"Don't you think cops have more to do than fill out paper work on a kindle you lost?"
They do. Or at least believe they do. Many places have an online system for you do to their work for them. Most of the time, they will even insist on self-service....
"But Amazon has no mechanism for this - they want to be contacted by a law enforcement officer with a supoena."
Oh, they have a mechanism. After all, they obviously CAN do it.
But they have no reason TO do it. After all, another kindle will have to be bought. And someone else may want to buy stuff. Sounds like a corporate win to me....
"THe realistic benefit of space travel is to get our asses of this rock and establish a secondary biosphere. Our survival absolutely 100% depends on it."
No, the long term survival of our species depends upon it. Something VERY different.
Whether or not we leave Earth has little or no bearing on the survival of myself or the people I care about. Once I'm dead, I'm not going to care about the future.
We will only leave this rock when there is an economic incentive to do so (or someone has enough resources to do it because they can). Columbus sailed for the money. The pilgrims sailed because it helped themselves. They were funded in part by those who thought they could get rich from the pilgrims work. The Spanish wanted treasure. Etc.
Survival of the species is a pretty poor argument to get people to spend money. You need to show them how it will benefit them in the here and now (or near future). We can't at the moment, hence the lack of funding.
"You win in by breaking the spirit of the opponent and their support mechanism. Its mean, its cruel, but its true."
And what if you can't? Or if you create a self sustaining enemiy by doing it? I mean, it's hard to break the spirit of an enemy that is perfectly willing to die or let civilians die. Hell, we never did break the spirit of the Japanese or Germans and we were perfectly happy to firebomb entire cities.
People have been trying to subdue Afghanistan for a long time with pretty brutal methods. It has yet to work. We probably could do it, but it would require pretty much ALL of our military for decades (see WW2).
You are right that we don't fight to win. But that is because there is no support for it. So we have to use other methods.
You just called the movie MORE long winded than the books? Let's see:
"They're far more long-winded than the book(s),..."
Oh, yeah, you did. Did you actually READ the books? Seriously?
I really liked the books. But they are essentially imaginary linguistic and geneology texts set in a fantasy world with some violence. Pretty much the definition of long winded to me. The movies left most of the action while cutting massive amounts of the books.
"What if the point is to eventually get humans off of Earth and out into the broader universe?"
I have yet to see any evidence that this is the point. There is currently little benefit (nothing out there that we need bad enough that we can't substitute for something here). I see no benefit to leaving the solar system for anyone but those leaving it. So considering the cost, not likely to happen anytime soon, if ever.
"Now they're sending mothers and schoolteachers up there and no one wants to be responsible for killing a school teacher. So that's what's up. They need to return it to more of a military-style thing, where the people are trained in boot camps and are tough and willing to die to advance our knowledge of space."
You can find plenty of people who are willing to take risks.
The problem is the the public who funds the expensive project that might go up in smoke doesn't want to take the risk. We didn't go to the moon because we needed to, we went because we wanted to show everybody that we were "superior" to the Soviets. Without a similar dynamic, it probably won't happen again.
"We could do quite a lot, yet, if we returned to the Constitution (which was killed by both parties over a century or more) and either found a legitimate way to fund NASA or got the government well out of the way of private space companies."
Well, if you REALLY want to return to the original intent of the Constitution, then there is no way the government could fund NASA. Hell, Madison believed it required an Amendment for federal funding of roads....
And I don't think private firms will take up the slack. And if they could, I don't know if I would want them to.
"Sure, the outcome may seem obvious to everyone. However, it is not empirical fact until it is studied and established as such."
You know, I could have sworn that there have been many studies about the effects of multitasking on cognitive abilities. I think some of them have even been mentioned on/. (perhaps a car analogy....)
I would say that it has been established as a fact. And research for research sake is overrated. To paraphrase a very good researcher- just because you can study something doesn't mean it is worth studying....
"Did you explain to them that a 1TB drive likely costs 30$ more than a 100GB drive? Even if they don't need it most consumers jump at the opportunity because they can see the savings."
What savings? Paying more money for something you don't need isn't saving money.
"WE NEED AUSTRALIAN BALLOTING. Then we could pass votes like this, without feeling like we "wasted" our vote on no-name politicians:"
No, what we need is a "none of the above" option on all races. If "none of the above" gets greater than 50%, then you get another election. I imagine the turn out would be impressive.
But those in power wouldn't want that-hard to maintain that you support the "people" if the second place finisher is anybody but the people running....
"They don't understand the risks of overdose (people carelessly take too much acetaminophen and die of horrible liver failure)."
Might I suggest that you don't use a legal OTC medication to illustrate the alleged dangers of prescribed meds. For one, it completely destroys your case. Second, it makes you look clueless.
"They don't understand the very complex and sometimes fatal interactions between even unrelated drugs. Some drugs like antiepileptics are dangerous even when taken exactly as directed, and patients need to be closely monitored by a doctor."
And exactly why would people be clamoring to get antiepileptics? They have essentially no redeeming qualities except that their side effects tend to suck just a little less than the conditions they treat (seizures, pain and migraines).
Virtually nobody who is prescribed drugs are closely monitored. Even in an inpatient setting. Never have been, never will.
In general, doctors who prescribe drugs know very little about drugs. If you ask a doctor why they prescribe drug X, few will say that based on your symptoms it is the best fit. It's because they have "experience" or are "familiar" with it. I am rountinely asked by "specialists" why I am on drug X vs drug Y. They think that their preferred drug has fewer side effects and is more effective than the one I'm on, when the opposite is true.
Drugs aren't restricted to prescription by logic. If that were the case, Tylenol would be more tightly controlled than Methadone. They are controlled because of perceived risk which may have nothing to do with actual risk. And the believe that certain parties (doctors, etc.) are somehow better qualified to judge those risks than the average person (supported by those same parties). After all, the only reason I go to a doctor for a drug is because the State mandates it. Even though I am better qualified to assess the risk than the doctor.
To summarize, there is no real indication that experts are better qualified than typical people to judge the danger(s) of a drug. I believe that the average person would be MORE likely to know the danger of a drug if THEY were the one responsible for "prescribing" it (no expert to hide behind).
"Because it's often difficult or impossible to import international engineers and scientists with valuable or unusual skills to the United States, the logical alternative is to go to where they are."
Do you really seriously believe this? Can you give even one example of such a case?
You don't set up shop in India because you want a couple of great Indian workers. You set up there because you can get lots of engineers-in-a-box CHEAPLY. You may also want to do business in the region (or already do).
There are no shortage of qualified people (or those willing to be trained) in the US. There is a shortage of qualified people who will work cheaply. In general, large companies don't hire great people, they hire cogs in a machine.
"Most modern readers, it seems, can't handle something by Hugo, Dickens, or a number of 19th (and before) century writers because it's "long" and "boring" and there's no "action," etc."
Well, if I want entertainment, I generally don't want boring. Considering the success of movies that are action crap (Transformers), I suspect most people agree.
Movies are visual and sound based and will cater to those aspects. This is in addition to the divide between "entertainment" and "serious" subject matter. Frankly, I (probably like most others) don't enjoy the "classics"; they are something to be endured while learning.
"Star Wars would better be classified as Fantasy."
And fantasy set in space is referred to as science fiction these days. Arguing about the definition of science fiction is about as useful as complaining that the term hacker is misused.
"$1200 is well above the $500 required to be considered a felony, and that doesn't go to piddly small claims court, that goes to federal court."
No it doesn't. Sure, you can take it to federal court. But you would either have to be a moron or willing to spend serious time and money to make a point. Great if you have the time and money...
"No doubt when your AG found out and started poking around PayPal's lawyers began shitting bricks, hence the reimbursement."
I doubt they panicked. One person is an annoyance. One AG looking to make a name for themselves can be REALLY annoying. What would really cost them money is being regulated like a bank.
"If you don't see useful reporting from newspapers either you aren't looking or you read the wrong papers. Yes, they all have some bias and infotainment filler, but there is still such a thing as a professional reporter."
There is useful reporting. But it is rare. Or at least it appears rarer today than it was a year ago and rarer than a decade ago. I suspect there is less of it, spread over a wider area. It may be that I just notice the crap and filler more easily because there are more places to get it and the amount of good journalism has remained the same.
However as a long term newspaper reader I routinely debate whether to continue a subscription. It rarely takes me more a couple of minutes to read the useful portion of the paper (including the comics). Much less than the past. I have found that free local papers seem to have more local news than the "professional" papers. While I hate to see newspapers fail and useful journalism disappear, I don't see a good defensible solution.
Slashdot Mirror
"Don't you think cops have more to do than fill out paper work on a kindle you lost?"
They do. Or at least believe they do. Many places have an online system for you do to their work for them. Most of the time, they will even insist on self-service....
"But Amazon has no mechanism for this - they want to be contacted by a law enforcement officer with a supoena."
Oh, they have a mechanism. After all, they obviously CAN do it.
But they have no reason TO do it. After all, another kindle will have to be bought. And someone else may want to buy stuff. Sounds like a corporate win to me....
"Isn't falsely attributing a viewpoint to someone else by impersonating them also generally regarded as poor form?"
Is there anything in advertising and marketing that is considered poor form if it works?
Of course, it worked because the "false" viewpoint is considered realistic by many....
"Do you seriously believe that because some Christians are vocal all Christians agree with them?"
Of course if you replace Christian with Muslim, then many people do...
It is fascinating to think about the consequences of voluntarily associating with a certain "group". Or what if anything it means.
"THe realistic benefit of space travel is to get our asses of this rock and establish a secondary biosphere. Our survival absolutely 100% depends on it."
No, the long term survival of our species depends upon it. Something VERY different.
Whether or not we leave Earth has little or no bearing on the survival of myself or the people I care about. Once I'm dead, I'm not going to care about the future.
We will only leave this rock when there is an economic incentive to do so (or someone has enough resources to do it because they can). Columbus sailed for the money. The pilgrims sailed because it helped themselves. They were funded in part by those who thought they could get rich from the pilgrims work. The Spanish wanted treasure. Etc.
Survival of the species is a pretty poor argument to get people to spend money. You need to show them how it will benefit them in the here and now (or near future). We can't at the moment, hence the lack of funding.
"You win in by breaking the spirit of the opponent and their support mechanism. Its mean, its cruel, but its true."
And what if you can't? Or if you create a self sustaining enemiy by doing it? I mean, it's hard to break the spirit of an enemy that is perfectly willing to die or let civilians die. Hell, we never did break the spirit of the Japanese or Germans and we were perfectly happy to firebomb entire cities.
People have been trying to subdue Afghanistan for a long time with pretty brutal methods. It has yet to work. We probably could do it, but it would require pretty much ALL of our military for decades (see WW2).
You are right that we don't fight to win. But that is because there is no support for it. So we have to use other methods.
You just called the movie MORE long winded than the books? Let's see:
"They're far more long-winded than the book(s),..."
Oh, yeah, you did. Did you actually READ the books? Seriously?
I really liked the books. But they are essentially imaginary linguistic and geneology texts set in a fantasy world with some violence. Pretty much the definition of long winded to me. The movies left most of the action while cutting massive amounts of the books.
"What if the point is to eventually get humans off of Earth and out into the broader universe?"
I have yet to see any evidence that this is the point. There is currently little benefit (nothing out there that we need bad enough that we can't substitute for something here). I see no benefit to leaving the solar system for anyone but those leaving it. So considering the cost, not likely to happen anytime soon, if ever.
"Can you send robots to colonize another planet?"
Yes. Or at least send them ahead.
"Now they're sending mothers and schoolteachers up there and no one wants to be responsible for killing a school teacher. So that's what's up. They need to return it to more of a military-style thing, where the people are trained in boot camps and are tough and willing to die to advance our knowledge of space."
You can find plenty of people who are willing to take risks.
The problem is the the public who funds the expensive project that might go up in smoke doesn't want to take the risk. We didn't go to the moon because we needed to, we went because we wanted to show everybody that we were "superior" to the Soviets. Without a similar dynamic, it probably won't happen again.
"We could do quite a lot, yet, if we returned to the Constitution (which was killed by both parties over a century or more) and either found a legitimate way to fund NASA or got the government well out of the way of private space companies."
Well, if you REALLY want to return to the original intent of the Constitution, then there is no way the government could fund NASA. Hell, Madison believed it required an Amendment for federal funding of roads....
And I don't think private firms will take up the slack. And if they could, I don't know if I would want them to.
Actually, I don't think most informed and educated people would want the internet more democratic.
Remember AOL?
I want an optimum signal to noise ratio. What that is, precisely, I don't know. But I'm willing to bet that more "democracy" won't be a help.
"And then the morons at the recruitment company exclude all but the liars from the selection process. Go figure."
And then the managers and HR wonder why so many people lie on their resumes....
"Sure, the outcome may seem obvious to everyone. However, it is not empirical fact until it is studied and established as such."
You know, I could have sworn that there have been many studies about the effects of multitasking on cognitive abilities. I think some of them have even been mentioned on /. (perhaps a car analogy....)
I would say that it has been established as a fact. And research for research sake is overrated. To paraphrase a very good researcher- just because you can study something doesn't mean it is worth studying....
"Did you explain to them that a 1TB drive likely costs 30$ more than a 100GB drive? Even if they don't need it most consumers jump at the opportunity because they can see the savings."
What savings? Paying more money for something you don't need isn't saving money.
"What's strange about the Western media ignoring the enormous positive achievements of anyone..."
There. Fixed it for you.
News: We did it, allies did it (maybe), perceived threat did it (China, Russia, etc.)
Not News: Pretty much anybody else.
"WE NEED AUSTRALIAN BALLOTING. Then we could pass votes like this, without feeling like we "wasted" our vote on no-name politicians:"
No, what we need is a "none of the above" option on all races. If "none of the above" gets greater than 50%, then you get another election. I imagine the turn out would be impressive.
But those in power wouldn't want that-hard to maintain that you support the "people" if the second place finisher is anybody but the people running....
"What if the only information available on a topic IS your own original research??"
Well, you could cite it or something...
"They don't understand the risks of overdose (people carelessly take too much acetaminophen and die of horrible liver failure)."
Might I suggest that you don't use a legal OTC medication to illustrate the alleged dangers of prescribed meds. For one, it completely destroys your case. Second, it makes you look clueless.
"They don't understand the very complex and sometimes fatal interactions between even unrelated drugs. Some drugs like antiepileptics are dangerous even when taken exactly as directed, and patients need to be closely monitored by a doctor."
And exactly why would people be clamoring to get antiepileptics? They have essentially no redeeming qualities except that their side effects tend to suck just a little less than the conditions they treat (seizures, pain and migraines).
Virtually nobody who is prescribed drugs are closely monitored. Even in an inpatient setting. Never have been, never will.
In general, doctors who prescribe drugs know very little about drugs. If you ask a doctor why they prescribe drug X, few will say that based on your symptoms it is the best fit. It's because they have "experience" or are "familiar" with it. I am rountinely asked by "specialists" why I am on drug X vs drug Y. They think that their preferred drug has fewer side effects and is more effective than the one I'm on, when the opposite is true.
Drugs aren't restricted to prescription by logic. If that were the case, Tylenol would be more tightly controlled than Methadone. They are controlled because of perceived risk which may have nothing to do with actual risk. And the believe that certain parties (doctors, etc.) are somehow better qualified to judge those risks than the average person (supported by those same parties). After all, the only reason I go to a doctor for a drug is because the State mandates it. Even though I am better qualified to assess the risk than the doctor.
To summarize, there is no real indication that experts are better qualified than typical people to judge the danger(s) of a drug. I believe that the average person would be MORE likely to know the danger of a drug if THEY were the one responsible for "prescribing" it (no expert to hide behind).
"Because it's often difficult or impossible to import international engineers and scientists with valuable or unusual skills to the United States, the logical alternative is to go to where they are."
Do you really seriously believe this? Can you give even one example of such a case?
You don't set up shop in India because you want a couple of great Indian workers. You set up there because you can get lots of engineers-in-a-box CHEAPLY. You may also want to do business in the region (or already do).
There are no shortage of qualified people (or those willing to be trained) in the US. There is a shortage of qualified people who will work cheaply. In general, large companies don't hire great people, they hire cogs in a machine.
It's about the money.
Once again the Man is keeping us down.
"I won't even go into the Endor holocaust in detail. (guess what happens when you detonate a small artificial moon near a planetary atmosphere?"
And the fact that a small moon orbiting a gas giant is habitable not a problem?!?
"Most modern readers, it seems, can't handle something by Hugo, Dickens, or a number of 19th (and before) century writers because it's "long" and "boring" and there's no "action," etc."
Well, if I want entertainment, I generally don't want boring. Considering the success of movies that are action crap (Transformers), I suspect most people agree.
Movies are visual and sound based and will cater to those aspects. This is in addition to the divide between "entertainment" and "serious" subject matter. Frankly, I (probably like most others) don't enjoy the "classics"; they are something to be endured while learning.
"Star Wars would better be classified as Fantasy."
And fantasy set in space is referred to as science fiction these days. Arguing about the definition of science fiction is about as useful as complaining that the term hacker is misused.
Certainly entertaining though...
"$1200 is well above the $500 required to be considered a felony, and that doesn't go to piddly small claims court, that goes to federal court."
No it doesn't. Sure, you can take it to federal court. But you would either have to be a moron or willing to spend serious time and money to make a point. Great if you have the time and money...
"No doubt when your AG found out and started poking around PayPal's lawyers began shitting bricks, hence the reimbursement."
I doubt they panicked. One person is an annoyance. One AG looking to make a name for themselves can be REALLY annoying. What would really cost them money is being regulated like a bank.
"If you don't see useful reporting from newspapers either you aren't looking or you read the wrong papers. Yes, they all have some bias and infotainment filler, but there is still such a thing as a professional reporter."
There is useful reporting. But it is rare. Or at least it appears rarer today than it was a year ago and rarer than a decade ago. I suspect there is less of it, spread over a wider area. It may be that I just notice the crap and filler more easily because there are more places to get it and the amount of good journalism has remained the same.
However as a long term newspaper reader I routinely debate whether to continue a subscription. It rarely takes me more a couple of minutes to read the useful portion of the paper (including the comics). Much less than the past. I have found that free local papers seem to have more local news than the "professional" papers. While I hate to see newspapers fail and useful journalism disappear, I don't see a good defensible solution.