until the servers come up because they get "data mined" by sending API requests to the servers using random itemids. The graphics for the new items are in the client files, but the numbers that make the item what it is -- those are all server side. There are lots of advantages to having this stuff server-side, such as the ability to hotfix the game without a client patch. Blizzard has mentioned in the past they they hotfix several items a week, the ability to do that alone is probably a huge driving factor in the way they've set up the game.
I'm sorry I didn't think this through all the way.
What I said is true of instances and battlegrounds. It's not true of world maps.
The "world ends here" effect only happens inside instanced areas.
No its definately all server-side, though cached client-side on occasion (which is how the server operators are able to get their hands on it).
If you've ever been playing WoW when the server goes down, you can keep running around cause the client doesn't time you out right away as its still waiting for the server to communicate with it. When you do this, if you keep running far enough in one direction you'll eventually just hit a place where the world 'ends' because you don't have the map data beyond that point.
Boycotts are not quite the same thing. They're reactive instead of proactive. A company does something you don't like, and then you TRY to get enough people to care to boycott. I'm talking about organizing people beforehand and being very clear about what you don't want done.
I don't have to deal with Vodafone, but I get so much ridiculous crap from AT&T I've started to wonder how long before *customers* have to form unions to protect themselves from this sort of garbage. One person threatening to take their business elsewhere gets no notice, but if you could organize and get thousands of customers willing to "strike" together, maybe we could actaully have telcos that don't act like they're monopolies. I think a little bit of collective bargaining could really help us out on the monthly fees department too.
Since I'm such a fun guy, I have on occasion taken pictures of signs lacking in punctuation, and then tweeted the picture a long with my "corrected" version.
Unfortunately, I just don't have the balls to actually go buy some paint and make my corrections. Here's two examples:
"Private Lot? No, Student Parking!"
"Jesus loves you? Why? Die a victim with the devil. When you can live a victor with Jesus Christ, don't. Die in your sins."
Obviously, since the original signs lacked punctuation there's no way to be 100% sure I've preserved the intended meaning . . .
As you say, it may be beneficial to wake up "during an attack", but by the same token it's not very adaptive to wake up every time some random animal a mile away makes a loud mating call. Then you end up tired and unfocused when you go out hunting the next day and a tired hunter may end up being a hungry hunter. There's a balance in there, somewhere. Too deep is bad, but too light is just as maladaptive.
I see it like this: it's sorta like when you see someone with toilet paper stuck to their shoe. It's easier just to say nothing at all than to actually point out an embarrassing fact. But unless you're taking a certain sadistic glee in pointing it out, you're actaully doing that person a favor. I'm just pointing out his internet toilet paper.
They can carry night-vision cameras or even 'see-through-walls' Far IR cameras.
Seriously? If we're gonna talk about equipment that hypothetically *could* be attached to the drone, you might as well say "They could be equipped with toxic case, small bombs, and laser guns. They could launch GPS-guided sharks at unsuspecting people in swimming pools below. The sharks could be injected with adrenaline and be dunked in human blood just prior to being launched."
They could do all that, or they could just attach a damn camera to it and take some damn photographs for Google Earth.
Is your shift key broken or did a capitalized letter run over your dog? I'm not the sort of person to jump down someone's throat for making a grammatical error. Errors are, after all, unintended -- and I, like most, make them all the time. But what I find much harder to ignore is a person who simply decides to ignore a grammatical convention as a matter of style or lazyness, especially when doing so saves him no time and only serves to give the writer a douchey affectation.
Grammatical conventions exist for a reason. It's significantly harder to parse a paragraph of text when you can't tell at a glance where sentences are beginning and ending. Perhaps you read one word at a time, but many of us parse text in larger chunks and simply leaving out punctuation, or, in your case, capital letters can significantly slow down the speed at which a person is able to read what you have written.
It's not saving you any time. It doesn't make you seem laid back and informal. In fact, unless you are trying to impersonate a 12 year old girl, its not doing anything for you. If you are not a 12 year old girl, and the person reading your post knows this, then he/she will likely assume that you are a douchebag. Please bear this in mind in the future.
But with the Nexus 1 discontinued, and Eric Schmidt having announced there will be no Nexus 2, where does that leave people going forward into the future?
You say that, but do you recall what happened when he did give the passwords to them? They were immediately included in a legal filing against him which was part of the PUBLIC record -- meaning any idiot could see them. They had to shut their network down for days while they changed all the passwords on everything after they realized what an idiotic thing they'd done.
It sort of made his reasoning of "I'm not giving you the passwords cause you'll do something stupid with them" seem really, really justified.
And as I recall, it wasn't that he refused to give them over -- it was that he refused to give them over to "just anyone". He wanted to be sure that it was someone who wouldn't screw it up. Yes, he's an arrogant bastard who clearly and obviously looks down upon the people he works for -- but some of that seems to be justified. They clearly are at least a *bit* incompetent.
You mean people who buy who $105k cars typically have a high income? I never would have guessed at such a shocking conclusion. Let's face it, there aren't many choices. Yes, the Chevy Volt is coming as is the Nissan Leaf, but neither is here yet. Perhaps once there's an option on the market that costs significantly less than $105k, we'll see a shift in the interested demographic.
I don't care if they have my genes, I just don't want humanity to get wiped out. If they do, then who will resurrect everyone who ever lived using their fantastic near-magic technology in the far-flung future? Humanity going extinct really messes with my plans to live forever.
I imagine some people have, or plan to have, children which they will have some degree of fondness towards. As it may effect their children, or their children's children, it might be of some concern to you.
Also, I'm pretty sure an unusually high percentage of Slashdot readers are not planning on dying. I mean, that's pretty much what science is for, right? I'm very concerned about how this asteroid will affect my robot-body . . .