I don't want to offend you or anything, but I read that whole post in Donny Rumsfeld's voice. Actually, I read it in the voice of the Doonesbury character that was making fun of Rumsfeld from Iraq a few months ago.
Have you considered the "radical" proposition of USING LESS ENERGY? It seems like that would really slow down the amount of CO2 we're producing, but heaven forbid, it might actually mean changing the way you live. We sure can't have that, can we?
Anyone else notice all the misspellings in the paper? I thought it was kinda funny that he had a misspelling in the section that was talking about recognizing misspellings!
Or is this some sort of trick? Does the end of the paper say "By the way, there are 12 errors on this page. Did you notice them?"
Do you think they were counting the decimal places in this figure? I'd be willing to bet they've made at least $1000.00 with this stuff. that's just two people buying a license, after all.
There are scientific reasons, and bragging rights reasons. Personally I think that humanity needs to learn to spread around some, just in case...
So you think that for humanity to survive, our best bet is to move to another planet? Perhaps a better idea is to stop f*cking up this one?
People seem to forget that the earth has sustained humans in their present form for over 150,000 years, and it's only in, say, the last 100 or so that we've even had to worry about losing humanity to some (usually man-made) catastrophe.
If an asteriod's coming to get us, is your last thought really going to be about the loss of our species?
What the heck do you mean? You can get biodiesel to work unless the government does something? Trust me, if enough people took it upon themselves to make and use biodiesel, the government would come along, eventually, and if it didn't it would be made irrelevant in that area. Have you ever heard the Gandhi quote: "Be the change you wish to see in the world." It'll work.
I agree that not all SUVs are as bad as others (Ford's new Escape hybrid is an example of this), but pretty much EVERY car is bad for the environment. The real problem is apparent in your construction "you don't have to give up anything..."
As I see it, if you tell people they have to give up something, the implication is that they're worse off than before they gave it up. In fact, "giving up" driving has so many more benefits than driving, it's interesting that we do it at all. Improved health from walking/riding a bike, less congestion on the roads when driving is really necessary, and improved air quality are what we GAIN by not driving. What are we giving up again?
I think the 1:1 and 2:1 ratios were so that if the system goes into a panic, it can copy the contents of memory to swap. If you're running with less than 1:1 ratio, you'll lose sections of memory that might help you deduce the cause of the crash.
Did you see the article a week or so ago about how nanoparticles severely crippled fish in an experiment? Wouldn't it be great to make trillions of these things in five years only to find out in ten that we've wiped out our entire food supply? Man, that would be awesome!
This is the point that I fear a lot of people miss about "environmentalism." It's not about prohibiting people from doing stuff, it's about not destroying the place where we live. Too often, I think problems get framed like "we want to drain this swamp to build a golf course for the people, but all these silly environmental regulations stopped us" when in reality, the swamp feeds an ecosystem that coincidentally sucks up excess water that would otherwise flood the surrounding areas.
I'll go out on a limb and say most environmentalists will admit they don't know the consequences of what we're currently doing, which makes conserving (the root of "conservative," by the way) what we have all the more important.
Yeah, last time I looked at my sneakers, I didn't see anything but...a huge f-ing nike insignia. Who cares, I muttered to myself, and got into my VW bus with a huge-f-ing-VW on the front and back. At least I still had my shirt with "My friend went to Cancun, and all I got was this lousy shirt" written on it.
I think it's safe to say that EVERYONE knows to try to have your customers advertise for you. The question is what will catch on and become recognizable enough to be that advertisement. I think this is the entire argument behind buying name-brand merchandise.
The question, of course, is what gives us the right to value humans more than all the other species on the planet? Yeah, yeah, yeah, we have the right because they can't fight back, but maybe we'll discover too late that WE ARE PART OF A WEB OF LIFE, and the more pieces we take out of the web, the more vulnerable we ultimately become.
It never ceases to amaze me that some people can't think past the end of their nose!
Yes, millions of people die from malaria. It's a tragedy that they do, but millions die from starvation, too, and that's just as bad. No matter what you do, millions will die from something, so maybe the answer isn't to continually kill things in the pursuit of life. Maybe, just maybe, the idea is to live with respect for the planet that made you.
I remember when I was in school, the book my math instructor wanted was no longer being printed, so the solution was for the school's printer to photocopy the book and bind it with those black-backed plastic binder thingees. (This was all done with the permission of the book publisher.) The cost for this half-assed approximation of a book? Full cover price of the book when it was last published.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, we have relied on the earth for everything for the last 150M years or so...is it going somewhere now?
I don't want to offend you or anything, but I read that whole post in Donny Rumsfeld's voice. Actually, I read it in the voice of the Doonesbury character that was making fun of Rumsfeld from Iraq a few months ago.
If you have gay sex with a criminal, that would really chap his hide.
Have you considered the "radical" proposition of USING LESS ENERGY? It seems like that would really slow down the amount of CO2 we're producing, but heaven forbid, it might actually mean changing the way you live. We sure can't have that, can we?
you would happen to...err...have gotten a divorce recently, too...
Anyone else notice all the misspellings in the paper? I thought it was kinda funny that he had a misspelling in the section that was talking about recognizing misspellings!
Or is this some sort of trick? Does the end of the paper say "By the way, there are 12 errors on this page. Did you notice them?"
Waiting for a magazine? I saw him at the Bi-Mon-Sci-Fi-Con.
"if you dont do what we say you will die at the hands of some religious freak".
The really sad thing is that if you do what [they] say, you'll still die at the hands of a religious freak, W.
Do you think they were counting the decimal places in this figure? I'd be willing to bet they've made at least $1000.00 with this stuff. that's just two people buying a license, after all.
what are you talking about? It looks to me like he supports the librarian party
There are scientific reasons, and bragging rights reasons. Personally I think that humanity needs to learn to spread around some, just in case...
So you think that for humanity to survive, our best bet is to move to another planet? Perhaps a better idea is to stop f*cking up this one?
People seem to forget that the earth has sustained humans in their present form for over 150,000 years, and it's only in, say, the last 100 or so that we've even had to worry about losing humanity to some (usually man-made) catastrophe.
If an asteriod's coming to get us, is your last thought really going to be about the loss of our species?
For interested parties, it's PBCAK, not PEBKAC. It stands for "Problem between chair and keyboard." (It mean's user error.)
...and even if we can't, we can still torture them.
What the heck do you mean? You can get biodiesel to work unless the government does something? Trust me, if enough people took it upon themselves to make and use biodiesel, the government would come along, eventually, and if it didn't it would be made irrelevant in that area. Have you ever heard the Gandhi quote: "Be the change you wish to see in the world." It'll work.
I agree that not all SUVs are as bad as others (Ford's new Escape hybrid is an example of this), but pretty much EVERY car is bad for the environment. The real problem is apparent in your construction "you don't have to give up anything..."
As I see it, if you tell people they have to give up something, the implication is that they're worse off than before they gave it up. In fact, "giving up" driving has so many more benefits than driving, it's interesting that we do it at all. Improved health from walking/riding a bike, less congestion on the roads when driving is really necessary, and improved air quality are what we GAIN by not driving. What are we giving up again?
I think the 1:1 and 2:1 ratios were so that if the system goes into a panic, it can copy the contents of memory to swap. If you're running with less than 1:1 ratio, you'll lose sections of memory that might help you deduce the cause of the crash.
Did you see the article a week or so ago about how nanoparticles severely crippled fish in an experiment? Wouldn't it be great to make trillions of these things in five years only to find out in ten that we've wiped out our entire food supply? Man, that would be awesome!
This is the point that I fear a lot of people miss about "environmentalism." It's not about prohibiting people from doing stuff, it's about not destroying the place where we live. Too often, I think problems get framed like "we want to drain this swamp to build a golf course for the people, but all these silly environmental regulations stopped us" when in reality, the swamp feeds an ecosystem that coincidentally sucks up excess water that would otherwise flood the surrounding areas.
I'll go out on a limb and say most environmentalists will admit they don't know the consequences of what we're currently doing, which makes conserving (the root of "conservative," by the way) what we have all the more important.
You mean at night, right?
You mean to tell me they're filling these pots with computer chips, but they can't afford a refrigerator? That's just crazy!
Yeah, last time I looked at my sneakers, I didn't see anything but...a huge f-ing nike insignia. Who cares, I muttered to myself, and got into my VW bus with a huge-f-ing-VW on the front and back. At least I still had my shirt with "My friend went to Cancun, and all I got was this lousy shirt" written on it.
I think it's safe to say that EVERYONE knows to try to have your customers advertise for you. The question is what will catch on and become recognizable enough to be that advertisement. I think this is the entire argument behind buying name-brand merchandise.
Interestingly enough, Gandhi really didn't like being called Mahatma. I believe he preferred the term brother.
I think you misunderstand: he's talking about your sister.
It never ceases to amaze me that some people can't think past the end of their nose!
Yes, millions of people die from malaria. It's a tragedy that they do, but millions die from starvation, too, and that's just as bad. No matter what you do, millions will die from something, so maybe the answer isn't to continually kill things in the pursuit of life. Maybe, just maybe, the idea is to live with respect for the planet that made you.
I remember when I was in school, the book my math instructor wanted was no longer being printed, so the solution was for the school's printer to photocopy the book and bind it with those black-backed plastic binder thingees. (This was all done with the permission of the book publisher.) The cost for this half-assed approximation of a book? Full cover price of the book when it was last published.