I think regulating our population will not likely fly until we hit critical mass as a country. America is the coasts and a whole shitload of nothin' in-between - we'll be hard pressed to run outta space anytime in the next century.
The main factors in "have a shit-ton of kids" I've found is lack of education, poverty, and/or a strong religious belief. (There are people who are Fortune 500 executives but take that "be fruitful and multiply" line a little too seriously.)
I've read articles where they talk about women in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Even one year of schooling beyond fifth grade will reduce the kids they pop out. For now, the best thing we can do is to make sure women around the world get at least a primary school education all the way through. That will do more to combat population growth than all the laws, regulations, and contraceptives in the world.
Sadly, on Slashdot it is. Amen to what you said brother. At this point the best we can hope for is the proverbial 300 lbs. guy to get so fat that he has a heart attack and dies.
Kids using drugs is a problem, yes. Adults using drugs is a problem, too, but they should have the right to put whatever stupid crap they want into their bodies, be it cocaine, Drano, or a bullet (and on a really bad day, all three).
Spend some time watching the interactions of a group of, say, 14 year-old girls on Facebook. Vicious doesn't begin to describe it.
Back when I was in school, women were bitches the old-fashioned way - behind each other's backs, and occasionally in shouting matches at the park across the street from the school.
I'm 23.
These newfangled digital bitches don't hold a candle to their ancestors. Excuse the gender-specific term, but they just don't have the balls. I recall one girl talked smack about another and she got her head put into the driver's side window of a parked car. A fucking window!
I'll bet most of these girls can't throw a punch nowadays either.
A large part of the internal Wikipedia war is Inclusionists and Exclusionists. Inclusionists believe by and large that a page should never be deleted - simply moved, merged, or filled out until it is eventually up to par. Exclusionists believe pages should be held to a certain standard, and pages that can't reach that standard within a few days after their creation should be deleted.
I myself am an Inclusionist. In the days of cheap storage and bandwidth, there is not really a good reason not to have a page on there because it doesn't have references or citations yet. The key word there is "yet". Higher-ups are too quick with the delete button and so if you cannot write a large article with proper citation within a few days you might as well not bother at all.
That's why I (and many others) just don't bother at all anymore. I was fortunate enough to be able to write for a little while when Wikipedia was still fairly new. I loved watching the articles I created get built up by other people and grow, but this takes time. Nowadays, the current policy is basically unwilling to provide the time to let the weekend and occasional contributors pitch in to build an article slowly, so instead the people writing the articles are the people who have a vested interest in getting them written. That is a good and bad thing.
I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. As long as the welfare and social service train keeps on rolling and people feel they are reasonably safe, they won't make attempts at radical change.
And anytime someone *does* get angry enough to do something about it, the government will crack skulls and bury things away. How many high-up officials (or even low-ranking police officers) were suspended, indicted, subpoenaed, etc. for what they did to protesters at the 2004 Republican National Convention? I've yet to hear anything about that.
We're pretty much screwed unless something so colossally bad happens as to galvanize a majority of the population into action.
There are numerous easy solutions to solve the campaign finance issue. However, none of them will ever get anywhere because the current system has far too many very rich, very powerful people involved.
You have to wait for the companion second volume to come out, Drawing covers for books on Writing for Video Game Genres. It really mixes things up by having a brilliantly-drawn cover but 200 pages of half-assed, nonsensical rambling.
So basically, it's ghost-written by Rush Limbaugh.
It's kind of like theres both chocolate and vanilla ice creams, but it's possible to eat them together too and sometimes its even more delicious that way.
The difference is that they can release the game like that in the US and the game will stay like that. While the developer might cave to pressure (perceived or otherwise) and change it, they will never be forced to change it (unlike many other large industrial nations around the world).
I'd imagine some places would have this put on interior walls as well; places where you would expect a lot of gunfire, such as police stations, military bases, public schools, and post offices.
It was a joke. Don't worry, though. That joke is going to be good because I'm going to take all the words out and add new words. That joke will be fixed.
AFAIK with iTunes and most other music stores, you keep the rights to your creative works. They just take a cut as a fee for the transaction. I'd believe that it would be generally cheaper than doing it yourself, and it's the same price irrespective of the volume of sales.
Does something like this exist for physical music media, from pressed CDs to finished package? (i.e. "print on demand"). You can do it yourself for an investment of a couple hundred dollars, some time, and some creativity. If you're a small band, I really don't think you'd need to get a label's services in doing this.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't their subsequent charges (that don't go through) still impact your credit rating negatively, though?
I think regulating our population will not likely fly until we hit critical mass as a country. America is the coasts and a whole shitload of nothin' in-between - we'll be hard pressed to run outta space anytime in the next century.
The main factors in "have a shit-ton of kids" I've found is lack of education, poverty, and/or a strong religious belief. (There are people who are Fortune 500 executives but take that "be fruitful and multiply" line a little too seriously.)
I've read articles where they talk about women in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Even one year of schooling beyond fifth grade will reduce the kids they pop out. For now, the best thing we can do is to make sure women around the world get at least a primary school education all the way through. That will do more to combat population growth than all the laws, regulations, and contraceptives in the world.
Sadly, on Slashdot it is. Amen to what you said brother. At this point the best we can hope for is the proverbial 300 lbs. guy to get so fat that he has a heart attack and dies.
Oh gods, this is how militias start, isn't it?
Even if we didn't have the nuclear arsenal that we do, our military technology is by and large superior.
I think the threat of a stealth bomber carpet-bombing your country's version of the White House is a powerful deterrent in and of itself.
Kids using drugs is a problem, yes. Adults using drugs is a problem, too, but they should have the right to put whatever stupid crap they want into their bodies, be it cocaine, Drano, or a bullet (and on a really bad day, all three).
Spend some time watching the interactions of a group of, say, 14 year-old girls on Facebook. Vicious doesn't begin to describe it.
Back when I was in school, women were bitches the old-fashioned way - behind each other's backs, and occasionally in shouting matches at the park across the street from the school.
I'm 23.
These newfangled digital bitches don't hold a candle to their ancestors. Excuse the gender-specific term, but they just don't have the balls. I recall one girl talked smack about another and she got her head put into the driver's side window of a parked car. A fucking window!
I'll bet most of these girls can't throw a punch nowadays either.
Steve Jobs patented the idea way back in high school after an epiphany of sorts in the 3rd floor men's bathroom.
A large part of the internal Wikipedia war is Inclusionists and Exclusionists. Inclusionists believe by and large that a page should never be deleted - simply moved, merged, or filled out until it is eventually up to par. Exclusionists believe pages should be held to a certain standard, and pages that can't reach that standard within a few days after their creation should be deleted.
I myself am an Inclusionist. In the days of cheap storage and bandwidth, there is not really a good reason not to have a page on there because it doesn't have references or citations yet. The key word there is "yet". Higher-ups are too quick with the delete button and so if you cannot write a large article with proper citation within a few days you might as well not bother at all.
That's why I (and many others) just don't bother at all anymore. I was fortunate enough to be able to write for a little while when Wikipedia was still fairly new. I loved watching the articles I created get built up by other people and grow, but this takes time. Nowadays, the current policy is basically unwilling to provide the time to let the weekend and occasional contributors pitch in to build an article slowly, so instead the people writing the articles are the people who have a vested interest in getting them written. That is a good and bad thing.
I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. As long as the welfare and social service train keeps on rolling and people feel they are reasonably safe, they won't make attempts at radical change.
And anytime someone *does* get angry enough to do something about it, the government will crack skulls and bury things away. How many high-up officials (or even low-ranking police officers) were suspended, indicted, subpoenaed, etc. for what they did to protesters at the 2004 Republican National Convention? I've yet to hear anything about that.
We're pretty much screwed unless something so colossally bad happens as to galvanize a majority of the population into action.
the drag-to-edge copy and paste implementation
Proof that Apple does indeed know how to implement copy/paste.
Don't large PC manufacturers do something like this for whatever system they're installing?
Surely HP and Dell don't have someone sitting there running the Windows install disc for every machine they crank out.
There are numerous easy solutions to solve the campaign finance issue. However, none of them will ever get anywhere because the current system has far too many very rich, very powerful people involved.
You have to wait for the companion second volume to come out, Drawing covers for books on Writing for Video Game Genres. It really mixes things up by having a brilliantly-drawn cover but 200 pages of half-assed, nonsensical rambling.
So basically, it's ghost-written by Rush Limbaugh.
I'm sure they can. My advice - work on your timing.
From my - and I would argue most every other Slashdotter here - point of view, China's actions are unethical.
Almost made it two whole hours before a pedantic reply popped up!
It's kind of like theres both chocolate and vanilla ice creams, but it's possible to eat them together too and sometimes its even more delicious that way.
Yeah, I like interracial lesbian porn, too.
Wait, what's this book stuff in my porn story?
Even if the government's rules are unethical?
You're equating keeping fish in an aquarium or a koi pond to slavery?
I don't recall ever seeing salmon picking cotton on plantations in the deep south...
I'm under the poverty line and I am LOVING IT.
No, but I'm pretty sure there's a legal right to modify your hardware as you see fit...
The difference is that they can release the game like that in the US and the game will stay like that. While the developer might cave to pressure (perceived or otherwise) and change it, they will never be forced to change it (unlike many other large industrial nations around the world).
Fuck evolving. I wouldn't put a brain implant from Intel in or on my head. Suddenly I'd be doing math all wrong.
I'd imagine some places would have this put on interior walls as well; places where you would expect a lot of gunfire, such as police stations, military bases, public schools, and post offices.
It was a joke. Don't worry, though. That joke is going to be good because I'm going to take all the words out and add new words. That joke will be fixed.
AFAIK with iTunes and most other music stores, you keep the rights to your creative works. They just take a cut as a fee for the transaction. I'd believe that it would be generally cheaper than doing it yourself, and it's the same price irrespective of the volume of sales.
Does something like this exist for physical music media, from pressed CDs to finished package? (i.e. "print on demand"). You can do it yourself for an investment of a couple hundred dollars, some time, and some creativity. If you're a small band, I really don't think you'd need to get a label's services in doing this.