So let me get this right, despite the fact that nuclear is incredibly safe, low-polluting, we still can't do research on it to make it safer and to increase "green" energy? How do these people expect us to get electricity?
Can't do coal because that pollutes, can't do oil/gas/diesel because that pollutes, can't use hydroelectric power because that can damage ecosystems, can't use wind power because it poses a risk to birds/bats, can't use biomass because if used at an industrial scale it still pollutes, and I'm sure if solar was halfway economical they would be protesting them because they were "ruining" the beauty/ecosystem of the desert.
Really, if you want "green" energy in our lifetime, support nuclear power. If not we still have way more than enough coal/oil to use...
There is a difference though between using a few slang terms here and there and writing the entire thing in slang. When slang is an ordinary part of our language it makes sense to use it especially if it is understood by all. For example, when you say Kleenex, almost everyone in the US knows it is facial tissue, using the word "facial tissue" makes a lot of people scratch their heads before they realize you just mean Kleenex. Is Kleenex slang? Yes. But it is more concise and easier for readers to just say Kleenex.
"Professionalism" is not a good thing always in journalism if you are trying to make money (like the NYT desperately needs to do), just look at why you are on Slashdot, you could be reading your scientific news from the Journal of Biological Systems, but you wouldn't want to because its just -too- professional (and far too expensive). No one wants their news to say hypoglossal nerve, they just want to to say a nerve of the tongue. Of course Hypoglossal nerve is far more professional but it loses readability.
With celebrities increasingly posting information on Twitter, it only makes sense to refer to them as "tweets" and not "posts on twitter" because its shorter leaving more room for content while not sacrificing readability.
If you can afford to pay $1K for a laptop that does the same thing a $400 PC can, surely you can pay the money for the software. Not to mention that the same software is still expensive on PC.
...Because high schoolers are going to be using VBA and obscure plugins for Excel?
Outlook isn't a problem because the move has been towards web-based access with clients for only mobile platforms. And as for PowerPoint, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2008_for_Mac PowerPoint is included.
UNIX is very alive an well, and OS X is based on UNIX, and so are the majority of other platforms that are needed if you are to get ahead in technology.
No, the difference is we can amend the constitution to repeal it. The problem is, such a thing wouldn't be ratified by the states because the states enjoy levying a blatantly constitutional tax.
To put it in a biblical context it would be a bit like the pope contradicting scripture and reverting back to the scripture.
No, you have them read the document and form their own opinion based on that
When parents lead their children to believing something, we have the delusional masses on both the left and right who vote without question for the Republicans or Democrats without thinking about what they stand for just because their parents voted that way and when you have that, democracy doesn't work.
Because when you take something in "historical context" you can easily reason away all of the rights it gave us. For example:
In the 1700s, there were no terrorists flying planes into buildings. Therefore, your right to not be searched unreasonably needs to be removed because if the founding fathers had this "threat" they would have taken it into consideration.
In the 1700s, there were no computers, so this means that your rights don't extend to your own computer when it comes to being searched.
In the 1700s, there was no internet, so this means that internet is not covered under free speech, petition or assembly.
Putting something into "historical context" usually almost always gives someone less rights than guaranteed by law.
So which parts of the constitution do you find is "out of date"? Is it that it protects the rights of citizens and requires a warrant for you to be searched according to it? Or is it that you don't like freedom of speech? Or is it that you don't believe we should have the right to legally bear arms to defend ourselves against criminals or, should it become a form of tyranny, the government? Or is it that you don't believe in the right to a trial by jury?
All of the things in the constitution are great guiding points, with the exception of the amendment allowing the income tax, and the (thankfully repealed) amendment allowing the prohibition of alcohol.
This is a very worrying trend, parents should not "wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work" because otherwise that leaves things into interpretation and prevents people from forming their own opinion.
The constitution wasn't written with symbolism and to make it be hard to read. No. The constitution and other works of that time period dealing with politics were made for the every day voter and the vocabulary, though slightly archaic is a whole lot easier than that of, say, Shakespeare and lacks the annoying, long, wordiness of later authors like Dickens making it very accessible.
What is next? The banning of all primary source materials in school textbooks because they are old?
Warning, this constitution is of its time, its views might not reflect the actions of those sworn to protect it and uphold it or the courts sworn to interpret it correctly.
Not really because most of the people who use IIS use it either because they run an all MS shop/have support contracts or they don't know how to configure Apache/PHP.
I wasn't saying that, I was simply replying to someone saying that there is fragmentation in the PC market, which I was saying isn't the same as in the smartphone market because smartphones aren't upgradeable like PC hardware is. I never said that smartphones weren't beneficial, I was simply raising the point that A) Hardware fragmentation mixed with carrier's dislike of selling phones outright will leave a lot of people with Droids when the Droid is obsolete and apps won't run on it and that B) This is a lot more worrying than PC hardware fragmentation because unlike a PC I can't just plug in a graphics card on my Backflip and get fast 3D effects.
How many people even -make- phone calls anymore though? Really, the reason I've talked on the phone this past year is talking to my older relatives who haven't figured out how to text or when either I or the person I'm talking to is driving. For every other time, I've either used text messaging, IM, E-mail, Twitter or Facebook.
Really, the main reason why most people even have phones anymore is for text messaging and data. Phone calls have gone the way of letter writing, obsolete.
But hardware fragmentation is pretty easy to combat, think about it. If you need more memory, you pay $30 and get a few more gigs of RAM, need a graphics card? Pay $100 and now you have HDMI-out and can play the latest games, etc.
And even then, it is a lot cheaper to upgrade PC hardware than smartphones. A new low-end laptop costs $350 and can do everything that a $550 smartphone can.
I can keep shoving new graphics cards, memory, etc. in my desktop for a good 5-7 years before everything becomes obsolete. With a Smartphone the most I can upgrade is putting in a new MicroSD card.
For you, perhaps you can't have a camera, for every other person, the ability to always have a camera on them is a huge benefit, especially if it takes decent pictures.
And for another, think about just emulation. Already, my 528Mhz Backflip can emulate even GBA games without too many glitches, with a 2 Ghz system, you are talking about emulating things like PlayStation and other later-gen games, and if it can emulate that, developers can surely make more impressive games running natively on it.
with a keyboard, captive touchscreen, trackball, 3/4G and Wi-Fi, and a fast CPU, there is very little you can't do with the phone. Sure, it isn't going to totally replace a laptop, but it can do most of the things people use a laptop for, surfing the web, a bit of light gaming, etc.
Owning a BackFlip, I've had to use MotoBlur, it isn't as bad as you think. All MotoBlur really lets you do is add in different widgets with Facebook, Twitter, etc. but you can be like me and not even put in that info and not use MotoBlur and its pretty much like stock Android (only there is all that AT&T crap...)
In fact, MotoBlur isn't too bad because its supposed to work like a free version of MobileME, letting you remotely track/deactivate your phone should it be stolen.
The main problem with MotoBlur is like every other UI addition it means that it takes forever for them to port new versions of Android to it.
The main problems with this though will be carriers. Its becoming increasingly apparent you can't have 2 year carrier-paid phones and be remotely on the cutting edge. Someone who got the first Android phone released in the US on a 2 year contract still couldn't upgrade it at a lower price. With the iPhone releasing a new phone every year and Android improving by leaps and bounds every other month it seems like, there is just no way that this can't end up with hardware fragmentation because a 528 Mhz Backflip just can't run the same things a 1 Ghz Nexus One or the new Motorola phone at 2 Ghz and the trend for hardware still isn't getting faster and faster, AT&T still only has the Backflip which is really underpowered when compared to the rest of the high end phones which are not on AT&t.
Wi-Fi isn't everywhere like 3G though. If I was connecting via wi-fi why wouldn't I just use my laptop? Really, Wi-Fi isn't everywhere, for example, taking the bus, 3G works just fine, Wi-Fi doesn't same with most subways, trains, etc.
If I have wi-fi, I either A) Wouldn't be playing a game (like in a restaurant) or B) have a laptop to play
There are two major problems with this, one is the latency issue, according to their FAQ it is supposed to be playable on a modem but it still can't be good for an MMO to have terrible latency. And the second one is data plans on carriers, already AT&T has crapified their data plan to cap it at an artificially low number, could Verizon, T-mobile and Sprint be next? And with an artificial, needless, bandwidth cap, more and more people are not going to be wanting to use their cell network to be playing an MMO.
No, but it does provide an insight into the proper interpretation of the constitution, and is something that courts should hold in nearly as high regard as the constitution (which, still amounts to zero like you said).
Perhaps we just are overdue for a revolution and a rewrite of our constitution and government to one that properly secures rights, because this 200 some year old one isn't held in high enough regard anymore...
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness---That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it,
Rights are not given to the people by the government, rights are natural, given by God (or nature). Governments are given rights by the people. People, however have natural rights given to them simply by being human. The right to oppose government and the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches is a natural right, not a right given by government because the government has no authority to give or take away rights.
Yes, but that still doesn't make it right or truly legitimate. However, I think we can all agree that the intent of it wasn't to search everything but rather give border officers the authority to search for things like weapons not search computer files.
We need government to be limited and this allows for baseless, pointless searches, both destroying freedom and destroying sane fiscal policies. This must be repealed either at the legislative or by the courts as unconstitutional.
And for those delusional masses who think that this prevents "terrorism", ask yourself, what computer file can be gotten in a foreign country that is illegal that can't be gotten via the internet?
Yes, but most of those time those people don't live in a vacuum. They have children who know how to use a computer and set the homepage to Google, they have geeks who for some reason have to use their computer and set it to Google, etc.
While it is true that a lot of them use Bing, they aren't going to be very valuable for MS who spent tons of money in marketing and developing Bing when they are the same people who used the piece of crap MSN search because it was the default in IE.
Slashdot Mirror
But its pretty easy to desalinate water if need be, its non-trivial to make more oil.
Anti-nuclear environmentalist organizations...
So let me get this right, despite the fact that nuclear is incredibly safe, low-polluting, we still can't do research on it to make it safer and to increase "green" energy? How do these people expect us to get electricity?
Can't do coal because that pollutes, can't do oil/gas/diesel because that pollutes, can't use hydroelectric power because that can damage ecosystems, can't use wind power because it poses a risk to birds/bats, can't use biomass because if used at an industrial scale it still pollutes, and I'm sure if solar was halfway economical they would be protesting them because they were "ruining" the beauty/ecosystem of the desert.
Really, if you want "green" energy in our lifetime, support nuclear power. If not we still have way more than enough coal/oil to use...
There is a difference though between using a few slang terms here and there and writing the entire thing in slang. When slang is an ordinary part of our language it makes sense to use it especially if it is understood by all. For example, when you say Kleenex, almost everyone in the US knows it is facial tissue, using the word "facial tissue" makes a lot of people scratch their heads before they realize you just mean Kleenex. Is Kleenex slang? Yes. But it is more concise and easier for readers to just say Kleenex.
"Professionalism" is not a good thing always in journalism if you are trying to make money (like the NYT desperately needs to do), just look at why you are on Slashdot, you could be reading your scientific news from the Journal of Biological Systems, but you wouldn't want to because its just -too- professional (and far too expensive). No one wants their news to say hypoglossal nerve, they just want to to say a nerve of the tongue. Of course Hypoglossal nerve is far more professional but it loses readability.
With celebrities increasingly posting information on Twitter, it only makes sense to refer to them as "tweets" and not "posts on twitter" because its shorter leaving more room for content while not sacrificing readability.
Oh, and I do like your signature.
If you can afford to pay $1K for a laptop that does the same thing a $400 PC can, surely you can pay the money for the software. Not to mention that the same software is still expensive on PC.
...Because high schoolers are going to be using VBA and obscure plugins for Excel?
Outlook isn't a problem because the move has been towards web-based access with clients for only mobile platforms. And as for PowerPoint, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2008_for_Mac PowerPoint is included.
BS.
UNIX is very alive an well, and OS X is based on UNIX, and so are the majority of other platforms that are needed if you are to get ahead in technology.
Plus, MS Office is on OS X...
No, the difference is we can amend the constitution to repeal it. The problem is, such a thing wouldn't be ratified by the states because the states enjoy levying a blatantly constitutional tax.
To put it in a biblical context it would be a bit like the pope contradicting scripture and reverting back to the scripture.
No, you have them read the document and form their own opinion based on that
When parents lead their children to believing something, we have the delusional masses on both the left and right who vote without question for the Republicans or Democrats without thinking about what they stand for just because their parents voted that way and when you have that, democracy doesn't work.
Because when you take something in "historical context" you can easily reason away all of the rights it gave us. For example:
In the 1700s, there were no terrorists flying planes into buildings. Therefore, your right to not be searched unreasonably needs to be removed because if the founding fathers had this "threat" they would have taken it into consideration.
In the 1700s, there were no computers, so this means that your rights don't extend to your own computer when it comes to being searched.
In the 1700s, there was no internet, so this means that internet is not covered under free speech, petition or assembly.
Putting something into "historical context" usually almost always gives someone less rights than guaranteed by law.
So which parts of the constitution do you find is "out of date"? Is it that it protects the rights of citizens and requires a warrant for you to be searched according to it? Or is it that you don't like freedom of speech? Or is it that you don't believe we should have the right to legally bear arms to defend ourselves against criminals or, should it become a form of tyranny, the government? Or is it that you don't believe in the right to a trial by jury?
All of the things in the constitution are great guiding points, with the exception of the amendment allowing the income tax, and the (thankfully repealed) amendment allowing the prohibition of alcohol.
This is a very worrying trend, parents should not "wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work" because otherwise that leaves things into interpretation and prevents people from forming their own opinion.
The constitution wasn't written with symbolism and to make it be hard to read. No. The constitution and other works of that time period dealing with politics were made for the every day voter and the vocabulary, though slightly archaic is a whole lot easier than that of, say, Shakespeare and lacks the annoying, long, wordiness of later authors like Dickens making it very accessible.
What is next? The banning of all primary source materials in school textbooks because they are old?
Warning, this constitution is of its time, its views might not reflect the actions of those sworn to protect it and uphold it or the courts sworn to interpret it correctly.
Not really because most of the people who use IIS use it either because they run an all MS shop/have support contracts or they don't know how to configure Apache/PHP.
I wasn't saying that, I was simply replying to someone saying that there is fragmentation in the PC market, which I was saying isn't the same as in the smartphone market because smartphones aren't upgradeable like PC hardware is. I never said that smartphones weren't beneficial, I was simply raising the point that A) Hardware fragmentation mixed with carrier's dislike of selling phones outright will leave a lot of people with Droids when the Droid is obsolete and apps won't run on it and that B) This is a lot more worrying than PC hardware fragmentation because unlike a PC I can't just plug in a graphics card on my Backflip and get fast 3D effects.
How many people even -make- phone calls anymore though? Really, the reason I've talked on the phone this past year is talking to my older relatives who haven't figured out how to text or when either I or the person I'm talking to is driving. For every other time, I've either used text messaging, IM, E-mail, Twitter or Facebook.
Really, the main reason why most people even have phones anymore is for text messaging and data. Phone calls have gone the way of letter writing, obsolete.
But hardware fragmentation is pretty easy to combat, think about it. If you need more memory, you pay $30 and get a few more gigs of RAM, need a graphics card? Pay $100 and now you have HDMI-out and can play the latest games, etc.
And even then, it is a lot cheaper to upgrade PC hardware than smartphones. A new low-end laptop costs $350 and can do everything that a $550 smartphone can.
I can keep shoving new graphics cards, memory, etc. in my desktop for a good 5-7 years before everything becomes obsolete. With a Smartphone the most I can upgrade is putting in a new MicroSD card.
For you, perhaps you can't have a camera, for every other person, the ability to always have a camera on them is a huge benefit, especially if it takes decent pictures.
And for another, think about just emulation. Already, my 528Mhz Backflip can emulate even GBA games without too many glitches, with a 2 Ghz system, you are talking about emulating things like PlayStation and other later-gen games, and if it can emulate that, developers can surely make more impressive games running natively on it.
with a keyboard, captive touchscreen, trackball, 3/4G and Wi-Fi, and a fast CPU, there is very little you can't do with the phone. Sure, it isn't going to totally replace a laptop, but it can do most of the things people use a laptop for, surfing the web, a bit of light gaming, etc.
Owning a BackFlip, I've had to use MotoBlur, it isn't as bad as you think. All MotoBlur really lets you do is add in different widgets with Facebook, Twitter, etc. but you can be like me and not even put in that info and not use MotoBlur and its pretty much like stock Android (only there is all that AT&T crap...)
In fact, MotoBlur isn't too bad because its supposed to work like a free version of MobileME, letting you remotely track/deactivate your phone should it be stolen.
The main problem with MotoBlur is like every other UI addition it means that it takes forever for them to port new versions of Android to it.
The main problems with this though will be carriers. Its becoming increasingly apparent you can't have 2 year carrier-paid phones and be remotely on the cutting edge. Someone who got the first Android phone released in the US on a 2 year contract still couldn't upgrade it at a lower price. With the iPhone releasing a new phone every year and Android improving by leaps and bounds every other month it seems like, there is just no way that this can't end up with hardware fragmentation because a 528 Mhz Backflip just can't run the same things a 1 Ghz Nexus One or the new Motorola phone at 2 Ghz and the trend for hardware still isn't getting faster and faster, AT&T still only has the Backflip which is really underpowered when compared to the rest of the high end phones which are not on AT&t.
Wi-Fi isn't everywhere like 3G though. If I was connecting via wi-fi why wouldn't I just use my laptop? Really, Wi-Fi isn't everywhere, for example, taking the bus, 3G works just fine, Wi-Fi doesn't same with most subways, trains, etc.
If I have wi-fi, I either A) Wouldn't be playing a game (like in a restaurant) or B) have a laptop to play
There are two major problems with this, one is the latency issue, according to their FAQ it is supposed to be playable on a modem but it still can't be good for an MMO to have terrible latency. And the second one is data plans on carriers, already AT&T has crapified their data plan to cap it at an artificially low number, could Verizon, T-mobile and Sprint be next? And with an artificial, needless, bandwidth cap, more and more people are not going to be wanting to use their cell network to be playing an MMO.
No, but it does provide an insight into the proper interpretation of the constitution, and is something that courts should hold in nearly as high regard as the constitution (which, still amounts to zero like you said).
Perhaps we just are overdue for a revolution and a rewrite of our constitution and government to one that properly secures rights, because this 200 some year old one isn't held in high enough regard anymore...
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness---That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it,
Rights are not given to the people by the government, rights are natural, given by God (or nature). Governments are given rights by the people. People, however have natural rights given to them simply by being human. The right to oppose government and the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches is a natural right, not a right given by government because the government has no authority to give or take away rights.
Yes, but that still doesn't make it right or truly legitimate. However, I think we can all agree that the intent of it wasn't to search everything but rather give border officers the authority to search for things like weapons not search computer files.
We need government to be limited and this allows for baseless, pointless searches, both destroying freedom and destroying sane fiscal policies. This must be repealed either at the legislative or by the courts as unconstitutional.
And for those delusional masses who think that this prevents "terrorism", ask yourself, what computer file can be gotten in a foreign country that is illegal that can't be gotten via the internet?
Yes, but most of those time those people don't live in a vacuum. They have children who know how to use a computer and set the homepage to Google, they have geeks who for some reason have to use their computer and set it to Google, etc.
While it is true that a lot of them use Bing, they aren't going to be very valuable for MS who spent tons of money in marketing and developing Bing when they are the same people who used the piece of crap MSN search because it was the default in IE.