I am a nerd who has trouble in most social situations, and even I can see the patronizing smugness in your post. You can explain your reasoning or be known as many as "that patronizing jerk."
Please mod parent Flamebait.//off topic comments//
Yes, discussing whether Google is evil when the summary calls Google evil is certainly off topic.//typical googlite attempt//
Yes, there is a grand conspiracy of Google lovers.//yet another profit first humanity last act by google//
Before you can say "yet another", you'll have to show me the first one.//actively flooding the first page of slashdot posting and then modding them up//
erm.. Are you accusing me of using sock puppets, or do you not realize that one cannot post and then mod? Oh, thats right, its a conspiracy.//an act of evil... certainly attempting to avoid and bury a public review//
Thats right, you should be allowed to hate Google without dissent. Because dissent is off topic.//for turning over a person knowing full well the repercussion of that act//
While completely ignorant, this is the first non-flamebait thing you've posted. I couldn't say whether they knew the repercussions, and neither can you// especially when so many people would consider the act worthy of no punishment but also turning someone in to be evil//
Yup, if they did what you're accusing them of, they did something evil. I once attacked an innocent man. That means I was and will always be evil, yes?//So what is the difference between a googlite troll and an M$ micro trolls,... marketdroids, humanity for sale to the highest bidder.//
Because, again, anyone who doesn't hate Google after reading the summary is a googlite, and googlites are bad, right?// we just have to pay off these profit first corporations to protect ourselves from them, protection money, billions of dollars worth, either that or they will sell us out with out batting an eyelid and then lie to us about it.//
Let me take a wild stab in the dark and say that a large corporation has hurt you in the past.
I, for one, have not seen any evil act from google until now. China is controversial, but these things are true: China.cn was the only way to be in China at all; (Im in yer interwebs, spreading democracy) and it looks like it worked out better than no Google in China at all.
There is also the accusation that Google was mixing in paid results, which turned out to be someone upset about them being listed on the right side of the screen with the caption, "sponsored listings" or something.
So we have a company that has, until now, done no evil being accused, again, of doing evil. Shouldn't we wait for more information before casting judgement?
It does not strip power from the word. As long as theres a word one race can use but another cannot, that word has special power. The more the disparity is accepted, the more power the word has.
There are people who gain personal and political power from the concept of racism. Those people have direct motivation to maintain the concept of racism as a serious problem. No, I am not talking about a political candidate.
Citation please: it has never been proven that viewing child porn makes a person more likely to harm a child. Sure it seems to make sense, but so have many wrong ideas.
The act? by all means. I say, death penelty. But filming it should be legal: catch the bastards faster, and no such thing as a thought crime should exist. When CAD models can perfectly create this kind of porn, there should be no law against their use.
Can we get the parent one more mod point, please? Lives will be ruined, money wasted, freedom lost because of the mindless fear attached by media to the words "child porn". Like drugs, it is pollitically impossible to be rational about these things.
323233331112132
33323132212331
2111331132312233
333212123213112
311333313331111
211333323232211
232313331121231
33231312
That looks kind of like music to me
111212112121212121121212121112121121
1121121121211121211211121211211121111
1111212121121121211121212121112111211
2111212112112111211121112111211121112
11211211121112121121112122211121211
121211211121112112112111212121112111
211211211121121112112111212112111212
112121211
And that looks like binary
I tend to lean towards human life not being valuable.
There are already too many people on the planet as it is, and thousands of them die on a daily basis. There is no "magic" to creating life and the resources (Sperm and Eggs) are plentiful. Might as well get something from the resources via scientific study, instead of just letting them go to waste. So lets fertalize those eggs and create an army of slaves!
This reminds me of Polly. The researchers said something to the effect of, "its ethical because if they start acting human, we'll kill them immediately." The problem being, of course, that if they're acting human it becomes less, not more, "right" to kill the sheep.
This can, at best, describe the cabinet-level and section of the governments. With many different structures, a poor measure at best. A proper study would require many more measurements, and be weighted by the decision powers given to various levels of government. The Japanese diet, for instance, is much more powerful than the president and his cabinet.
Imagine if the archaeologists of the 18th century didn't just keep pottery, but "enhanced it" by making it closer to what they imagined it would have looked like originally. Well some of them did. And destroyed information in the process.
It is impossible to restore lost information. Color can be corrected to what is probably was, lines can be completed, etc, but thats entirely new, best guess, information, and covers up the real information that was there before it. They should store the originals for longer term storage with the highest possible digital resolution, just as they are. If they want to enhanse things for a more attractive picture, fine, but don't store it for posterity. Posterity will be very angry.
You're looking at it wrong: The good thing about patents is, they expire. The patent troll is putting 500 ideas per year into the public domain with a 20 year latency.
I never said it would be a bad idea to improve efficiency. I'm just saying that in the end, no form of reduced consumption will be required. A good idea where it doesn't impact our quality of life, but not necessary.
No, we do not have to reduce consumption. I see this fallacious argument everywhere. What we have to do is either reduce consumption or develop sustainable energy. There is no need to reduce consumption if: fusion non-food biofuel Thermal depolymerization molten salt or any other of several technologies, or any combination of the above come to fruiction. Are you seriously proposing that there will never be a source of energy sufficient to maintain the world at first-country usage levels? Wear your mortification-colored glasses if you want, but I say again, we do not need to reduce consumption.
3. Nearly 100% of intelligent life is destroyed.
4. We are a special case, and something we cannot detect *cough dark matter*cough is blocking the signals. A nature preserve? A protected species? A study in evolution, conducted by beings far beyond us? A child's toy? A vermin that has yet to be exterminated because we're not enough of a nuisance yet?
5. Nearly every intelligent species stops transmitting when they build ships almost as fast as the signals, but for some reason the ships have been avoiding us.
6. There is a frequency which we don't know about or cannot yet exploit that is clearer than the frequencies in which we're searching. Gamma?
In fact, I would bet that there are an infinate number of possible answers...
So what you're saying is, "requires more effort" is better than "requires less effort" because we can keep jobs? buggy whips, broken window fallacy, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a nerd who has trouble in most social situations, and even I can see the patronizing smugness in your post. You can explain your reasoning or be known as many as "that patronizing jerk."
I am an ass clown, you insensitive clod!
I can crack Vista too! Watch this:
Attention user! To see naked celeb.jpg, just follow these easy steps:
1: Get a hammer
2:repeatedly hit your CPU
3:When you've hit it enough times, you will see the picture!
"If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find in them something to hang him." - Richelieu.
Please mod parent Flamebait. //off topic comments//
Yes, discussing whether Google is evil when the summary calls Google evil is certainly off topic. //typical googlite attempt//
Yes, there is a grand conspiracy of Google lovers. //yet another profit first humanity last act by google//
Before you can say "yet another", you'll have to show me the first one. //actively flooding the first page of slashdot posting and then modding them up//
erm.. Are you accusing me of using sock puppets, or do you not realize that one cannot post and then mod? Oh, thats right, its a conspiracy. //an act of evil... certainly attempting to avoid and bury a public review//
Thats right, you should be allowed to hate Google without dissent. Because dissent is off topic. //for turning over a person knowing full well the repercussion of that act//
While completely ignorant, this is the first non-flamebait thing you've posted. I couldn't say whether they knew the repercussions, and neither can you // especially when so many people would consider the act worthy of no punishment but also turning someone in to be evil//
Yup, if they did what you're accusing them of, they did something evil. I once attacked an innocent man. That means I was and will always be evil, yes? //So what is the difference between a googlite troll and an M$ micro trolls, ... marketdroids, humanity for sale to the highest bidder.//
Because, again, anyone who doesn't hate Google after reading the summary is a googlite, and googlites are bad, right? // we just have to pay off these profit first corporations to protect ourselves from them, protection money, billions of dollars worth, either that or they will sell us out with out batting an eyelid and then lie to us about it.//
Let me take a wild stab in the dark and say that a large corporation has hurt you in the past.
I, for one, have not seen any evil act from google until now. China is controversial, but these things are true: China.cn was the only way to be in China at all; (Im in yer interwebs, spreading democracy) and it looks like it worked out better than no Google in China at all.
There is also the accusation that Google was mixing in paid results, which turned out to be someone upset about them being listed on the right side of the screen with the caption, "sponsored listings" or something.
So we have a company that has, until now, done no evil being accused, again, of doing evil. Shouldn't we wait for more information before casting judgement?
It does not strip power from the word. As long as theres a word one race can use but another cannot, that word has special power. The more the disparity is accepted, the more power the word has.
There are people who gain personal and political power from the concept of racism. Those people have direct motivation to maintain the concept of racism as a serious problem. No, I am not talking about a political candidate.
Citation please: it has never been proven that viewing child porn makes a person more likely to harm a child. Sure it seems to make sense, but so have many wrong ideas.
The act? by all means. I say, death penelty. But filming it should be legal: catch the bastards faster, and no such thing as a thought crime should exist. When CAD models can perfectly create this kind of porn, there should be no law against their use.
The injunction against cartoon porn will serve as another poorly enforced law against a common activity: tyrany.
Can we get the parent one more mod point, please? Lives will be ruined, money wasted, freedom lost because of the mindless fear attached by media to the words "child porn". Like drugs, it is pollitically impossible to be rational about these things.
If I change the 1s to 0 and the 2s to 1, I get some interesting bits.
"J)IEQ)"""$curren;\QHquot;$)T
323233331112132 33323132212331 2111331132312233 333212123213112 311333313331111 211333323232211 232313331121231 33231312 That looks kind of like music to me 111212112121212121121212121112121121 1121121121211121211211121211211121111 1111212121121121211121212121112111211 2111212112112111211121112111211121112 11211211121112121121112122211121211 121211211121112112112111212121112111 211211211121121112112111212112111212 112121211 And that looks like binary
For your entertainment
You believe the CPI?? *points and laughs*
I tend to lean towards human life not being valuable. There are already too many people on the planet as it is, and thousands of them die on a daily basis. There is no "magic" to creating life and the resources (Sperm and Eggs) are plentiful. Might as well get something from the resources via scientific study, instead of just letting them go to waste. So lets fertalize those eggs and create an army of slaves!
This reminds me of Polly. The researchers said something to the effect of, "its ethical because if they start acting human, we'll kill them immediately." The problem being, of course, that if they're acting human it becomes less, not more, "right" to kill the sheep.
This can, at best, describe the cabinet-level and section of the governments. With many different structures, a poor measure at best. A proper study would require many more measurements, and be weighted by the decision powers given to various levels of government. The Japanese diet, for instance, is much more powerful than the president and his cabinet.
Imagine if the archaeologists of the 18th century didn't just keep pottery, but "enhanced it" by making it closer to what they imagined it would have looked like originally. Well some of them did. And destroyed information in the process.
It is impossible to restore lost information. Color can be corrected to what is probably was, lines can be completed, etc, but thats entirely new, best guess, information, and covers up the real information that was there before it. They should store the originals for longer term storage with the highest possible digital resolution, just as they are. If they want to enhanse things for a more attractive picture, fine, but don't store it for posterity. Posterity will be very angry.
You're looking at it wrong: The good thing about patents is, they expire. The patent troll is putting 500 ideas per year into the public domain with a 20 year latency.
I never said it would be a bad idea to improve efficiency. I'm just saying that in the end, no form of reduced consumption will be required. A good idea where it doesn't impact our quality of life, but not necessary.
The EU's system is not so weak that it can be easily controlled by a hostile entity...
We have to reduce consumption regardless.
No, we do not have to reduce consumption. I see this fallacious argument everywhere. What we have to do is either reduce consumption or develop sustainable energy. There is no need to reduce consumption if:
fusion
non-food biofuel
Thermal depolymerization
molten salt
or any other of several technologies, or any combination of the above come to fruiction. Are you seriously proposing that there will never be a source of energy sufficient to maintain the world at first-country usage levels? Wear your mortification-colored glasses if you want, but I say again, we do not need to reduce consumption.
3. Nearly 100% of intelligent life is destroyed.
4. We are a special case, and something we cannot detect *cough dark matter*cough is blocking the signals. A nature preserve? A protected species? A study in evolution, conducted by beings far beyond us? A child's toy? A vermin that has yet to be exterminated because we're not enough of a nuisance yet?
5. Nearly every intelligent species stops transmitting when they build ships almost as fast as the signals, but for some reason the ships have been avoiding us.
6. There is a frequency which we don't know about or cannot yet exploit that is clearer than the frequencies in which we're searching. Gamma?
In fact, I would bet that there are an infinate number of possible answers...
So what you're saying is, "requires more effort" is better than "requires less effort" because we can keep jobs? buggy whips, broken window fallacy, etc.