No. This "new" picture is the same one you used, just possibly a different crop of the original. You probably should have followed the other link in the article summary before posting.
Is it just me, or does it seem like there are a lot of anonymous coward posts, that seem to be spam, to 1st-level comments on articles? They're starting out at a karma level of zero, but it's still odd.
I've noticed a lot of them... they're obviously spam, because of how offtopic they are... seemingly pulled from highly-moderated comments to other articles.
Using "can't" may be intentional, emphasizing how consumers wouldn't be likely to put up with a car so "smart" if it was likely to crash as often as traditional cars do in the present.
But then again, it's probably a stretch that this differentiation was intentional... oh well.
IMHO, this mentality is exactly why it has taken Linux distributions so long to become a major player in the desktop market.
Focusing almost exclusively on more functionality, more applications, more uses rather than starting with making the basic desktop experience a good one has set Linux acceptance, by the general public, back a few steps.
For example, take 3 basic applications (e.g. a browser, an email client, a word processor) within any of the windowing environments and make them work perfectly. I don't mean without bugs, because that's nearly impossible. But make the experience more intuitive for the user, more productive by making common tasks easily accessible, etc.
I don't know, maybe I'm just out of touch. However, the evidence exists to support these statements.
I think companies that work with the open source community stand to gain more from future development on open source projects than those that alienate open source developers...
Well, no sh*t. That's like saying the following: I stand to gain more income if I work two jobs rather than work only one and have more free time.
Companies who work with OSS stand to gain more from OSS development than companies suing OSS projects/teams? I don't mean to flame here, just don't see the "+1 Insight" here.
I agree with you, except how you're quantifying the saved time. You're basing its value on an hourly wage that is totally unrelated because the time saved would most likely be spent on other things, like you listed... and quantifying those more likely alternatives isn't easy.
If your time is worth money, then spending 10 minutes on iTMS is saving you money.
I agree 100%. It's just using an hourly wage to quantify the DEGREE to which how much "money" you're saving doesn't make sense (to me at least).
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that doing this would underestimate the value of the saved time, because some (like myself) value an activity like reading a book at more than what I make at work.
So if you earn more than that, spending a few minutes looking for a song is actually a waste of time. If you earn, say, $25 an hour, then that minute you spent looking for music could be better spent elsewhere.
I see comments like these every now and then, but I can't resist responding...
This argument, or reasoning, is just useless. No one spends 24/7 working (getting paid). So quantifying the value of your time can't be done this way. If it were a choice of working or downloading music, then yeah, sure it would work. But that's not the case. I'm sure lots of people download music at work when they should be working, but who would choose to download music OVER getting paid for work? If you can choose to download music instead, then it doesn't even make sense to argue this at all (money wouldn't be an issue, obviously). If I'm downloading music at home, after putting a 8 or 10 hour work-day, my salary shouldn't enter the equation at all in attempting to quantify the value of my time spent downloading. Instead, you'd have to compare the "value" of downloading the music versus the "value" of other things I *would* have spent my time on.
These kinds of arguments aren't anymore useful than random (unfounded) statistics, like "98.3% of dogs have 4 legs", that people like to throw out.
Many Bush supporters polled indicated that they believe Iraq had WMD... But it's depressing to see people who have been lied to acting on those lies as if it were the right thing to do.
It's easy to say that the American public had been "lied to" or misled after the fairly exhaustive investigation had completed. Based on intelligence (pun inherently intended) available at the time, it was very likely that Iraq had WMDs or had the capability and plans to develop them. I find it irritating when folks immediately call Bush a liar for the reasons he decided to take us to war with Iraq. He was undoubtedly unclear, and probably even exaggerated as to the probability of WMDs existing in Iraq, but this after-the-fact name calling is about as intelligent as calling someone who said Kerry was going to win the election a couple days ago a liar today for doing so (even though it looked as though he had a very good chance).
Exactly. The parent to my original post said "houston football". Houston football no longer has anything to do with the "Oilers", they're now the Texans. Whether the original Oilers team was moved to Nashville or they were dissolved is beside the point.
Yet another reason, which highlights that our 2-party system sucks.
Here here! That's been my major gripe since the last Presidential election. I'd like to hear someone, whether it be presidential candidates, a congressman, whomever talk about campaign finance reform seriously in such a way that the goal is to give other parties a voice as loud as the 2 major parties.
I concede that it may be somewhat of a matter of walking on thin ice in so much that we wouldn't want a political field saturated with 100 parties; that would be practically impossible to wade through. However, something really needs to be done, we're just one less candidate shy of a dictatorship.
First, let me say that your post re: religious comments within this story's thread was about the fairest of those objecting to such comments.
With that said, I'd like to respond to your comment. It seems as though you're suggesting that anyone who may have certain beliefs should feel almost _obligated_ to think twice before publically asking for those of the _same_faith_ to participate in something like a prayer, only because someone who may "over-hear" their request are not comfortable with their own beliefs and/or confusions. After all, if you're not of the same faith, I'd argue you weren't part of the audience since the comment was directed towards those of the same faith. Yes, it's a public forum, but the post was directed towards Chrisitans, or those of similar faith, praying for the deceased and the surviving loved ones. Should he/she have bit their tongue before posting such a comment in a public forum? Of course not, it's a public forum. If you get offended by the mere mention of religion, even if it's not directed towards you, I doubt a public forum is where you should be until you come to grips with your own beliefs.
Increased security at airports is a band-aid for the "potential threat". I'm tired of hearing people mock what steps have been taken to help protect ourselves. I'm not a conservative... in fact, I'll probably write in someone like Frank Zappa this November (not really, but I'm not impressed with the two major-party candidates).
I wouldn't say discussing the issues is "un-American", I'd say it simply escapes politics. The problem is so complicated, and rooted in the differences of our cultures and religion, that it cannot be resolved by simply pulling all troops out of Iraq, or ignoring conflicts in the middle east.
If we, as Americans, want to see something done about terrorism and/or our perceived image by other nations, it will take much more than relying on the President to "do the right thing"... like getting involved and suggesting things that may help the situation, rather than being part of the problem and whining about airport security.
A very good read for sure, but last I heard, she admitted it was fake, more poetry than reality as she put it. Google for 'motorcycle fake chernobyl' and you can find some more info on it.
Yeah, it seems to be the case.
But, the images are still pretty incredible.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this new picture different?
No. This "new" picture is the same one you used, just possibly a different crop of the original.
You probably should have followed the other link in the article summary before posting.
Is it just me, or does it seem like there are a lot of anonymous coward posts, that seem to be spam, to 1st-level comments on articles? They're starting out at a karma level of zero, but it's still odd.
I've noticed a lot of them... they're obviously spam, because of how offtopic they are... seemingly pulled from highly-moderated comments to other articles.
...between can not crash and will not crash.
Using "can't" may be intentional, emphasizing how consumers wouldn't be likely to put up with a car so "smart" if it was likely to crash as often as traditional cars do in the present.
But then again, it's probably a stretch that this differentiation was intentional... oh well.
IMHO, this mentality is exactly why it has taken Linux distributions so long to become a major player in the desktop market.
Focusing almost exclusively on more functionality, more applications, more uses rather than starting with making the basic desktop experience a good one has set Linux acceptance, by the general public, back a few steps.
For example, take 3 basic applications (e.g. a browser, an email client, a word processor) within any of the windowing environments and make them work perfectly. I don't mean without bugs, because that's nearly impossible. But make the experience more intuitive for the user, more productive by making common tasks easily accessible, etc.
I don't know, maybe I'm just out of touch. However, the evidence exists to support these statements.
I think companies that work with the open source community stand to gain more from future development on open source projects than those that alienate open source developers...
Well, no sh*t. That's like saying the following:
I stand to gain more income if I work two jobs rather than work only one and have more free time.
Companies who work with OSS stand to gain more from OSS development than companies suing OSS projects/teams?
I don't mean to flame here, just don't see the "+1 Insight" here.
Will Hesh ever successfully hookup with Debbie, or will he "surprise" us all and come out of the closet?
Also, is Hesh by any chance related to Dophin Boy?
...and I bet you use a linux-based OS because it's 1337, too.
That's alright... I can just reinstall the internet from the AOL CD that I used to install it in the first place.
Brilliant!
(I need to do this... create a bogus email, spam@mydomain.com and try it...)
I agree with you, except how you're quantifying the saved time.
You're basing its value on an hourly wage that is totally unrelated because the time saved would most likely be spent on other things, like you listed... and quantifying those more likely alternatives isn't easy.
If your time is worth money, then spending 10 minutes on iTMS is saving you money.
I agree 100%. It's just using an hourly wage to quantify the DEGREE to which how much "money" you're saving doesn't make sense (to me at least).
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that doing this would underestimate the value of the saved time, because some (like myself) value an activity like reading a book at more than what I make at work.
So if you earn more than that, spending a few minutes looking for a song is actually a waste of time. If you earn, say, $25 an hour, then that minute you spent looking for music could be better spent elsewhere.
I see comments like these every now and then, but I can't resist responding...
This argument, or reasoning, is just useless. No one spends 24/7 working (getting paid). So quantifying the value of your time can't be done this way.
If it were a choice of working or downloading music, then yeah, sure it would work. But that's not the case. I'm sure lots of people download music at work when they should be working, but who would choose to download music OVER getting paid for work? If you can choose to download music instead, then it doesn't even make sense to argue this at all (money wouldn't be an issue, obviously).
If I'm downloading music at home, after putting a 8 or 10 hour work-day, my salary shouldn't enter the equation at all in attempting to quantify the value of my time spent downloading. Instead, you'd have to compare the "value" of downloading the music versus the "value" of other things I *would* have spent my time on.
These kinds of arguments aren't anymore useful than random (unfounded) statistics, like "98.3% of dogs have 4 legs", that people like to throw out.
Many Bush supporters polled indicated that they believe Iraq had WMD... But it's depressing to see people who have been lied to acting on those lies as if it were the right thing to do.
It's easy to say that the American public had been "lied to" or misled after the fairly exhaustive investigation had completed.
Based on intelligence (pun inherently intended) available at the time, it was very likely that Iraq had WMDs or had the capability and plans to develop them. I find it irritating when folks immediately call Bush a liar for the reasons he decided to take us to war with Iraq. He was undoubtedly unclear, and probably even exaggerated as to the probability of WMDs existing in Iraq, but this after-the-fact name calling is about as intelligent as calling someone who said Kerry was going to win the election a couple days ago a liar today for doing so (even though it looked as though he had a very good chance).
Disclaimer: I voted Nader.
coo coo ca-choo!
Exactly.
The parent to my original post said "houston football". Houston football no longer has anything to do with the "Oilers", they're now the Texans. Whether the original Oilers team was moved to Nashville or they were dissolved is beside the point.
And Houston Texas football [team]... that doesn't exist anymore (the Oilers).
They're now the Texans.
How about reconnaissance? You know, keeping a watchful eye, gathering intelligence?
I know, this can be taken as tongue in cheek, but I'd imagine this would be a primary objective for this thing.
Yet another reason, which highlights that our 2-party system sucks.
Here here!
That's been my major gripe since the last Presidential election.
I'd like to hear someone, whether it be presidential candidates, a congressman, whomever talk about campaign finance reform seriously in such a way that the goal is to give other parties a voice as loud as the 2 major parties.
I concede that it may be somewhat of a matter of walking on thin ice in so much that we wouldn't want a political field saturated with 100 parties; that would be practically impossible to wade through. However, something really needs to be done, we're just one less candidate shy of a dictatorship.
The FlyBook looks really cool... but the link from their site to buy says it's $2873.75
This is not cheaper... considerably more expensive in fact.
First, let me say that your post re: religious comments within this story's thread was about the fairest of those objecting to such comments.
With that said, I'd like to respond to your comment.
It seems as though you're suggesting that anyone who may have certain beliefs should feel almost _obligated_ to think twice before publically asking for those of the _same_faith_ to participate in something like a prayer, only because someone who may "over-hear" their request are not comfortable with their own beliefs and/or confusions. After all, if you're not of the same faith, I'd argue you weren't part of the audience since the comment was directed towards those of the same faith. Yes, it's a public forum, but the post was directed towards Chrisitans, or those of similar faith, praying for the deceased and the surviving loved ones. Should he/she have bit their tongue before posting such a comment in a public forum? Of course not, it's a public forum. If you get offended by the mere mention of religion, even if it's not directed towards you, I doubt a public forum is where you should be until you come to grips with your own beliefs.
I also want to mention that I'm agnostic.
start a good search by doing `updatedb` then run `locate `
;-)
Increased security at airports is a band-aid for the "potential threat". I'm tired of hearing people mock what steps have been taken to help protect ourselves. I'm not a conservative... in fact, I'll probably write in someone like Frank Zappa this November (not really, but I'm not impressed with the two major-party candidates).
I wouldn't say discussing the issues is "un-American", I'd say it simply escapes politics. The problem is so complicated, and rooted in the differences of our cultures and religion, that it cannot be resolved by simply pulling all troops out of Iraq, or ignoring conflicts in the middle east.
If we, as Americans, want to see something done about terrorism and/or our perceived image by other nations, it will take much more than relying on the President to "do the right thing"... like getting involved and suggesting things that may help the situation, rather than being part of the problem and whining about airport security.
ahhhh... good call. that is unfortunate.
...but mirror.sytes.org does mirror the images.
Did you follow the link?
Yeah, it seems to be the case.
But, the images are still pretty incredible.