I haven't come across any studies, only anecdotal evidence. For example, I was 15 in 1996, so I have a soft spot for 90's Alternative, like Nirvana, Soundgarden, Presidents of the United States of America, Toadies, Smashing Pumpkins, etc. In my later teens I moved on to Punk Rock.
Of course, that was ten years ago, and these days I dig more on 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's music, which I considered "old and lame" back then.
I think the real issue is that modern top-40 music is generally mass-produced and lacks depth, which happens to be easily digestible to young and impressionable minds. And as a teen, its always much cooler to do what everyone else is doing, to wear what everyone else is wearing, to listen to what everyone else is listening to, lest ye be made a social pariah. These things become far less important for most of us as we move into adulthood. Thats probably where your "old-fogeyism" comes in. Adults listen to what they like, as there is a diminished social pressure to fit in. This seems to hold true in the music scene as far as I can tell, however there seems to be a higher social pressure when it comes to movies and television -- the requisite water-cooler fodder, I suppose.
The Wii "shortage" that has been going on since its release a year ago is also undoubtedly hurting Nintendo's image. Its totally bogus. Why can't I walk into Walmart and pick one up when I feel like it? I can get a PS3 or a 360 that way, even now during the holiday season. But I have to investigate the stores to find out when and where they will have them if I want to stand in line to have a CHANCE at a Wii. Seriously Nintendo, increase supply, or raise the price. That's Econ 101, and I ain't exactly a math major.
I've been lucky enough to borrow my buddy's Wii for the last month, and it is way fun. But -- if I can't buy my own Wii and on my schedule by March, then fuck it, I don't care that much about it. Nintendo made a huge mistake by underestimating the Wii's popularity, and an even bigger one by not adjusting for it. They've had a year to get this right, and they are still playing pocket pool. What gives?
Wow, that's actually a pretty heavy idea. In fact it could be the reason why viruses haven't received enough selection pressure to become extinct. I wonder if there is any evidence that a viral infection can have significant impact on the host's DNA. Or perhaps in the ova or sperm. It certainly would shortcut evolution. Hey maybe the world really was made 6000 years ago heh heh heh;-)
Maybe we can get the creationists on this bandwagon!
Kidding aside, anyone know if that sort of thing is even possible? My google-fu isn't getting my questions answered today...
And its a crying shame that you have such poor reading comprehension. Perhaps us Yankees could help you out with that, but with the sorry state you are in, I don't think think you'd be able to make it here.
Thanks for playing devil's advocate. Unfortunately, I just can't go with it. Its totally a red herring.
Surely its only anecdotal evidence, but I've played those "violent" games all through my teen years and young adulthood, and I have NEVER raised a hand to another, save in self-defense. I posit that those same kids that shut themselves up in the house playing video games all day are far less likely to exhibit anything but introverted and submissive behavior, but thats neither here nor there, just like this study.
Violent video games, those which depict aggressive and/or violent acts, fall under the realm of entertainment. As the name explicitly states, its a game. Nearly all people in the world are drawn to forms of entertainment, "violent" or otherwise. Substitute "violent video games" for "action movie" and you'll easily see why this doesn't stack up. People who watch action movies are by and large not likely to emulate the activities presented in such a movie. Such is the same with video games.
Video games get a bad rap in this regard specifically because there is a supposition that video games are for children, and oh my, won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!?
Both movies and video games are given ratings to help parents choose whether or not the content is appropriate for their children. Such ratings are also customarily disregarded by parents so long as it shuts their brats up.
How about we as a nation take a strong stance against being worthless, uncaring, and just plain idiotic parents? If you are between 15 and 30 years old and have any critical thinking skills, it should be obvious that the baby boomers made for on average, terrible parents, raising a generation of latchkey kids who admire fictitious characters more than real-life people, or god forbid, their own parents. This is a problem of our own hapless devising, and no amount subterfuge or finger-pointing changes the real root of the problem. We live in not a capitalist, but consumerist society, which has the unhappy effect of requiring both parents to devote too much time to work (to make money, to keep up with the Joneses)rather than investing that time in their immediate family, most importantly their own children. We have unwittingly allowed others to raise our children for us, and somehow have the lack of foresight to understand why our kids haven't turned out decent or well-adjusted at all -- you know, how we expected them to be. We'd rather point the finger at anyone or anything rather than face and accept our failure. End of story. If you want your children to be bright, well-adjusted, caring, and all those good things, then give them all the love, attention, understanding, fairness and opportunity to do so. Everything else is bullshit scapegoating.
And thank you to all the parents out there that recognize this issue and actually toe the mark. Hopefully your children will make good choices in life and will utilize all the tools at their disposal to become the next generation's leaders, and lift us up out of the quagmire we've created for ourselves. To the rest of you: You deserve all the heartache and disappointment your children will burden you with -- you did it to them, they'll reflect it back to you in spades.
No, I don't realize that. Enlighten me with some credible references. How did you get +5 for your comment? Idiots are the majority. Majority rules. Congratulations. Everyone expects to unconstitutionally abuse the American people, because this administration has already guaranteed it. The true winning candidate of the 2008 presidential election in the one that refuses those "rights" and relinquishes control of the country to the only people that have any sayso -- that is, to the American citizenry, not corporations. Its a shame that no candidate will ever suggest such a thing, because extremists on one side or another ( the left or right) will surely assassinate the man before his voice could be heard.
Here's to you America! Here's to ensuring that our progeny will be even more ignorant and subservient than we are! Yay! Didja catch the new episode of "The Unit"?. OMG!!!
Here's to hoping that real life will never get in the way of our water-cooler banter!
Bingo. The exact thing happened to me when I bought a machine in 2002. The worst part is that the Best Buy salesman stated that by signing up (and then cancelling before the free trial was over) that I could get an instant rebate, or a bonus disc, or some other nonsense. Well I went for it and attempted to cancel the trial, except that MSN refused to cancel the trial until it was over (read: until I had made a payment). Long story short, they wouldn't cancel it even after that, and they didn't stop billing by credit card until after it had been maxed out.
Needless to say, the next time I bought a machine, I tore the salesman a new asshole when he started with the MSN shpiel. The funny thing is both times, they didn't want to sell me the machine without it! I suspect the salesman got some sort of bonus based off how many free trials he scrounged up. I blame Best Buy for this and hope they get it up the ass -- they deserve it.
I've always thought (perhaps incorrectly) that the inbox space google allocates for gmail is unused disk space belonging to all the machines in the googleplex clusters.
I've started to think the same thing. MS really only needs to provide one standard (DX10, say) to ensure that games can and will get published for both Vista PC's AND XBox v3.0. This provides almost automatic portability for PC games to XBox. If MS got its way, I think it'd be smart to shift the whole PC gaming industry to XBox, and drop DX* game support in Windows completely. MS could make boatloads and reduce operating overhead if they did so. It'd be a gutsy move, but a company of that size and power might be able to pull it off.
But, FWIW, I don't know if MS makes anything from PC game developers or not. Do they release the DX API to developers for free?
True, but that math only works if you have $100K in your pocket already. Most people would have to refinance their homes. The bank will NOT give you $100K to stuff in money markets. The bank _might_ give you 100K/25 year loan to add solar if it adds about that much value to the home (which it probably won't). Though if you already own your home you could get that much if its no more than 70% of the value of the home with virtually no problem. Assuming of course, you can afford the monthly payments.
The more realistic problem is that you take out a 100K loan and it takes 25 years to pay back (break even), assuming energy costs stay consistent with inflation, it would take you 25 more years to get your investment back in your pocket --not counting interest. Most people I know don't keep their same home for 25 years, much less 50.
If the time to break-even were halved, it might be a winning proposition. You can get your money back quicker, which means the setup will add more relative value to the home, should you choose to sell it before $break_even_years * 2.
I have no idea what the annual maintenance cost for such a solar system (heh) would be, but it only adds to the break-even and payoff timetables. I predict when the aggregate cost (upfront + maintenance) == 15 year break-even, people will opt for it. And I am talking about a 15 year break even for an $80K-100K/yr income household. When it gets down to a 5 to 10 year break-even, it'll come preinstalled on all new construction.
It is not an assumption, but rather something I've found out in every single discussion about religion I've had.
Then you simply haven't had enough!;-)
Define? Yeah, people can usually define their belief vaguely, but come on, those beliefs have holes in them. What's the nature of the Bible? What's the significance of baptizing? What is the significance of other rituals? The christians I've spoken with tend to answer that those things are significant, but they don't really know why (not in these words, though!). Or the answer is "because Bible says so", even when the Bible says other things they don't believe in.
Yes, some people don't know ritual significance. Not everyone is a Priest either. Some (maybe not even most) people do know what the significance is. It sounds like you are frustrated with people who claim to be of a certain religion, but seem to be in some ways ignorant of it. That is a legitimate complaint. But hey, they bible is like a thousand pages long. You can't really expect everyone to quite literally memorize it "chapter and verse".
Logical argument? Think evidence. Please provide a logical, waterproof argument on why it had to be the daddy of Jesus who created the world, and not Odin or Väinämöinen or Eru. And indeed, what makes you think the world actually came to be instead of simply having been here all the time? I'm sorry, I haven't heard one good, logical argument that would follow evidence. Not even from the creationist group.
Well the Big Bang theory is a pretty good way to describe how the universe was created. Personally I believe its pretty close to correct, though it might be a while before we get the whole quantum mechanics and string theory mess sorted through. But even the theory itself fails to properly explain what caused the Big Bang to begin with -- you know, its 'turtles all the way down'. For lack of a more scientific answer to that question, perhaps it was the hand of God. Thats how I've always rationalized it. A truly all powerful and all knowing being could certainly cause our creation with just that single stroke. Does that mean it was the Judeo-Christian "god"? Not really, but all of a sudden we know for sure that there is a God, people of any particular faith would likely claim it is "their" religion's god anyway.
Indeed, creationism as it is is no basis for spirituality. Even if they'd manage to prove that there is an intelligent designer (I don't think they will), there'd be no logical reason to assume he was the god of the Bible.
I fully agree. But, I'd tell it you that it WAS my god after all. Just like just about everyone else, I'd imagine.
I like to think I'm intolerant towards the religion, not the group. Love the sinner, hate the sin =). I try not to have a belief system, and try to be most careful to succumb to real evidence whenever I meet it. I'd say I'm against all belief systems. If there's no evidence about something, why indeed "believe" something? One can guess, and should guess, but should know that it's a wild guess.
And sometimes a wild guess is enough to bring comfort to an otherwise troubled heart and mind. There are reasons why blind faith can be good that defy logic, because indeed mankind defies logic. It is our nature to challenge the status quo. That is a fact to be celebrated. If not for it, we'd likely still live up in the trees.
Oh well, you're probably right that I wouldn't accept someone else's ideas about what's "evidence" and what's not. Religious people really bring up evidence like "I've searched my feelings and I know it to be true". Now it's not that illogical to go by that, but I wouldn't trust my feelings. I know they have been mistaken before.
True enough, and its hard when your feelings betray you. Although we have been mislead by "facts" that turn out to be wrong, too.
I am pretty sure there must be a Star Trek:TOS plot arc that explores thi
Perhaps it is intellectual dishonesty to make the assumption that people are unable to define their belief nor formulate a logical argument for that belief? Bigotry is the intolerance of a group because the group's beliefs conflict with one's own belief system. The logical fallacy is expecting a person to present a logical argument to someone who refuses to accept it no matter how sound it may be. It is impossible to rationalize to the irrational. I am sure you would agree.
I suppose we must simply agree that it comes down to the old cliche: "different strokes for different folks".
The parent comment is why we need a (+1, Troll) moderation.
I hope the parent's comment gets modded up all the way to +5 so that everyone can see just how intolerant this representative slice of the slashdot community can be, and how sad such ignorance is. This sort of argument is invariably trotted out by some bigot every time any religious reference is made here, and only serves as an example that you don't have to be religious to be a fanatic.
You have a right to your opinion, and to voice it. You have a right to civil disagreement. Hell, you have the right to publicly display your ignorance and intolerance if that is your wont. But what, exactly, gives you the right to publicly harass someone on the grounds that their belief system does not match yours? What is your problem with Christians, specifically? Why the ardent fervor over followers of a guy whose teachings basically amount to 'play nice, here's how'? Perhaps the devil's in the details. Were you molested by a Catholic priest? Did your parents raise you to believe the Crusaders want to murder you? Something else traumatic? What is your damage?
It is clear that you do not want to talk about intellectual honesty. You failed to mention a few other traits not inherently Christian: hypocrisy, ignorance, and hyperbole just to name a few. Perhaps in the future you would do well to use your brain -- God given, or grown by accident -- before posting a comment that clearly doesn't serve to paint you in an 'intellectual' light. Or you can simply participate in a self-congratulatory circle-jerk with your like-minded brethren. After all, you can't have your cake and eat it too, right?
Hmm, well the two-part nintendo Wii episode of South Park prominently features Dawkins, and I know that the episode has been aired at least twice since its debut showing.
Maybe that means something. I'd never heard of him before the show (I know, geek card revoked, O Discordia!), but I suspect he has been making some recent waves if South Park devoted a full hour to deriding him. Has he said or done something sufficiently crazy/stupid lately?
but that does not mean warmer winters and hotter summers in general.
Perhaps not in general, but here in on the Minnesota/Wisconsin border, I have noticed a definite overall warming trend. Today's high temperature forecast is 35F, which I think is considerably high for this time of year. Normally I'd expect it to be within a few degrees of 5F.
We didn't have a white Christmas this year (the third time that I can remember in the last 10 years), and most of the precipitation we have received thus far has come in the form of rain. Discussions about the recent weather phenomena with senior citizens indicates that this is not at all normal, at least to their best recollection.
And that says nothing about the warmer summers we have been having lately. Personally I believe that a global average temperature rise of a couple of degrees has indeed modified our climate by blocking cooler northern Canadian air in favor of airmasses originating in the pacific northwest and southwest. I am too lazy to find any references to validate my point, I am just going off of personal observation here.
With all that said, I am not entirely convinced that this seemingly dramatic climate shift is necessarily caused by human action. It is interesting that this upward temperature trend appears to coincide with the mass popularity of SUV's, for example, but correlation != causation. Who is to say that we are not simply still warming out of the last ice age? I don't know enough about the science behind it to say. I have to defer to the wisdom of scientists knowledgeable in the field, but who knows if they really have all the pieces of the puzzle? In fact I think it would be extremely arrogant of us all to assume that we are technologically advanced enough to really answer the question at this time, and to say that we have all of the pieces of the puzzle in place. Perhaps recent increased solar activity plays a role. Perhaps the inevitable shifting of the poles has something to do with it. Perhaps volcanic activity plays a part. Perhaps pollution and 'heat-island' effects play a part.
The fact is, though, that the global temperature average has increased, and there are ancient glaciers and ice shelves all over the world that are melting away at an apparently 'unnatural' rate. Those are observations we can make today without any requisite scientific background. As I said, I am not unconvinced that this is due to human activity. However, I am genuinely curious about this whole thing, as it appears it is affecting my daily life. I would guess that a lot of us 'average joes' are in the same boat in that regard.
Can anyone recommend some verifiable (hopefully unbiased) reference material so that we of the unwashed masses can put things into perspective?
... but wouldn't such a security model mean that all programs could be forced to comply with a certain API spec? What would stop microsoft from implementing it by forcing the developer to compile their code with "windows-game-profile.1.0.dll", which is conveniently only supported by the.Net framework. They could then force windows program developers to use Visual Studio (or purchase a high-buck license) and have total control over what the program is able to do, ** at the source code level!**.
Seriously. FWIW, I am for the most part a Google fanboy.
I have had my GMail account for what, two years or so, and I really don't think google's spamfilter has ever missed a beat.
That is to say that all the real spam I receive every day (~40 to 100 spams depending on the day) ends up in the spam folder, not my inbox. Spam is a total non-issue for me. OTOH, my hotmail inbox is so atrocious and the spamfilter so bad that I can't use the account for anything important. I don't know what kind of black magic they have going on at the Googleplex, but it WORKS! Maybe they do use some form of AI, but I assume they don't use what I'd call 'smart' AI. If that assumption is correct, then the spam problem doesn't seem to need AI as its solution.
Re:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
As for your personal freedom to smoke, I just don't see how you can complain without being hypocritical. Your entire argument is that it is unfair for others to restrict your freedom, yet you have been doing exactly the same thing, in all but name, to others for years, and moreover the damage to public health caused by your approach is demonstrably greater and more people have their freedom restricted by it. One could apply your argument just as well to say that we should allow violence in public places, or indeed repeal any law that restricts the freedom of a few in the interests of greater benefits for many.
I am not being a hypocrite. I don't smoke in places that disallow it, and don't complain about it. If I had a problem with that, I would simply go somewhere that better caters to my needs. I don't understand why someone that worried about their health due to tobacco smoke would knowingly go into a place that doesn't ban smoking. It doesn't make sense. Passing an anti-smoking law doesn't change the fact that people are ultimately responsible for their own personal welfare. Alcohol is a HUGE public health risk which is at times detrimental to people who aren't even consuming it. Yet we already tried to ban alcohol and ultimately failed. Fast food is another public health risk, yet nobody's closing down McDonald's. By your logic, we should ban just about everything under the sun because it may ultimately infringe on someone else's freedoms.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I am quite glad the government hasn't yet made that a crime as well.
Re:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
I am a smoker. I am an American. I was going to point out how both your and your parent poster's comments are without merit. I am just not eloquent enough to do so without being long-winded.
So:
If you are an American, then you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting the state-mandated erosion of others' rights in favor of your own. By doing so you only lend support to legal precedent that will ultimately serve to justify the abuse of your own rights, and those of your progeny. Do not advance the misconception that even as adults, we require a babysitter because we are too immature to work out equitable solutions to our problems on our own.
English is an amalgam of other languages, so grammar doesn't necessarily follow hard-fast rules, as I am sure you are aware.
I suspect the reason the words don't pluralize the same way (even though they end with the same sound) is probably
due to the respective root words coming from different parent languages.
This link gives a quick lowdown on English plurals.
It seems that the -en plural for ox originates in Old English. Child -> children is another example. Then you have something like the word cactus -> cacti, and compare that to virus -> viruses.
That probably doesn't help you out too much, hmmm? My Spanish teacher always claimed that English is one of the most difficult languages for a non-native speaker to learn correctly, the reason being that English grammar doesn't follow its own rules as consistently as most other languages.
All of that is very true, and I agree that healthy adults really don't need, nor should get vaccinated under normal circumstances. But what if the next superflu that arises kills every single person not naturally resistant to it? The survivors' innate resistance is sure to cause a decline of the offending virus as a matter of course. That only serves to pave the way for even nastier stuff to come along.
I remember reading a statistic somewhere that a large percentage of peoples of european descent are naturally resistant to the bubonic plague because all the medieval europeans that weren't resistant at time died from it. Would it be better to still be fighting the black death instead of the super chicken flu du jour?
Any time we eradicate one life-threatening virus, there will be another one to take its place. Immunization does pit us in an ever-accelerating arms race with the next pandemic, but that is simply nature. Lives will be lost whether we do or don't choose to vaccinate, so which option is better? Whether we build up natural or artificial resistance, given enough time the end result is the same. Maybe the difference is that developing new vaccinations provides a catalyst for medical research, the result of which may have far-reaching implications in medical science aside from its original intent. Whether or not that is ultimately a good thing is left as an exercise for the reader.
It'd be a sad day, for sure. But if flu vaccines are really that effective, why aren't the same organizations requiring mandatory flu immunization now? I would dare to bet that flu-related sick days cost the same organizations more money in lost productivity than the health care costs do.
As an aside, it is not really necessary to mandate the use of the nicotine vaccine when legislation aims to achieve the same end in many areas in the U.S by barring smoking in almost all public places. An 'alcohol vaccine' exists which makes the innoculant violently ill when alcohol is consumed, yet I've never heard of a company that mandates its use as a matter of course.
But, I'll keep my fingers crossed in hopes that it stays that way. I'm not quite ready to give up booze and smoke just yet;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't come across any studies, only anecdotal evidence. For example, I was 15 in 1996, so I have a soft spot for 90's Alternative, like Nirvana, Soundgarden, Presidents of the United States of America, Toadies, Smashing Pumpkins, etc. In my later teens I moved on to Punk Rock.
Of course, that was ten years ago, and these days I dig more on 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's music, which I considered "old and lame" back then.
I think the real issue is that modern top-40 music is generally mass-produced and lacks depth, which happens to be easily digestible to young and impressionable minds. And as a teen, its always much cooler to do what everyone else is doing, to wear what everyone else is wearing, to listen to what everyone else is listening to, lest ye be made a social pariah. These things become far less important for most of us as we move into adulthood. Thats probably where your "old-fogeyism" comes in. Adults listen to what they like, as there is a diminished social pressure to fit in. This seems to hold true in the music scene as far as I can tell, however there seems to be a higher social pressure when it comes to movies and television -- the requisite water-cooler fodder, I suppose.
The War On Drugs.
The same way I can get more intoxicated from two beers than from a marijuana cigarette, yet only the beer is legal.
The Wii "shortage" that has been going on since its release a year ago is also undoubtedly hurting Nintendo's image. Its totally bogus. Why can't I walk into Walmart and pick one up when I feel like it? I can get a PS3 or a 360 that way, even now during the holiday season. But I have to investigate the stores to find out when and where they will have them if I want to stand in line to have a CHANCE at a Wii. Seriously Nintendo, increase supply, or raise the price. That's Econ 101, and I ain't exactly a math major.
I've been lucky enough to borrow my buddy's Wii for the last month, and it is way fun. But -- if I can't buy my own Wii and on my schedule by March, then fuck it, I don't care that much about it. Nintendo made a huge mistake by underestimating the Wii's popularity, and an even bigger one by not adjusting for it. They've had a year to get this right, and they are still playing pocket pool. What gives?
Yes, I'm bitter.
Wow, that's actually a pretty heavy idea. In fact it could be the reason why viruses haven't received enough selection pressure to become extinct. I wonder if there is any evidence that a viral infection can have significant impact on the host's DNA. Or perhaps in the ova or sperm. It certainly would shortcut evolution. Hey maybe the world really was made 6000 years ago heh heh heh ;-)
Maybe we can get the creationists on this bandwagon!
Kidding aside, anyone know if that sort of thing is even possible? My google-fu isn't getting my questions answered today...
And its a crying shame that you have such poor reading comprehension. Perhaps us Yankees could help you out with that, but with the sorry state you are in, I don't think think you'd be able to make it here.
RTFA and STFU.
Thanks for playing devil's advocate. Unfortunately, I just can't go with it. Its totally a red herring.
Surely its only anecdotal evidence, but I've played those "violent" games all through my teen years and young adulthood, and I have NEVER raised a hand to another, save in self-defense. I posit that those same kids that shut themselves up in the house playing video games all day are far less likely to exhibit anything but introverted and submissive behavior, but thats neither here nor there, just like this study.
Violent video games, those which depict aggressive and/or violent acts, fall under the realm of entertainment. As the name explicitly states, its a game. Nearly all people in the world are drawn to forms of entertainment, "violent" or otherwise. Substitute "violent video games" for "action movie" and you'll easily see why this doesn't stack up. People who watch action movies are by and large not likely to emulate the activities presented in such a movie. Such is the same with video games.
Video games get a bad rap in this regard specifically because there is a supposition that video games are for children, and oh my, won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!?
Both movies and video games are given ratings to help parents choose whether or not the content is appropriate for their children. Such ratings are also customarily disregarded by parents so long as it shuts their brats up.
How about we as a nation take a strong stance against being worthless, uncaring, and just plain idiotic parents? If you are between 15 and 30 years old and have any critical thinking skills, it should be obvious that the baby boomers made for on average, terrible parents, raising a generation of latchkey kids who admire fictitious characters more than real-life people, or god forbid, their own parents. This is a problem of our own hapless devising, and no amount subterfuge or finger-pointing changes the real root of the problem. We live in not a capitalist, but consumerist society, which has the unhappy effect of requiring both parents to devote too much time to work (to make money, to keep up with the Joneses)rather than investing that time in their immediate family, most importantly their own children. We have unwittingly allowed others to raise our children for us, and somehow have the lack of foresight to understand why our kids haven't turned out decent or well-adjusted at all -- you know, how we expected them to be. We'd rather point the finger at anyone or anything rather than face and accept our failure. End of story. If you want your children to be bright, well-adjusted, caring, and all those good things, then give them all the love, attention, understanding, fairness and opportunity to do so. Everything else is bullshit scapegoating.
And thank you to all the parents out there that recognize this issue and actually toe the mark. Hopefully your children will make good choices in life and will utilize all the tools at their disposal to become the next generation's leaders, and lift us up out of the quagmire we've created for ourselves. To the rest of you: You deserve all the heartache and disappointment your children will burden you with -- you did it to them, they'll reflect it back to you in spades.
No, I don't realize that. Enlighten me with some credible references. How did you get +5 for your comment? Idiots are the majority. Majority rules. Congratulations. Everyone expects to unconstitutionally abuse the American people, because this administration has already guaranteed it. The true winning candidate of the 2008 presidential election in the one that refuses those "rights" and relinquishes control of the country to the only people that have any sayso -- that is, to the American citizenry, not corporations. Its a shame that no candidate will ever suggest such a thing, because extremists on one side or another ( the left or right) will surely assassinate the man before his voice could be heard.
Here's to you America! Here's to ensuring that our progeny will be even more ignorant and subservient than we are! Yay! Didja catch the new episode of "The Unit"?. OMG!!! Here's to hoping that real life will never get in the way of our water-cooler banter!
Bingo. The exact thing happened to me when I bought a machine in 2002. The worst part is that the Best Buy salesman stated that by signing up (and then cancelling before the free trial was over) that I could get an instant rebate, or a bonus disc, or some other nonsense. Well I went for it and attempted to cancel the trial, except that MSN refused to cancel the trial until it was over (read: until I had made a payment). Long story short, they wouldn't cancel it even after that, and they didn't stop billing by credit card until after it had been maxed out.
Needless to say, the next time I bought a machine, I tore the salesman a new asshole when he started with the MSN shpiel. The funny thing is both times, they didn't want to sell me the machine without it! I suspect the salesman got some sort of bonus based off how many free trials he scrounged up. I blame Best Buy for this and hope they get it up the ass -- they deserve it.
At what stage does a song that is sung become a copyrighted song?
When it is accompanied by a copyright notice? Was copyright information included in the digital audio metatags?
I would think that if the answer is "no", then copyright does not apply.
Heh, I did that with my 486 Packard-Bell back in 1994. When I was 13. And it was lame back then.
I've always thought (perhaps incorrectly) that the inbox space google allocates for gmail is unused disk space belonging to all the machines in the googleplex clusters.
I've started to think the same thing. MS really only needs to provide one standard (DX10, say) to ensure that games can and will get published for both Vista PC's AND XBox v3.0. This provides almost automatic portability for PC games to XBox. If MS got its way, I think it'd be smart to shift the whole PC gaming industry to XBox, and drop DX* game support in Windows completely. MS could make boatloads and reduce operating overhead if they did so. It'd be a gutsy move, but a company of that size and power might be able to pull it off.
But, FWIW, I don't know if MS makes anything from PC game developers or not. Do they release the DX API to developers for free?
True, but that math only works if you have $100K in your pocket already. Most people would have to refinance their homes. The bank will NOT give you $100K to stuff in money markets. The bank _might_ give you 100K/25 year loan to add solar if it adds about that much value to the home (which it probably won't). Though if you already own your home you could get that much if its no more than 70% of the value of the home with virtually no problem. Assuming of course, you can afford the monthly payments.
The more realistic problem is that you take out a 100K loan and it takes 25 years to pay back (break even), assuming energy costs stay consistent with inflation, it would take you 25 more years to get your investment back in your pocket --not counting interest. Most people I know don't keep their same home for 25 years, much less 50.
If the time to break-even were halved, it might be a winning proposition. You can get your money back quicker, which means the setup will add more relative value to the home, should you choose to sell it before $break_even_years * 2.
I have no idea what the annual maintenance cost for such a solar system (heh) would be, but it only adds to the break-even and payoff timetables. I predict when the aggregate cost (upfront + maintenance) == 15 year break-even, people will opt for it. And I am talking about a 15 year break even for an $80K-100K/yr income household. When it gets down to a 5 to 10 year break-even, it'll come preinstalled on all new construction.
It is not an assumption, but rather something I've found out in every single discussion about religion I've had.
;-)
Then you simply haven't had enough!
Define? Yeah, people can usually define their belief vaguely, but come on, those beliefs have holes in them. What's the nature of the Bible? What's the significance of baptizing? What is the significance of other rituals? The christians I've spoken with tend to answer that those things are significant, but they don't really know why (not in these words, though!). Or the answer is "because Bible says so", even when the Bible says other things they don't believe in.
Yes, some people don't know ritual significance. Not everyone is a Priest either. Some (maybe not even most) people do know what the significance is. It sounds like you are frustrated with people who claim to be of a certain religion, but seem to be in some ways ignorant of it. That is a legitimate complaint. But hey, they bible is like a thousand pages long. You can't really expect everyone to quite literally memorize it "chapter and verse".
Logical argument? Think evidence. Please provide a logical, waterproof argument on why it had to be the daddy of Jesus who created the world, and not Odin or Väinämöinen or Eru. And indeed, what makes you think the world actually came to be instead of simply having been here all the time? I'm sorry, I haven't heard one good, logical argument that would follow evidence. Not even from the creationist group.
Well the Big Bang theory is a pretty good way to describe how the universe was created. Personally I believe its pretty close to correct, though it might be a while before we get the whole quantum mechanics and string theory mess sorted through. But even the theory itself fails to properly explain what caused the Big Bang to begin with -- you know, its 'turtles all the way down'. For lack of a more scientific answer to that question, perhaps it was the hand of God. Thats how I've always rationalized it. A truly all powerful and all knowing being could certainly cause our creation with just that single stroke. Does that mean it was the Judeo-Christian "god"? Not really, but all of a sudden we know for sure that there is a God, people of any particular faith would likely claim it is "their" religion's god anyway.
Indeed, creationism as it is is no basis for spirituality. Even if they'd manage to prove that there is an intelligent designer (I don't think they will), there'd be no logical reason to assume he was the god of the Bible.
I fully agree. But, I'd tell it you that it WAS my god after all. Just like just about everyone else, I'd imagine.
I like to think I'm intolerant towards the religion, not the group. Love the sinner, hate the sin =). I try not to have a belief system, and try to be most careful to succumb to real evidence whenever I meet it. I'd say I'm against all belief systems. If there's no evidence about something, why indeed "believe" something? One can guess, and should guess, but should know that it's a wild guess.
And sometimes a wild guess is enough to bring comfort to an otherwise troubled heart and mind. There are reasons why blind faith can be good that defy logic, because indeed mankind defies logic. It is our nature to challenge the status quo. That is a fact to be celebrated. If not for it, we'd likely still live up in the trees.
Oh well, you're probably right that I wouldn't accept someone else's ideas about what's "evidence" and what's not. Religious people really bring up evidence like "I've searched my feelings and I know it to be true". Now it's not that illogical to go by that, but I wouldn't trust my feelings. I know they have been mistaken before.
True enough, and its hard when your feelings betray you. Although we have been mislead by "facts" that turn out to be wrong, too. I am pretty sure there must be a Star Trek:TOS plot arc that explores thi
Perhaps it is intellectual dishonesty to make the assumption that people are unable to define their belief nor formulate a logical argument for that belief? Bigotry is the intolerance of a group because the group's beliefs conflict with one's own belief system. The logical fallacy is expecting a person to present a logical argument to someone who refuses to accept it no matter how sound it may be. It is impossible to rationalize to the irrational. I am sure you would agree.
I suppose we must simply agree that it comes down to the old cliche: "different strokes for different folks".
The parent comment is why we need a (+1, Troll) moderation.
I hope the parent's comment gets modded up all the way to +5 so that everyone can see just how intolerant this representative slice of the slashdot community can be, and how sad such ignorance is. This sort of argument is invariably trotted out by some bigot every time any religious reference is made here, and only serves as an example that you don't have to be religious to be a fanatic.
You have a right to your opinion, and to voice it. You have a right to civil disagreement. Hell, you have the right to publicly display your ignorance and intolerance if that is your wont. But what, exactly, gives you the right to publicly harass someone on the grounds that their belief system does not match yours? What is your problem with Christians, specifically? Why the ardent fervor over followers of a guy whose teachings basically amount to 'play nice, here's how'? Perhaps the devil's in the details. Were you molested by a Catholic priest? Did your parents raise you to believe the Crusaders want to murder you? Something else traumatic? What is your damage?
It is clear that you do not want to talk about intellectual honesty. You failed to mention a few other traits not inherently Christian: hypocrisy, ignorance, and hyperbole just to name a few. Perhaps in the future you would do well to use your brain -- God given, or grown by accident -- before posting a comment that clearly doesn't serve to paint you in an 'intellectual' light. Or you can simply participate in a self-congratulatory circle-jerk with your like-minded brethren. After all, you can't have your cake and eat it too, right?
Your choice.
Hmm, well the two-part nintendo Wii episode of South Park prominently features Dawkins, and I know that the episode has been aired at least twice since its debut showing.
Maybe that means something. I'd never heard of him before the show (I know, geek card revoked, O Discordia!), but I suspect he has been making some recent waves if South Park devoted a full hour to deriding him. Has he said or done something sufficiently crazy/stupid lately?
but that does not mean warmer winters and hotter summers in general.
Perhaps not in general, but here in on the Minnesota/Wisconsin border, I have noticed a definite overall warming trend. Today's high temperature forecast is 35F, which I think is considerably high for this time of year. Normally I'd expect it to be within a few degrees of 5F. We didn't have a white Christmas this year (the third time that I can remember in the last 10 years), and most of the precipitation we have received thus far has come in the form of rain. Discussions about the recent weather phenomena with senior citizens indicates that this is not at all normal, at least to their best recollection.
And that says nothing about the warmer summers we have been having lately. Personally I believe that a global average temperature rise of a couple of degrees has indeed modified our climate by blocking cooler northern Canadian air in favor of airmasses originating in the pacific northwest and southwest. I am too lazy to find any references to validate my point, I am just going off of personal observation here.
With all that said, I am not entirely convinced that this seemingly dramatic climate shift is necessarily caused by human action. It is interesting that this upward temperature trend appears to coincide with the mass popularity of SUV's, for example, but correlation != causation. Who is to say that we are not simply still warming out of the last ice age? I don't know enough about the science behind it to say. I have to defer to the wisdom of scientists knowledgeable in the field, but who knows if they really have all the pieces of the puzzle? In fact I think it would be extremely arrogant of us all to assume that we are technologically advanced enough to really answer the question at this time, and to say that we have all of the pieces of the puzzle in place. Perhaps recent increased solar activity plays a role. Perhaps the inevitable shifting of the poles has something to do with it. Perhaps volcanic activity plays a part. Perhaps pollution and 'heat-island' effects play a part.
The fact is, though, that the global temperature average has increased, and there are ancient glaciers and ice shelves all over the world that are melting away at an apparently 'unnatural' rate. Those are observations we can make today without any requisite scientific background. As I said, I am not unconvinced that this is due to human activity. However, I am genuinely curious about this whole thing, as it appears it is affecting my daily life. I would guess that a lot of us 'average joes' are in the same boat in that regard.
Can anyone recommend some verifiable (hopefully unbiased) reference material so that we of the unwashed masses can put things into perspective?
... but wouldn't such a security model mean that all programs could be forced to comply with a certain API spec? What would stop microsoft from implementing it by forcing the developer to compile their code with "windows-game-profile.1.0.dll", which is conveniently only supported by the .Net framework. They could then force windows program developers to use Visual Studio (or purchase a high-buck license) and have total control over what the program is able to do, ** at the source code level!**.
Now that would really be something else!
Seriously. FWIW, I am for the most part a Google fanboy.
I have had my GMail account for what, two years or so, and I really don't think google's spamfilter has ever missed a beat. That is to say that all the real spam I receive every day (~40 to 100 spams depending on the day) ends up in the spam folder, not my inbox. Spam is a total non-issue for me. OTOH, my hotmail inbox is so atrocious and the spamfilter so bad that I can't use the account for anything important. I don't know what kind of black magic they have going on at the Googleplex, but it WORKS! Maybe they do use some form of AI, but I assume they don't use what I'd call 'smart' AI. If that assumption is correct, then the spam problem doesn't seem to need AI as its solution.
As for your personal freedom to smoke, I just don't see how you can complain without being hypocritical. Your entire argument is that it is unfair for others to restrict your freedom, yet you have been doing exactly the same thing, in all but name, to others for years, and moreover the damage to public health caused by your approach is demonstrably greater and more people have their freedom restricted by it. One could apply your argument just as well to say that we should allow violence in public places, or indeed repeal any law that restricts the freedom of a few in the interests of greater benefits for many. I am not being a hypocrite. I don't smoke in places that disallow it, and don't complain about it. If I had a problem with that, I would simply go somewhere that better caters to my needs. I don't understand why someone that worried about their health due to tobacco smoke would knowingly go into a place that doesn't ban smoking. It doesn't make sense. Passing an anti-smoking law doesn't change the fact that people are ultimately responsible for their own personal welfare. Alcohol is a HUGE public health risk which is at times detrimental to people who aren't even consuming it. Yet we already tried to ban alcohol and ultimately failed. Fast food is another public health risk, yet nobody's closing down McDonald's. By your logic, we should ban just about everything under the sun because it may ultimately infringe on someone else's freedoms.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I am quite glad the government hasn't yet made that a crime as well.
I am a smoker. I am an American. I was going to point out how both your and your parent poster's comments are without merit. I am just not eloquent enough to do so without being long-winded. So: If you are an American, then you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting the state-mandated erosion of others' rights in favor of your own. By doing so you only lend support to legal precedent that will ultimately serve to justify the abuse of your own rights, and those of your progeny. Do not advance the misconception that even as adults, we require a babysitter because we are too immature to work out equitable solutions to our problems on our own.
Honest answers:
English is an amalgam of other languages, so grammar doesn't necessarily follow hard-fast rules, as I am sure you are aware. I suspect the reason the words don't pluralize the same way (even though they end with the same sound) is probably due to the respective root words coming from different parent languages.
This link gives a quick lowdown on English plurals. It seems that the -en plural for ox originates in Old English. Child -> children is another example. Then you have something like the word cactus -> cacti, and compare that to virus -> viruses.
That probably doesn't help you out too much, hmmm? My Spanish teacher always claimed that English is one of the most difficult languages for a non-native speaker to learn correctly, the reason being that English grammar doesn't follow its own rules as consistently as most other languages.
All of that is very true, and I agree that healthy adults really don't need, nor should get vaccinated under normal circumstances. But what if the next superflu that arises kills every single person not naturally resistant to it? The survivors' innate resistance is sure to cause a decline of the offending virus as a matter of course. That only serves to pave the way for even nastier stuff to come along.
I remember reading a statistic somewhere that a large percentage of peoples of european descent are naturally resistant to the bubonic plague because all the medieval europeans that weren't resistant at time died from it. Would it be better to still be fighting the black death instead of the super chicken flu du jour?
Any time we eradicate one life-threatening virus, there will be another one to take its place. Immunization does pit us in an ever-accelerating arms race with the next pandemic, but that is simply nature. Lives will be lost whether we do or don't choose to vaccinate, so which option is better? Whether we build up natural or artificial resistance, given enough time the end result is the same. Maybe the difference is that developing new vaccinations provides a catalyst for medical research, the result of which may have far-reaching implications in medical science aside from its original intent. Whether or not that is ultimately a good thing is left as an exercise for the reader.
It'd be a sad day, for sure. But if flu vaccines are really that effective, why aren't the same organizations requiring mandatory flu immunization now? I would dare to bet that flu-related sick days cost the same organizations more money in lost productivity than the health care costs do.
;-)
As an aside, it is not really necessary to mandate the use of the nicotine vaccine when legislation aims to achieve the same end in many areas in the U.S by barring smoking in almost all public places. An 'alcohol vaccine' exists which makes the innoculant violently ill when alcohol is consumed, yet I've never heard of a company that mandates its use as a matter of course.
But, I'll keep my fingers crossed in hopes that it stays that way. I'm not quite ready to give up booze and smoke just yet