But think of how well you could fly a kite! I can see it now...
Billy, have you tied your brick to the chain yet? Make sure to tie it on strong this time, you remember what happened to your last kite?
On a more serious note though, even here on earth, the wind speeds up top are generally much much faster than on the ground. While uncommon, 250knot (That's almost 500km/h) have been picked up by passenger airliners and they don't generally go that high - and the higher up you go, the faster winds get.
So, perhaps on the surface of said whacky planet, it might not be picnic weather, but a big thick atmosphere might mean that the surface is a whole lot less violent than might be expected at first glance. Next time we catch up, let's duck down to the surface, have a drink in a bar and look outside to see what the weather is like?:)
The article said that these speeds were in the upper atmosphere and while I admit that the ground isn't likely to be a picnic spot, it wouldn't be as bad.
All in all, still likely to be low on the vacation list for centuries and centuries to come.
We have enough of a problem today with people living way beyond their means, and impulse spending with the credit and debit cards we have today.
Well, it might be bad for the person living beyond their means, but it's got to be good for someone else. When I spend MY money, it means someone else is getting it. A business owner, a private individual or a shareholder - someone is getting it.
Now, not to be overly rude, but:
They abstract the fact that you are spending REAL money. You forget that you bought those chips with cold hard cash.
While I agree with what you are saying, I can't believe you really mean it. The world CANNOT be dumbed down to the lowest denominator. If someone finds they keep spending cash on "things" and "stuff" and "I don't know what" then I don't think the problem can be solved by replacing a a waving hand motion with a phone for cold hard currency.
Well call me the odd one out here, but to me, you can't have a disclaimer that MANDATES agreement, ergo - You are in possession of a file and you cannot do a)xxx, b)xxxxx or c)xxxxx with it. I didn't agree to your disclaimer before I got your stuff, so I am not bound by any contract or agreement. I can however still obey if I CHOOSE to do so.
Oh, did they really. Her house just stopped did it? I find that very hard to believe. When it just ceased, did it vanish out of the timeline within the blink of an eye, or was it a more gradual swirling effect?
If you are old enough to remember a story from ten years ago and you memory still serves you well enough to recall it on a whim of connection to this article about the US army - then you certainly are a candidate to recognize and distinguish the two words: seized, ceased.
Don't come back until you have learned a lesson and feel at least somewhat ashamed.
All this talk seems to be of relatively huge and minute objects. Now, given that Jessica Alba is a constant in this equation, while your size is as yet undetermined, I feel that I must ask the following question:
Are you saying that you are the size of a medium sized suburb?
Q: If I buy these songs on your service - and they're locked to my phone - what happens when I upgrade my phone in six months' time?
A: Well, I think you know the answer to that.
Hmmm
Q: If you try to run a business with your services and business model as they are now, what will happen to them in six months time?
A: I think you know the answer to that."
All the examples you have used have no bearing on the overall point here. The point is that it's funny how Kentucky thinks that if something is illegal in Kentucky (Note that I am not judging what is legal/illegal here) that Kentucky is happy to take it away from the whole world just so that it doesn't have it there for it's citizens.
What just about every other country does to enforce it's own laws affects it's own citizens. What Kentucky chose to do to enforce it's own laws affected the entire world.
If you still can't see what is wrong with that, I don't think I can explain it any more plainly.
Oh these cute Europeans. I love how each state in the EU thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules.;-)
Yes, but you don't see say a member country of the EU "claiming ownership" of a gambling website and shutting it down just because that member country doesn't allow gambling.
That's the difference.
I would have not had ANY problems if Kentucky had said "We don't allow gambling here, so lets put these websites on a blacklist". I would have likely said it was a bit backwards perhaps, but it's their choice really. What I think is laughable is that if it's illegal in Kentucky, then Kentucky thinks no-one in the big world of the interweb can have it either.
Seriously, people drank beer and wine for a very good reason. It was sanitary and wouldn't kill you like the water would.
Yeah, that's the reason folks drank booze. It very clearly had nothing to do with getting a buzz out of it, getting "biblical" with the town wenches or because it made your "village blond" wife appear smarter.
How do you monitor what your children do online? That is the equivalent of trying to keep track of everyone that your children associate with, everywhere that they go with their friends, everything that they say, etc. It is just not possible to do that, and it never was.
You are kidding right? Let me start with a simple car anaolgy and then move to a clincher.
You have a nice clean car. Your kid asks to borrow it, saying he needs to drive three streets away to a friends house and stay there for a few hours and then drive back. You agree and in a few hours your kid returns the car. You notice that the car is now caked with mud around the wheel arches.
Now, you didn't have to watch your kids entire exact trip, didn't have to watch the exact turns they made, yet it would be pretty fair to say that they didn't go where they said they would go.
You don't need to monitor every single thing your kids do online, and you don't need to keep track of every single person they associate with. Get a general idea of what's going on with your child, see who they generally interact with. See their influences, their ambitions, find who they look up to. I would make a safe bet and say that if you really knew these things, you would be able to predict what they will be looking for - online and when they socialize.
Seriously, give them a level of freedom and trust. Let them be responsible for their own actions and choices. Chances are you will end up with kids that are much more adept at handling life that way - not to mention at the end of it you will have a much better relationship with them.
Oh these cute Americans. I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules. At least the judicial system here had the common sense to maybe think that someone outside their borders might think otherwise to them:)
If you want to be a much better troll (cause at the moment, you just come across like a rather overweight middle aged man, living in his parents basement and angry at the world because of all the opportunities that he didn't get) you should learn to either bait people with apparent (or real) obliviousness to the real world - for example: "I can't really save 15 cents by turning off the light in the room, it would cost more than that to turn it back on again". Clearly a fallacy, but one that might invite a slapdown from someone who takes the bait.
You could also opt for attacking a single group in some way, based on things like gender "EnergyStar is only for girls and dishwashers!", perhaps on racial orientation "EnergyStar is only for Jewish girls and dishwashers!", perhaps on political stance "EnergyStar is only for Left Wing Jewish girls and dishwashers" or go all the way and add sexual preference, personal grooming and maybe double up on some of the previous "EnergyStar is only for obese hairy Jewish homosexuals with left wing ideals and their designer dishwashers!"
You can see how this is building up to a very small percentage of people. The narrower your anger is directed, the more likely that your words will cause anger in the group. For example, a obese, hairy, Jewish homosexual with left wing ideals with a designer dishwasher would likely me quite unamused by your comments, however you are narrowing your target demographic down as well. It's all about finding that sweet spot between focused rage and maximum audience - after all, if you are talking about someone else, it's unlikely that someone totally not what you described will have feelings of wrath induced by your tirade.
Now, this is slashdot, so please leave trolling to the experts - and as a good percentage of folks here are actually quite environmentally concerned, maybe leave the silly assault on someone at least trying to make a difference there alone.
Now, I am aware you didn't invite this lesson from me, but then again I didn't ask to have to be the one to do it. As a result, we are both unhappy with the situation. Please in future, either do a better job of it which would result in both of us being more satisfied, or maybe just leave the talking to the adults.
Also, switch off your monitor when you are done at the PC, it will waste power otherwise.
If electricity costs money, and I use it, I pay for it. If I want to pay more to use more, that's between me and the supplier. Not bloggers, not the government, not you.
Sure, I can't stop you being a pig when it comes to your power, but I can point out that it does indeed affect me through the environmental waste you are manufacturing. Do you really think that you making icecream with your air conditioner and leaving all your appliances on isn't generating small armies of carbon emissions?
Disbanding the EPA's EnergyStar program would save energy and money.
Also, a lot of people actually do care about what they pay for in terms of electricity and make use of things such as the EPA EnergyStar program. You aren't the only person that might use it. I know that you are inevitably more important in your mind than anyone else, but spare a moment for the unfortunate folks that aren't you and maybe shed a little compassion their way. Maybe they want to make use of the things you so carelessly flaunt.
How would skate boarders feel if there was a whole government agency set up to reduce skate boarding?
But it's not like that at all. As a skater I would have no problem if someone came out and said "these wheels/trucks/deck will last twice as long as the xxxxxx ones you got". It's not an attack on skating, it's simply providing information so that I can make a more informed choice.
And if you said that in those words your stock price would fall quicker than the jaws of the press you just said that to.
Part of being a CEO or similar is to learn to make positive things sound better than they really are - and to make downright terrible things sound like actually pretty good.
If you want to be like that, you can't technically "own" land in Australia. You buy a 100 year lease, which can be renewed when passed on to family members.
Me and you have a stationary business each. We supply people with stationary for their brand new desks.
You only make the stationary. I make both stationary and desks. Seeing as everybody wants my desks, I have an unfair advantage to selling my stationary, which is actually inferior to yours simply because the people are buying my desks.
However, here the situation is slightly more complex even than enforcing a free market, because the adhesion of browsers like Firefox to strict guidelines around javascript, css and many other standards has actually caused them a disadvantage in many ways.
And maybe they are just not that good, maybe their product is not much better compared to the other ones, or maybe their Marketing failed.. who knows?
Okay, please step AWAY from the Kool Aid slowly.
It's not about taking IE away from people at all. The real issue here is to make IE as compliant as the other browsers, thereby making a lot of other Microsoft products work on browsers OTHER than Microsoft. Here is an example:
Microsoft Sharepoint is a totally browser driven application that lets corporate people make business webpages, lists and office type content. Now, if it's totally browser driven, it should work in any browser right? Going a step further, the advertising on the product itself says "compliant with other browsers. Some loss of user experience may occur" - you know what that means? It means that if you use a browser other than IE to try to access this product, nothing works. Not even the navigation works. It's like buying Photoshop, touching up a.jpg file and then ONLY being able to open it again using Adobe Acrobat.
The point of this who case isn't to stop IE, it's to make use of the browser guidelines that are developed properly, so that if something "works through a browser" it can continue along quite happily no matter what the browser - as long as the browser is compliant. The problem is that folks like Firefox are playing by the rules - and suffering for it.
Almost everyone regards their own health as a positive good, so it requires a considerable amount of double-think to enter into a debate with the position that aggregate human health is a net liability.
But you don't talk about aggregate statistics like that in terms of individuals. Aggregate human health isn't the issue, it's the amount of it - and the needs of that amount that is the issue.
Any argument about the carrying capacity of the planet involves unreliable extrapolations.
Okay, let me make it nice and simple without any unreliable extrapolations as you put it. Right now we are producing MUCH more greenhouse gasses than the planet is tucking away. Greenhouse gasses inevitably lead to a greenhouse effect. Please see Venus for a runaway example. Surface temperature? Cloud system? Atmospheric content? All rather unpleasant - not in the "this tea is a little cold and unpleasant" but more in the "this planet will melt your face unpleasant".
The one outcome I truly fear is the one where all the billionaires are living 200 year life spans, and everyone else is dead in under a century.
This one I wouldn't be so worried about. Given the relatively few people of vast wealth, it's not going to make that much difference. If I were you, I would be MUCH MUCH more worried about all the people living below the current western lifestle level of cars, air conditioning and fancy shopping malls - who want in on that lifestyle.
Look at China for example. In a rush to provide their new class of citizen with some spare money with the services that they want, China is building more coal powered power stations than any other country. As these kick over and start kicking up more air pollution, you think it is only the Chinese that will suffer? Not to pick on the Chinese, it's all the third world that is starting to want to live like the rich western world - and the rich western world is happily setting a horrid example of how to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
But think of how well you could fly a kite! I can see it now...
:)
Billy, have you tied your brick to the chain yet? Make sure to tie it on strong this time, you remember what happened to your last kite?
On a more serious note though, even here on earth, the wind speeds up top are generally much much faster than on the ground. While uncommon, 250knot (That's almost 500km/h) have been picked up by passenger airliners and they don't generally go that high - and the higher up you go, the faster winds get.
So, perhaps on the surface of said whacky planet, it might not be picnic weather, but a big thick atmosphere might mean that the surface is a whole lot less violent than might be expected at first glance. Next time we catch up, let's duck down to the surface, have a drink in a bar and look outside to see what the weather is like?
The article said that these speeds were in the upper atmosphere and while I admit that the ground isn't likely to be a picnic spot, it wouldn't be as bad.
All in all, still likely to be low on the vacation list for centuries and centuries to come.
We have enough of a problem today with people living way beyond their means, and impulse spending with the credit and debit cards we have today.
Well, it might be bad for the person living beyond their means, but it's got to be good for someone else. When I spend MY money, it means someone else is getting it. A business owner, a private individual or a shareholder - someone is getting it.
Now, not to be overly rude, but:
They abstract the fact that you are spending REAL money. You forget that you bought those chips with cold hard cash.
While I agree with what you are saying, I can't believe you really mean it. The world CANNOT be dumbed down to the lowest denominator. If someone finds they keep spending cash on "things" and "stuff" and "I don't know what" then I don't think the problem can be solved by replacing a a waving hand motion with a phone for cold hard currency.
Well call me the odd one out here, but to me, you can't have a disclaimer that MANDATES agreement, ergo - You are in possession of a file and you cannot do a)xxx, b)xxxxx or c)xxxxx with it. I didn't agree to your disclaimer before I got your stuff, so I am not bound by any contract or agreement. I can however still obey if I CHOOSE to do so.
The IRS ceased her home
Oh, did they really. Her house just stopped did it? I find that very hard to believe. When it just ceased, did it vanish out of the timeline within the blink of an eye, or was it a more gradual swirling effect?
If you are old enough to remember a story from ten years ago and you memory still serves you well enough to recall it on a whim of connection to this article about the US army - then you certainly are a candidate to recognize and distinguish the two words: seized, ceased.
Don't come back until you have learned a lesson and feel at least somewhat ashamed.
All this talk seems to be of relatively huge and minute objects. Now, given that Jessica Alba is a constant in this equation, while your size is as yet undetermined, I feel that I must ask the following question:
Are you saying that you are the size of a medium sized suburb?
There's certainly been enough other fluff on Slashdot
What you got against fluff?
Q: If I buy these songs on your service - and they're locked to my phone - what happens when I upgrade my phone in six months' time?
A: Well, I think you know the answer to that.
Hmmm
Q: If you try to run a business with your services and business model as they are now, what will happen to them in six months time?
A: I think you know the answer to that."
There, fixed it for you.
Goodness me, you are still missing my point.
All the examples you have used have no bearing on the overall point here. The point is that it's funny how Kentucky thinks that if something is illegal in Kentucky (Note that I am not judging what is legal/illegal here) that Kentucky is happy to take it away from the whole world just so that it doesn't have it there for it's citizens.
What just about every other country does to enforce it's own laws affects it's own citizens. What Kentucky chose to do to enforce it's own laws affected the entire world.
If you still can't see what is wrong with that, I don't think I can explain it any more plainly.
Oh these cute Europeans. I love how each state in the EU thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules. ;-)
Yes, but you don't see say a member country of the EU "claiming ownership" of a gambling website and shutting it down just because that member country doesn't allow gambling.
That's the difference.
I would have not had ANY problems if Kentucky had said "We don't allow gambling here, so lets put these websites on a blacklist". I would have likely said it was a bit backwards perhaps, but it's their choice really. What I think is laughable is that if it's illegal in Kentucky, then Kentucky thinks no-one in the big world of the interweb can have it either.
That's the difference.
Seriously, people drank beer and wine for a very good reason. It was sanitary and wouldn't kill you like the water would.
Yeah, that's the reason folks drank booze. It very clearly had nothing to do with getting a buzz out of it, getting "biblical" with the town wenches or because it made your "village blond" wife appear smarter.
How do you monitor what your children do online? That is the equivalent of trying to keep track of everyone that your children associate with, everywhere that they go with their friends, everything that they say, etc. It is just not possible to do that, and it never was.
You are kidding right? Let me start with a simple car anaolgy and then move to a clincher.
You have a nice clean car. Your kid asks to borrow it, saying he needs to drive three streets away to a friends house and stay there for a few hours and then drive back. You agree and in a few hours your kid returns the car. You notice that the car is now caked with mud around the wheel arches.
Now, you didn't have to watch your kids entire exact trip, didn't have to watch the exact turns they made, yet it would be pretty fair to say that they didn't go where they said they would go.
You don't need to monitor every single thing your kids do online, and you don't need to keep track of every single person they associate with. Get a general idea of what's going on with your child, see who they generally interact with. See their influences, their ambitions, find who they look up to. I would make a safe bet and say that if you really knew these things, you would be able to predict what they will be looking for - online and when they socialize.
Seriously, give them a level of freedom and trust. Let them be responsible for their own actions and choices. Chances are you will end up with kids that are much more adept at handling life that way - not to mention at the end of it you will have a much better relationship with them.
Oh these cute Americans. I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules. At least the judicial system here had the common sense to maybe think that someone outside their borders might think otherwise to them :)
Secondly,
If you want to be a much better troll (cause at the moment, you just come across like a rather overweight middle aged man, living in his parents basement and angry at the world because of all the opportunities that he didn't get) you should learn to either bait people with apparent (or real) obliviousness to the real world - for example: "I can't really save 15 cents by turning off the light in the room, it would cost more than that to turn it back on again". Clearly a fallacy, but one that might invite a slapdown from someone who takes the bait.
You could also opt for attacking a single group in some way, based on things like gender "EnergyStar is only for girls and dishwashers!", perhaps on racial orientation "EnergyStar is only for Jewish girls and dishwashers!", perhaps on political stance "EnergyStar is only for Left Wing Jewish girls and dishwashers" or go all the way and add sexual preference, personal grooming and maybe double up on some of the previous "EnergyStar is only for obese hairy Jewish homosexuals with left wing ideals and their designer dishwashers!"
You can see how this is building up to a very small percentage of people. The narrower your anger is directed, the more likely that your words will cause anger in the group. For example, a obese, hairy, Jewish homosexual with left wing ideals with a designer dishwasher would likely me quite unamused by your comments, however you are narrowing your target demographic down as well. It's all about finding that sweet spot between focused rage and maximum audience - after all, if you are talking about someone else, it's unlikely that someone totally not what you described will have feelings of wrath induced by your tirade.
Now, this is slashdot, so please leave trolling to the experts - and as a good percentage of folks here are actually quite environmentally concerned, maybe leave the silly assault on someone at least trying to make a difference there alone.
Now, I am aware you didn't invite this lesson from me, but then again I didn't ask to have to be the one to do it. As a result, we are both unhappy with the situation. Please in future, either do a better job of it which would result in both of us being more satisfied, or maybe just leave the talking to the adults.
Also, switch off your monitor when you are done at the PC, it will waste power otherwise.
If electricity costs money, and I use it, I pay for it. If I want to pay more to use more, that's between me and the supplier. Not bloggers, not the government, not you.
Sure, I can't stop you being a pig when it comes to your power, but I can point out that it does indeed affect me through the environmental waste you are manufacturing. Do you really think that you making icecream with your air conditioner and leaving all your appliances on isn't generating small armies of carbon emissions?
Disbanding the EPA's EnergyStar program would save energy and money.
Also, a lot of people actually do care about what they pay for in terms of electricity and make use of things such as the EPA EnergyStar program. You aren't the only person that might use it. I know that you are inevitably more important in your mind than anyone else, but spare a moment for the unfortunate folks that aren't you and maybe shed a little compassion their way. Maybe they want to make use of the things you so carelessly flaunt.
How would skate boarders feel if there was a whole government agency set up to reduce skate boarding?
But it's not like that at all. As a skater I would have no problem if someone came out and said "these wheels/trucks/deck will last twice as long as the xxxxxx ones you got". It's not an attack on skating, it's simply providing information so that I can make a more informed choice.
and eating that one thing we used to eat when we were kids
What on earth does eating snot and boogers have to do with anything?
One of my points. Is he paid for the stock price, or is he paid to lead the company?
I think that many many investors would argue that those two things might be one and the same.
And if you said that in those words your stock price would fall quicker than the jaws of the press you just said that to.
Part of being a CEO or similar is to learn to make positive things sound better than they really are - and to make downright terrible things sound like actually pretty good.
This economy has been going on for over a year and half.
I think the economy has been going on for longer than that.
If you want to be like that, you can't technically "own" land in Australia. You buy a 100 year lease, which can be renewed when passed on to family members.
Bet most Aussies don't know that one.
No,
It's more like saying this:
Me and you have a stationary business each. We supply people with stationary for their brand new desks.
You only make the stationary. I make both stationary and desks. Seeing as everybody wants my desks, I have an unfair advantage to selling my stationary, which is actually inferior to yours simply because the people are buying my desks.
However, here the situation is slightly more complex even than enforcing a free market, because the adhesion of browsers like Firefox to strict guidelines around javascript, css and many other standards has actually caused them a disadvantage in many ways.
See the comment here.
And maybe they are just not that good, maybe their product is not much better compared to the other ones, or maybe their Marketing failed.. who knows?
Okay, please step AWAY from the Kool Aid slowly.
.jpg file and then ONLY being able to open it again using Adobe Acrobat.
It's not about taking IE away from people at all. The real issue here is to make IE as compliant as the other browsers, thereby making a lot of other Microsoft products work on browsers OTHER than Microsoft. Here is an example:
Microsoft Sharepoint is a totally browser driven application that lets corporate people make business webpages, lists and office type content. Now, if it's totally browser driven, it should work in any browser right? Going a step further, the advertising on the product itself says "compliant with other browsers. Some loss of user experience may occur" - you know what that means? It means that if you use a browser other than IE to try to access this product, nothing works. Not even the navigation works. It's like buying Photoshop, touching up a
The point of this who case isn't to stop IE, it's to make use of the browser guidelines that are developed properly, so that if something "works through a browser" it can continue along quite happily no matter what the browser - as long as the browser is compliant. The problem is that folks like Firefox are playing by the rules - and suffering for it.
that can maintain structural integrity, or hold up heavy things like oceans.
that can maintain structural integrity, or let light things like oceans float to the surface - there fixed that for you.
Almost everyone regards their own health as a positive good, so it requires a considerable amount of double-think to enter into a debate with the position that aggregate human health is a net liability.
But you don't talk about aggregate statistics like that in terms of individuals. Aggregate human health isn't the issue, it's the amount of it - and the needs of that amount that is the issue.
Any argument about the carrying capacity of the planet involves unreliable extrapolations.
Okay, let me make it nice and simple without any unreliable extrapolations as you put it. Right now we are producing MUCH more greenhouse gasses than the planet is tucking away. Greenhouse gasses inevitably lead to a greenhouse effect. Please see Venus for a runaway example. Surface temperature? Cloud system? Atmospheric content? All rather unpleasant - not in the "this tea is a little cold and unpleasant" but more in the "this planet will melt your face unpleasant".
The one outcome I truly fear is the one where all the billionaires are living 200 year life spans, and everyone else is dead in under a century.
This one I wouldn't be so worried about. Given the relatively few people of vast wealth, it's not going to make that much difference. If I were you, I would be MUCH MUCH more worried about all the people living below the current western lifestle level of cars, air conditioning and fancy shopping malls - who want in on that lifestyle.
Look at China for example. In a rush to provide their new class of citizen with some spare money with the services that they want, China is building more coal powered power stations than any other country. As these kick over and start kicking up more air pollution, you think it is only the Chinese that will suffer? Not to pick on the Chinese, it's all the third world that is starting to want to live like the rich western world - and the rich western world is happily setting a horrid example of how to do it.
Holy cow (pun somewhat intended).
That's the most insightful comment on slashdot in a long time. Mod parent up please.