The gst of the article is "Bitcoin is important. It's just like real money. See, it even has a market like real money, but the problems of the market aren't too bad." Despite the Slashdot headlne mentioning the volatility, the article goes out of its way to say to say that the problems aren't all that bad and goes on to emphasize how much it is like real money. It then goes for four sections (out of five total) explaining exactly what Bitcoin is, why people might want to have it, how it's being attacked for no fault of its own, and how some people don't like it but it's just paranoia.
It's a disguised ad It's like having an article whose headline says that a popular diet doesn't always work, then reading the text and finding that the reason it doesn't work is because it's too natural and some people refuse to obey the diet because they don't like natural things. Then followed by paragraphs of details about the diet, where to buy a book about it, and complaining about how the media doesn't like the diet.
First world countries all have below zero population growth rates, or would if it wasn't for immigration. In a rich country, children cost more to raise, and increased women's rights mean that women don't get used as baby factories to increase the status of men.
This is a non-issue for just about anyone who would actually be reading this.
The two thirds of your books that have no DRM are specialized books (and yes, Gutenberg is too) because they don't cover most of what the average person would want to read. There will always be DRM-free books, but they will only be a miniscule portion of the audience. The problems of DRM aren't going to go away just because a few readers at the margins can escape it by avoiding the 95% of the market that has the problems.
There is a Hannah Montana adventure game for the Nintendo DS.
I've never played it, and of course it depends on what you mean by "adventure game", but given that this is for a 10 year old girl, there's a good chance she'd like it.
If all this was put on a DVD+R (assume double layer, since DL burners are fairly common now), and starting from the very beginning, how many years of Usenet would the single disk be able to store?
Remember when we had the "mistaken pot busts" Bitcoin story where the first five paragraphs were just about Bitcoin, and the pot bust was not only buried in the article but attributed to an IRC chat?
This one is slightly better in that it's not mainly about Bitcoin, but it's obvious that Slashdot is being pumped full of Bitcoin articles by Bitcoin promoters.
Look at the contributions of this user. He describes the Revere comment as Palin's "gaffe". Clearly he does not actually think that Palin's comment was true. He put it on Paul Revere's page because he decided to have a few laughs at the expense of Palin by abusing the reliable sources policy (by claiming that since Palin said it, Wikipedia has to, under its reliable sources policy, treat it as truthful). There were other people who did mistake him for being serious, but he himself carefully worded his comments in the talk page; he didn't say Palin's remark was true; he said that it needed to be put in as a reliable source.
The idea that this was put there by some guy who's a fan of Palin and (presumably) is stupid enough to think the statement was correct, is wrong. This was an anti-Palin troll, put there by Wikipedia editor who most probably is anti-Palin, and at a minimum was certainly aware, by his own words, that Palin's statement was a gaffe.
And I hate River. River is a classic Mary Sue--the kind of character that a 13 year old girl would put in a fanfic. "I'm the Doctor's secret wife, and I'm the only one who can talk smack to him, and I can time travel like him and I'm as mysterious as him and I have a really cool name."
A sonic screwdriver is a piece of equipment. Anyone can have one. Liz Shaw had one, though that was probably a mistake (she used one while the Doctor had gone to another dimension; the writer probably meant she was using his and didn't realize the story made that impossible.) Romana made her own. A villain in "Partners in Crime" had a sonic pen, and that was part of the new series. River didn't have to get it from the Doctor, no matter what she said.
As usual, the media doesn't report the followups widely enough, and people don't bother looking for them because they may discover that the truth isn't so anti-Israel.
It turned out that the Arab had forcibly raped her, but it was plea bargained down to "rape by deception" as an alternative to cross-examining the woman. She had been a prostitute and had been abused by her father and it it would be easy to make her look bad in court (as well as being traumatic).
That justifies doing it *once*. He's not doing it once. He;s deciding that he's *never* going to eat meat that he didn't personally kill himself. Once he's done it a few times and understands tha \t he's killing an animal, pledging to continue to do it for the rest of his life makes no more sense than only using paper from trees you chopped down yourself.
There's a difference between being willing to kill an animal yourself and actually doing it. Being willing shows that you aren't trying to avoid moral objections to meat. But actually doing it, unless you're a hunter or a farmer, is stupid for reasons that have nothing to do with the moral value of killing animals. Would you really write only on paper that you personally made by chopping down a tree and grinding it down into wood pulp yourself? Probably not, but it's not because you find it wrong to kill trees, it's because getting paper that way is such a ridiculously inefficient thing to do that anyone who'd really do it has shown themselves to have lost touch with reality.
It's not killing animals for food that's going off the deep end, it's the idea that there's some meaning in only eating the ones you kill yourself. He'd never eat only the vegetables he picked himself, or only the bread he baked himself (starting with wheat that he threshed himself). And nobody would only use a computer that they made themselves from iron ore and raw silicon. ("I want to remind myself of how we must destroy the environment in order to get my computer".)
White keyboards (I live within driving distance of a Fry's and a Microcenter. Neither had a single nongimmicky white keyboard (except one that was for a mac).
Non-widescreen computer monitors. (A lot of people still have them from when they made them, but just try to find one in a store.)
I can't tell- are you suggesting its wrong to own a jet and use it?
I think it's wrong to own a jet and use it if you are also promoting the idea of taxing and otherwise forcibly restricting the actions of others based on a reason that applies to the jet in spades.
Or perhaps they are better at math than you are. One 767 more or less won't make any significant difference in the amount of CO2 emitted.
One car that is non-electric won't. One large house, or any of the other things that proponents of severe anti-global-warming measures want to limit, won't either. The usage by a single individual isn't going to have much overall effect on global warming whether it's a plane or whether it's something us peons without private planes use.
And even then, planes produce a lot more drops in the bucket. It's going to take me an awful lot of electric car usage to make up for 52000 gallons of fuel.
That's one of the attitudes that is stalling open source: "If you don't like it, fix it yourself or hire someone to do so". Most people cannot fix it themselves, and forking an active project is a big move which requires a lot of continuous maintenance. It's not going to be practical to fork GNOME just because it has a bad user interface.
And to top it off, the people in open source projects tend to be comcentrated among programmers. If the project needs user interface design, documentation, or something else other than programming, the project will be way behind; having a bad user interface is one of the most common persistent problems with the software. (And bad documentation is the other.)
"You can fix it yourself" is supposed to be a benefit, not an excuse. (And don't say that because it's free, there's no such thing as an excuse.)
Because if you use the word "alarm" you have to make a different version of the clock for each country you sell it in that speaks a different language.
It's the same reason why everything with an on/off switch has "1" and "0" or icons, not the words "on" and "off".
I once had to get my car repaired. After I was done, I was just in the same position I was in before the car broke down in the first place. I had paid money, and I had gained nothing!
Seriously, this is nonsense. Killing bin Laden isn't a gain over there being no bin Laden; it's a gain over him being there but staying alive and in charge. Wars are always expensive; we don't fight them because they produce gains, we fight them so that we can stay in the same place--it's a gain over not being able to stay in the same place, but wars always sucked, and they always will. And the article is really reaching to point out things like the economic boom caused by World War II. We didn't fight World War II to cause an economic boom, and not having one certainly wouldn't mean we shouldn't have fought it.
To play devil's advocate here: they may have had very solid intel but been waiting to execute the mission for greatest political gain. Wikileaks may have forced them to act at a time less beneficial to them but they're seizing the opportunity to bash Wikileaks some more, knowing that some people will be swayed.
Here's even more speculation: They may have had solid intel, but had been waiting to execute the mission for greatest actual gain. Waiting to kill bin Laden could have had legitimate nonpolitical benefits, such as being able to get information on other people involved in the organization.
Slashdot Mirror
The gst of the article is "Bitcoin is important. It's just like real money. See, it even has a market like real money, but the problems of the market aren't too bad." Despite the Slashdot headlne mentioning the volatility, the article goes out of its way to say to say that the problems aren't all that bad and goes on to emphasize how much it is like real money. It then goes for four sections (out of five total) explaining exactly what Bitcoin is, why people might want to have it, how it's being attacked for no fault of its own, and how some people don't like it but it's just paranoia.
It's a disguised ad It's like having an article whose headline says that a popular diet doesn't always work, then reading the text and finding that the reason it doesn't work is because it's too natural and some people refuse to obey the diet because they don't like natural things. Then followed by paragraphs of details about the diet, where to buy a book about it, and complaining about how the media doesn't like the diet.
First world countries all have below zero population growth rates, or would if it wasn't for immigration. In a rich country, children cost more to raise, and increased women's rights mean that women don't get used as baby factories to increase the status of men.
This is a non-issue for just about anyone who would actually be reading this.
The two thirds of your books that have no DRM are specialized books (and yes, Gutenberg is too) because they don't cover most of what the average person would want to read. There will always be DRM-free books, but they will only be a miniscule portion of the audience. The problems of DRM aren't going to go away just because a few readers at the margins can escape it by avoiding the 95% of the market that has the problems.
There is a Hannah Montana adventure game for the Nintendo DS.
I've never played it, and of course it depends on what you mean by "adventure game", but given that this is for a 10 year old girl, there's a good chance she'd like it.
If all this was put on a DVD+R (assume double layer, since DL burners are fairly common now), and starting from the very beginning, how many years of Usenet would the single disk be able to store?
Again.
Remember when we had the "mistaken pot busts" Bitcoin story where the first five paragraphs were just about Bitcoin, and the pot bust was not only buried in the article but attributed to an IRC chat?
This one is slightly better in that it's not mainly about Bitcoin, but it's obvious that Slashdot is being pumped full of Bitcoin articles by Bitcoin promoters.
Look at the contributions of this user. He describes the Revere comment as Palin's "gaffe". Clearly he does not actually think that Palin's comment was true. He put it on Paul Revere's page because he decided to have a few laughs at the expense of Palin by abusing the reliable sources policy (by claiming that since Palin said it, Wikipedia has to, under its reliable sources policy, treat it as truthful). There were other people who did mistake him for being serious, but he himself carefully worded his comments in the talk page; he didn't say Palin's remark was true; he said that it needed to be put in as a reliable source.
The idea that this was put there by some guy who's a fan of Palin and (presumably) is stupid enough to think the statement was correct, is wrong. This was an anti-Palin troll, put there by Wikipedia editor who most probably is anti-Palin, and at a minimum was certainly aware, by his own words, that Palin's statement was a gaffe.
7) Never assume that when a guy is a humor columnist and a stand up comedian he might not be intending things completely seriously.
Sheesh.
And I hate River. River is a classic Mary Sue--the kind of character that a 13 year old girl would put in a fanfic. "I'm the Doctor's secret wife, and I'm the only one who can talk smack to him, and I can time travel like him and I'm as mysterious as him and I have a really cool name."
A sonic screwdriver is a piece of equipment. Anyone can have one. Liz Shaw had one, though that was probably a mistake (she used one while the Doctor had gone to another dimension; the writer probably meant she was using his and didn't realize the story made that impossible.) Romana made her own. A villain in "Partners in Crime" had a sonic pen, and that was part of the new series. River didn't have to get it from the Doctor, no matter what she said.
As usual, the media doesn't report the followups widely enough, and people don't bother looking for them because they may discover that the truth isn't so anti-Israel.
It turned out that the Arab had forcibly raped her, but it was plea bargained down to "rape by deception" as an alternative to cross-examining the woman. She had been a prostitute and had been abused by her father and it it would be easy to make her look bad in court (as well as being traumatic).
http://www.mideastyouth.com/2010/09/05/israel-rape-by-deception-turns-out-to-be-brutal-rape-of-a-vulnerable-and-abused-woman/
That justifies doing it *once*. He's not doing it once. He;s deciding that he's *never* going to eat meat that he didn't personally kill himself. Once he's done it a few times and understands tha \t he's killing an animal, pledging to continue to do it for the rest of his life makes no more sense than only using paper from trees you chopped down yourself.
There's a difference between being willing to kill an animal yourself and actually doing it. Being willing shows that you aren't trying to avoid moral objections to meat. But actually doing it, unless you're a hunter or a farmer, is stupid for reasons that have nothing to do with the moral value of killing animals. Would you really write only on paper that you personally made by chopping down a tree and grinding it down into wood pulp yourself? Probably not, but it's not because you find it wrong to kill trees, it's because getting paper that way is such a ridiculously inefficient thing to do that anyone who'd really do it has shown themselves to have lost touch with reality.
It's not killing animals for food that's going off the deep end, it's the idea that there's some meaning in only eating the ones you kill yourself. He'd never eat only the vegetables he picked himself, or only the bread he baked himself (starting with wheat that he threshed himself). And nobody would only use a computer that they made themselves from iron ore and raw silicon. ("I want to remind myself of how we must destroy the environment in order to get my computer".)
We have division of labor for a reason.
White keyboards (I live within driving distance of a Fry's and a Microcenter. Neither had a single nongimmicky white keyboard (except one that was for a mac).
Non-widescreen computer monitors. (A lot of people still have them from when they made them, but just try to find one in a store.)
Lottery winner gives people money to quit their jobs and start playing the lottery instead.
I think it's wrong to own a jet and use it if you are also promoting the idea of taxing and otherwise forcibly restricting the actions of others based on a reason that applies to the jet in spades.
One car that is non-electric won't. One large house, or any of the other things that proponents of severe anti-global-warming measures want to limit, won't either. The usage by a single individual isn't going to have much overall effect on global warming whether it's a plane or whether it's something us peons without private planes use.
And even then, planes produce a lot more drops in the bucket. It's going to take me an awful lot of electric car usage to make up for 52000 gallons of fuel.
That's one of the attitudes that is stalling open source: "If you don't like it, fix it yourself or hire someone to do so". Most people cannot fix it themselves, and forking an active project is a big move which requires a lot of continuous maintenance. It's not going to be practical to fork GNOME just because it has a bad user interface.
And to top it off, the people in open source projects tend to be comcentrated among programmers. If the project needs user interface design, documentation, or something else other than programming, the project will be way behind; having a bad user interface is one of the most common persistent problems with the software. (And bad documentation is the other.)
"You can fix it yourself" is supposed to be a benefit, not an excuse. (And don't say that because it's free, there's no such thing as an excuse.)
Because if you use the word "alarm" you have to make a different version of the clock for each country you sell it in that speaks a different language.
It's the same reason why everything with an on/off switch has "1" and "0" or icons, not the words "on" and "off".
I once had to get my car repaired. After I was done, I was just in the same position I was in before the car broke down in the first place. I had paid money, and I had gained nothing!
Seriously, this is nonsense. Killing bin Laden isn't a gain over there being no bin Laden; it's a gain over him being there but staying alive and in charge. Wars are always expensive; we don't fight them because they produce gains, we fight them so that we can stay in the same place--it's a gain over not being able to stay in the same place, but wars always sucked, and they always will. And the article is really reaching to point out things like the economic boom caused by World War II. We didn't fight World War II to cause an economic boom, and not having one certainly wouldn't mean we shouldn't have fought it.
Except without the "innocent" part.
I meant tracking, of course. Though we did get warrantless wiretapping as well.
They said that if I voted Republican, we'd get warrantless wiretapping. I voted Republican, and what do you know, we did!
It's hardly even a joke any more. Obama's just as bad as his opponents, except we also get Obamacare added on top.
Here's even more speculation: They may have had solid intel, but had been waiting to execute the mission for greatest actual gain. Waiting to kill bin Laden could have had legitimate nonpolitical benefits, such as being able to get information on other people involved in the organization.