Their exports are pretty skunky, too. Would you care for some lead paint with your toy, junior?
Oh, but there I go being all liberal and gay and shit. Really, we should let the free markets decide what an acceptable level of poisoning should be for our children. "But they're using asbestos as a padding for the cushion in this crib!" The free market decided it was cheaper than foam. I'm sorry, but the market's decision is final, you'll just have to accept that.
That's just ridiculous.
Really, if the facts were known about asbestos, people wouldn't buy something asbestos-lined, and there would be demand for another product.
Buying an asbestos-lined crib in that case is just irresponsible. Build your own!
Seriously, arguments like that can be (and sadly, frequently are) used to justify the most egregious nanny-state abuses.
How about a little personal responsibility? Oh, I'm sorry, I suppose it's for the government to decide what your responsibility is, as well?
Que statist vs. libertarian flamewar in 3, 2, 1....
He got called "nigger" two times in five years and that's Terrorism to you?
By your logic, calling someone "Faggot" twice is terrorism, too. After all, there's a long history of oppression of gay people (longer than black people, in fact.)
Actually though, this particular rule is just illogical.
As GP stated, gymnasts are better when they're younger, and have trouble when they start to develop more.
So, why aren't they allowed to compete? This just smacks of "Think of the poor children..."
It's about as logical as banning athletes from middle and long-distance running if they're over 30. That's actually the age at which long distance runners tend to perform their best (early 30's.) So, should we ban them for having an "advantage" over younger runners?
Parallel to the "Poor exploited children" argument, I'm sure we could come up with one about the health risks of over-exhaustion at that advanced age causing shortened life spans, etc. etc.
I know I'll be modded into oblivion for this, but as far as I'm concerned it's just another example of imposing Anglo-Saxon morality on the rest of the world.
I had the same question, and thought I saw legs under the blocks, not hydraulics.
The only part that looked "faked" to me were the "footsteps" fireworks mentioned by the GBP. And, I assumed that they were computer generated, not real, and didn't see it as any sort of "deception." All the people watching it with me had the same conclusion, none of whom are remotely technically-inclined.
I think the Vikings/Erik the Red named it that to try to con people into living there after realizing Iceland wasn't such a great name for people seeking warmer temperatures or a better place to live than Scandinavia. It wasn't like you could just log onto the web or visit a travel agent back then to check the regional climate of Greenland, heh heh.
Actually that's a common myth about the naming of Greenland.
When the Erik the Red and his merry band of men settled, the south-western part of the island was quite habitable. Soil erosion and other factors made it less comfortable centuries later. But, in the summer, the southern part of Greenland is, in fact, green, and it's likely it was even more so during Erik the Red's time.
Really? What is "society" then? It's you and I (and others, of course.) I don't know about you, but I can assure you the I am not responsible for their poor parenting skills!
I think the key point here is that the government really has no fundamental authority to force the producers of the games to, in effect, "help" parents do their job. It sort of makes the game company partially responsible for raising the child.
I think it's akin to a law being passed in the 1960s mandating that National Geographic magazines bundle every single issue with a special paper cutter to enable parents to cut out offending indigenous booby photos if they don't want their children to see them. To me, it's about that logical.
It's likely that one of them will have the money and legal prowess to fight the good fight. Not to mention, it seems like this would be a sure-fire win for anyone willing to fight it. Counter-sue for legal fees anyone?
I happen to know the CEO and founder of one of the companies they're suing. If they're thinking he'll roll over they are in for a rude awakening. I look forward to the show!
Don't worry they will. e-gold was just smaller and didn't have good enough lawyers. Now that they've got a precedent set, the government will turn its attention towards paypal. The government can't stand to have any "unregulated" exchange of goods, services, or capital.
While I do agree with you, I think there's more to this than just regulation.
The US government (actually the Federal Reserve but by extension their lackeys in the government) is terrified of "competing currencies."
They come down especially hard on physical currencies, ie. Gold/Silver. Look at the recent attack on the "Liberty Dollar," for an example.
At the risk of provoking the ire of the anti-Ron Paul people, he's been talking about exactly this for some time.
Of course, it's quite possible that there actually was money laundering going on (it sounds like there was.) My point is just that these chaps weren't taken down because a) they were too small and didn't have good lawyers or b) just because they were laundering money. If you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...
There are some admirable politicians out there. The fact that you are unwilling to look at their individual behavior, and simply tar them all with the same brush, marks you as intellectually lazy and fundamentally dishonest.
You're right, there are a few admirable politicians out there.
But what this has shown is that Barack Obama isn't one of them!
Not only is a hits-based business more profitable for vendors according to the new research, but the research suggests that consumers also derive more enjoyment from the hits, rather than the tail.
This new research, which according to Chris Anderson was "[b]ased on Rhapsody music data and DVD rental data from an Australian Netflix clone called Quickflix" can hardly be called representative, IMO.
I would suggest that the nature of the "long tail" itself makes any accurate (ie. statistics-based) research on this extremely difficult, if not impossible. In other words, to make a true comparison one would have to research an equal volume in the "long tail," meaning thousands of times more entities researched to compare the same number of transactions.
Even if she is basing conclusions on the tastes or preferences of the purchases/selections in the two companies researched, that could simply mean that for those "niche" preferences people are going elsewhere - e.g. to "niche" entities.
The entire DNC can no longer take money from lobbys or special interest groups, as per his request after Hillary's withdrawal.
Really? I could've sworn that PACs from companies like Microsoft, Time Warner, etc. might come under the heading of "special interest groups."
I'm not suggesting that he's necessarily bad for doing it, but come on - this "sun shines out of his backside" worship of Obama is getting really tedious.
soviet russia was no more proper socialist than capitalist america, both subverted the will and well being of the people for the benefit of the wealthy and connected
That's highly inaccurate. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state ownership of the means of production.
The Soviet Union was actually a good* example of that, at least economically.
* "good" meaning "representative" rather than "positive"
Jim Hacker: "Humphrey, we are talking about 100,000 deaths a year."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but cigarette taxes pay for a third of the cost of the National Health Service. We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntary lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors."
Sir Humphrey (about smokers): Yes, but we've been into that. It has been shown that if those extra one hundred thousand people had lived to a ripe old age that they would have cost us even more in pensions and social security, than they did in medical treatment. So financially speaking it is unquestionably better that they continue to die at the present rate
While there are some half-decent arguments (reactionist people taking tests then making up their own "treatment" plan for their 1% chance of developing condition X), I agree this is for doctors.
Huh? How is this even a quarter-decent argument?
So what if I want to take my DNA test data, and develop my own Broccoli cure for my 1% chance of developing toe cancer?
That is an example of what I find most odious and offensive in the gospel of the "protect people from themselves!" crowd.
Slashdot Mirror
Their exports are pretty skunky, too. Would you care for some lead paint with your toy, junior?
Oh, but there I go being all liberal and gay and shit. Really, we should let the free markets decide what an acceptable level of poisoning should be for our children. "But they're using asbestos as a padding for the cushion in this crib!" The free market decided it was cheaper than foam. I'm sorry, but the market's decision is final, you'll just have to accept that.
That's just ridiculous.
Really, if the facts were known about asbestos, people wouldn't buy something asbestos-lined, and there would be demand for another product.
Buying an asbestos-lined crib in that case is just irresponsible. Build your own!
Seriously, arguments like that can be (and sadly, frequently are) used to justify the most egregious nanny-state abuses.
How about a little personal responsibility? Oh, I'm sorry, I suppose it's for the government to decide what your responsibility is, as well?
Que statist vs. libertarian flamewar in 3, 2, 1....
Thanks Mozilla,
This is just great!
Now, how about fixing the memory leaks that cause Firefox to use 280 MB of RAM with one tab open and default extensions after 20 minutes?
Wow.
He got called "nigger" two times in five years and that's Terrorism to you?
By your logic, calling someone "Faggot" twice is terrorism, too. After all, there's a long history of oppression of gay people (longer than black people, in fact.)
How about being called "witch" or "infidel"?
All terrorism, according to you.
Ridiculous.
Actually though, this particular rule is just illogical.
As GP stated, gymnasts are better when they're younger, and have trouble when they start to develop more.
So, why aren't they allowed to compete? This just smacks of "Think of the poor children..."
It's about as logical as banning athletes from middle and long-distance running if they're over 30. That's actually the age at which long distance runners tend to perform their best (early 30's.) So, should we ban them for having an "advantage" over younger runners?
Parallel to the "Poor exploited children" argument, I'm sure we could come up with one about the health risks of over-exhaustion at that advanced age causing shortened life spans, etc. etc.
I know I'll be modded into oblivion for this, but as far as I'm concerned it's just another example of imposing Anglo-Saxon morality on the rest of the world.
Alas, sweet karma....
Really? Gosh, I could have sworn I read it here, which, (amazing coincidence!) is linked to in the summary (and sadly, now appears slashdotted.
Obre los ojos man.
I had the same question, and thought I saw legs under the blocks, not hydraulics.
The only part that looked "faked" to me were the "footsteps" fireworks mentioned by the GBP. And, I assumed that they were computer generated, not real, and didn't see it as any sort of "deception." All the people watching it with me had the same conclusion, none of whom are remotely technically-inclined.
There was no "deception" here.
This sort of thing always reminds me of this:
Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
* The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
* The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
* And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
Only when she's ten feet tall.
Case in point: the most important Catholic theologian for the first 1200 years of Western Church history, Saint Augustine, was black.
St Augustine was not black, at least certainly not in the sense one thinks of today. He was a Berber.
He was African, yes, but African != Black, especially North African.
I think the Vikings/Erik the Red named it that to try to con people into living there after realizing Iceland wasn't such a great name for people seeking warmer temperatures or a better place to live than Scandinavia. It wasn't like you could just log onto the web or visit a travel agent back then to check the regional climate of Greenland, heh heh.
Actually that's a common myth about the naming of Greenland.
When the Erik the Red and his merry band of men settled, the south-western part of the island was quite habitable. Soil erosion and other factors made it less comfortable centuries later. But, in the summer, the southern part of Greenland is, in fact, green, and it's likely it was even more so during Erik the Red's time.
Vescere bracis meis.
Requiem in Pacet
I may be missing something, but isn't the whole point of tor that something like this isn't possible?
If this actually points out flaws in tor that may have been missed, and the info is made publicly available, won't this help strengthen the system?
but poor parenting skills are society's fault.
Really? What is "society" then? It's you and I (and others, of course.) I don't know about you, but I can assure you the I am not responsible for their poor parenting skills!
I think the key point here is that the government really has no fundamental authority to force the producers of the games to, in effect, "help" parents do their job. It sort of makes the game company partially responsible for raising the child.
I think it's akin to a law being passed in the 1960s mandating that National Geographic magazines bundle every single issue with a special paper cutter to enable parents to cut out offending indigenous booby photos if they don't want their children to see them. To me, it's about that logical.
It's likely that one of them will have the money and legal prowess to fight the good fight. Not to mention, it seems like this would be a sure-fire win for anyone willing to fight it. Counter-sue for legal fees anyone?
I happen to know the CEO and founder of one of the companies they're suing. If they're thinking he'll roll over they are in for a rude awakening. I look forward to the show!
Don't worry they will. e-gold was just smaller and didn't have good enough lawyers. Now that they've got a precedent set, the government will turn its attention towards paypal. The government can't stand to have any "unregulated" exchange of goods, services, or capital.
While I do agree with you, I think there's more to this than just regulation.
The US government (actually the Federal Reserve but by extension their lackeys in the government) is terrified of "competing currencies."
They come down especially hard on physical currencies, ie. Gold/Silver. Look at the recent attack on the "Liberty Dollar," for an example.
At the risk of provoking the ire of the anti-Ron Paul people, he's been talking about exactly this for some time.
Of course, it's quite possible that there actually was money laundering going on (it sounds like there was.) My point is just that these chaps weren't taken down because a) they were too small and didn't have good lawyers or b) just because they were laundering money. If you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...
There are some admirable politicians out there. The fact that you are unwilling to look at their individual behavior, and simply tar them all with the same brush, marks you as intellectually lazy and fundamentally dishonest.
You're right, there are a few admirable politicians out there.
But what this has shown is that Barack Obama isn't one of them!
Not only is a hits-based business more profitable for vendors according to the new research, but the research suggests that consumers also derive more enjoyment from the hits, rather than the tail.
This new research, which according to Chris Anderson was "[b]ased on Rhapsody music data and DVD rental data from an Australian Netflix clone called Quickflix" can hardly be called representative, IMO.
I would suggest that the nature of the "long tail" itself makes any accurate (ie. statistics-based) research on this extremely difficult, if not impossible. In other words, to make a true comparison one would have to research an equal volume in the "long tail," meaning thousands of times more entities researched to compare the same number of transactions.
Even if she is basing conclusions on the tastes or preferences of the purchases/selections in the two companies researched, that could simply mean that for those "niche" preferences people are going elsewhere - e.g. to "niche" entities.
The entire DNC can no longer take money from lobbys or special interest groups, as per his request after Hillary's withdrawal.
Really? I could've sworn that PACs from companies like Microsoft, Time Warner, etc. might come under the heading of "special interest groups."
I'm not suggesting that he's necessarily bad for doing it, but come on - this "sun shines out of his backside" worship of Obama is getting really tedious.
Mod me OT but I just can't take it....
it'll need a whole lot more then this to stop another one
A whole lot more then .... what?
Do you mean that the impact will be greater now then then?
Will it be greater then or less then...
This post was brought to you by the letter "A"
That's highly inaccurate. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state ownership of the means of production.
The Soviet Union was actually a good* example of that, at least economically.
* "good" meaning "representative" rather than "positive"
Jim Hacker: "Humphrey, we are talking about 100,000 deaths a year."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but cigarette taxes pay for a third of the cost of the National Health Service. We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntary lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors."
Sir Humphrey (about smokers): Yes, but we've been into that. It has been shown that if those extra one hundred thousand people had lived to a ripe old age that they would have cost us even more in pensions and social security, than they did in medical treatment. So financially speaking it is unquestionably better that they continue to die at the present rate
Actually, I would say that as soon as the government gets involved it's guaranteed to be a worse O/S.
Serious, all those MS-haters out there should rejoice - this couldn't be better news for them.
Actually the Kiwis leaving NZ for Oz is a win-win situation - it raises the average IQ of BOTH countries.
While there are some half-decent arguments (reactionist people taking tests then making up their own "treatment" plan for their 1% chance of developing condition X), I agree this is for doctors.
Huh? How is this even a quarter-decent argument?
So what if I want to take my DNA test data, and develop my own Broccoli cure for my 1% chance of developing toe cancer?
That is an example of what I find most odious and offensive in the gospel of the "protect people from themselves!" crowd.