Correct - and for people who have trouble understanding how university professors work for something other than industry (financial compensation) or the government (financial or political compensation), the other professors work for academic prestige. Which, of course, can be directly correlated to future money, but there ARE a few who publish solely for academic reasons.
you'll get studies noting there's no difference between hands free phone chatting and talking to passengers
Wrong. Talking to passengers is very different than talking on the phone. I can't recall the study off the top of my head, but this has been tested. A passenger is far more likely to take the driver's state into account before speaking, and is also aware of what is going on outside the car. Talking to a person on the other end of a cell phone has none of these advantages.
Most of my friends that are still active facebookers tend to use it for business means. One amusing direction for facebook would be a bunch of promoters saying "Hey, come to my club, you're cool just for coming!" and narcissists thinking, "Yeah, I should definitely go, it'll make me look cooler!" and in the end, facebook will be win-win-win, where the promoters, the narcissists, and the sane minority all get their way.
how? While downloading starcraft 2 beta, there was nothing I could find that would let me block uploading. At the time, I could do 300KB down, and ~80KB up. However, I couldn't do both at the same time. As a result, I was doing something like 40/40, and it was taking 7.5X as long as it should have. In the end, I had to resort to installing traffic shapers so that I couldn't upload. It was very disappointing.
There was some movie exec who talked about how the current model is unsustainable, mainly because it involves the film industry repeatedly lying to consumers by saying "This movie is gonna be good!" and having it be crap, and then doing it again and again and again. As a result, he said, people will stop trusting advertising and won't even go to see the good movies before they've been out for a while, which will kill sales. Honestly, I think the best thing for studies to do would be to have smaller budgets on films that don't need huge budgets, and if a film is going to suck, they should advertise it but portray it honestly (not "This movie sucks!" but more "Cheesy romantic comedy with subpar dialogue!").
There have also been recent allegations that the WHO played up the dangerous nature of the H1N1 influenza virus (which got "pandemic" status) in order for some corporations to profit financially Pandemic, Scandal Allegations
Apple has it's strategy right because they are making money from their social network (through music) and can thus outlive the non-profit social networks in existence.
Right and wrong. Apple does have the right strategy, but it isn't for why you think. While yes, they will certainly make money from people buying music off others recommendations, the more important thing here is that they don't need to gain any users for this to be successful. This is an upgrade to a current service, despite being something totally new. The user base is there, and the service promises attractive results for the user, so it will likely see widespread adoption, if not widespread active use.
I think Apple's major mistake is tying EVERYTHING to iTunes. Honestly, iTunes integration tends to be one of the things they do worst. I have a core i7 with 8GB RAM on a win7 machine and iTunes STILL lags, is unresponsive, and even display details get cropped (and can't be fixed). Syncing for iDevices is so bad that I only sync my iPhone (great device other than the iTunes element, imo) every 2-3 months or so, because I hate the sync process so much.
In the same way that Apple NEVER tries to force other software on iTunes users, like, say, Safari or Quicktime? You don't have to install it. But you can't get the next version of iTunes that has *shiny new feature* without installing it. It's optional for this version only, it'll be mandatory next time.
You're right - journalism hasn't changed, the culture has. It used to be that a politician being corrupt was the biggest news of the day, and it garnered public outrage. We've gotten so used to this that it's no longer enraging, and it happens so frequently that it isn't interesting to the general public. Celebrities, on the other hand, are always doing something unique and interesting.
Wikileaks doesn't deserve source protection because 'it's not journalism.'
Only because they have redefined what journalism is so almost all 'journalists' now work to increase page views/advert sales and so tend to publish whatever gossip their parent corporations or government tell them.
Regardless of whether or not you support wikileaks, the method for taking one's rights is to first make a single exception that has some significant support, then follow it by expanding the law to include more and more exceptions, until finally some politician can say, "Well, how do we nail an *exception* masquerading as part of the general public?" and BAM, you have a new, inclusive restriction on your rights. The stable state of laws is always one of all or nothing. The moment you slip into in between, the law will move towards whichever end the government prefers. I don't get how the journalism doesn't understand that by making one exception, they lay the groundwork for more exceptions to be made, until eventually there is no source protection.
The new iPod Touch is going to dominate the market. It's better than many point and shoot cameras, it's better than pretty much every other media player, it beats out flip video recorders, it has extensive gaming platform options, and it's good enough for watching media on.
I don't love Apple, but it looks like they've created the gadget for teenagers or people who rely on a non-iphone as their primary phone.
I believe that "regligious" beliefs are what Mordok is referencing, whereas you are referencing something closer to "universal human" beliefs. Not everyone agrees that aborting a fetus is wrong. Pretty much everyone believes that torture is wrong. There are a few who may approve of it in special circumstances, but as a concept, everyone agrees it is not good.
Because democrats totally can't comment to news outlets directly, rather than by CSpan? And they have the advantage of commenting when they would like. The republicans would have to keep talking, even long after they had run out of things to say.
I would imagine the first 10 hours might be of great appeal to republican news outlets, but after several hundred hours of republicans talking, I imagine the democrats would be the ones to come away from it with plenty of juicy tidbits. After all, how long do you think it would take for George W Bush, given a microphone, a recorder, and no prompt, to say something so stupid that it would alienate his supporters? I give it less than a day.
Mod parent up. This is something I think we all frequently overlook - they may not be funding the research, but at some point they may have funded the equipment, and thus it's illegal.
But checks and balances worked here, so that isn't of much interest to Slashdot. Religion interfering with science, on the other hand, is right up Slashdot's alley...
I don't know if this is intended to be insightful or snarky, but I am totally on board with defining an embryo to be human when it can survive without its mother (even if it gets medical assistance). At this point, I will accept all arguments for not aborting, but not prior to this point.
I'm mostly kidding, but isn't there some decent way to weasel around this?
Spoken like a true Republican. If you don't like a law, ignore it. Don't enforce it. Weasel around it. And abuse those who want the law to be obeyed.
Don't like dealing with wall street bankers, because you think they can become votes for your party in the next election? Don't to it, and attack New York when they try to enforce the existing federal law.
However, the larger problem is that the "people who believe embryos are humans" camp falls squarely within the "people who believe in God" camp, in at least 99 times out of 100.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct - and for people who have trouble understanding how university professors work for something other than industry (financial compensation) or the government (financial or political compensation), the other professors work for academic prestige. Which, of course, can be directly correlated to future money, but there ARE a few who publish solely for academic reasons.
you'll get studies noting there's no difference between hands free phone chatting and talking to passengers
Wrong. Talking to passengers is very different than talking on the phone. I can't recall the study off the top of my head, but this has been tested. A passenger is far more likely to take the driver's state into account before speaking, and is also aware of what is going on outside the car. Talking to a person on the other end of a cell phone has none of these advantages.
But not, of course, to prevent theft.
In Illinois, it is illegal to BE passed on the right.
Most of my friends that are still active facebookers tend to use it for business means. One amusing direction for facebook would be a bunch of promoters saying "Hey, come to my club, you're cool just for coming!" and narcissists thinking, "Yeah, I should definitely go, it'll make me look cooler!" and in the end, facebook will be win-win-win, where the promoters, the narcissists, and the sane minority all get their way.
how? While downloading starcraft 2 beta, there was nothing I could find that would let me block uploading. At the time, I could do 300KB down, and ~80KB up. However, I couldn't do both at the same time. As a result, I was doing something like 40/40, and it was taking 7.5X as long as it should have. In the end, I had to resort to installing traffic shapers so that I couldn't upload. It was very disappointing.
Like how Denzel got the Oscar for Training Day when they really wanted to give it to him for The Hurricane
There was some movie exec who talked about how the current model is unsustainable, mainly because it involves the film industry repeatedly lying to consumers by saying "This movie is gonna be good!" and having it be crap, and then doing it again and again and again. As a result, he said, people will stop trusting advertising and won't even go to see the good movies before they've been out for a while, which will kill sales. Honestly, I think the best thing for studies to do would be to have smaller budgets on films that don't need huge budgets, and if a film is going to suck, they should advertise it but portray it honestly (not "This movie sucks!" but more "Cheesy romantic comedy with subpar dialogue!").
There have also been recent allegations that the WHO played up the dangerous nature of the H1N1 influenza virus (which got "pandemic" status) in order for some corporations to profit financially Pandemic, Scandal Allegations
left turn! left turn! left turn!
Apple has it's strategy right because they are making money from their social network (through music) and can thus outlive the non-profit social networks in existence.
Right and wrong. Apple does have the right strategy, but it isn't for why you think. While yes, they will certainly make money from people buying music off others recommendations, the more important thing here is that they don't need to gain any users for this to be successful. This is an upgrade to a current service, despite being something totally new. The user base is there, and the service promises attractive results for the user, so it will likely see widespread adoption, if not widespread active use.
I think Apple's major mistake is tying EVERYTHING to iTunes. Honestly, iTunes integration tends to be one of the things they do worst. I have a core i7 with 8GB RAM on a win7 machine and iTunes STILL lags, is unresponsive, and even display details get cropped (and can't be fixed). Syncing for iDevices is so bad that I only sync my iPhone (great device other than the iTunes element, imo) every 2-3 months or so, because I hate the sync process so much.
In the same way that Apple NEVER tries to force other software on iTunes users, like, say, Safari or Quicktime? You don't have to install it. But you can't get the next version of iTunes that has *shiny new feature* without installing it. It's optional for this version only, it'll be mandatory next time.
You're right - journalism hasn't changed, the culture has. It used to be that a politician being corrupt was the biggest news of the day, and it garnered public outrage. We've gotten so used to this that it's no longer enraging, and it happens so frequently that it isn't interesting to the general public. Celebrities, on the other hand, are always doing something unique and interesting.
Wikileaks doesn't deserve source protection because 'it's not journalism.'
Only because they have redefined what journalism is so almost all 'journalists' now work to increase page views/advert sales and so tend to publish whatever gossip their parent corporations or government tell them.
Clarified that for those that were unsure.
Regardless of whether or not you support wikileaks, the method for taking one's rights is to first make a single exception that has some significant support, then follow it by expanding the law to include more and more exceptions, until finally some politician can say, "Well, how do we nail an *exception* masquerading as part of the general public?" and BAM, you have a new, inclusive restriction on your rights. The stable state of laws is always one of all or nothing. The moment you slip into in between, the law will move towards whichever end the government prefers. I don't get how the journalism doesn't understand that by making one exception, they lay the groundwork for more exceptions to be made, until eventually there is no source protection.
The new iPod Touch is going to dominate the market. It's better than many point and shoot cameras, it's better than pretty much every other media player, it beats out flip video recorders, it has extensive gaming platform options, and it's good enough for watching media on.
I don't love Apple, but it looks like they've created the gadget for teenagers or people who rely on a non-iphone as their primary phone.
I believe that "regligious" beliefs are what Mordok is referencing, whereas you are referencing something closer to "universal human" beliefs. Not everyone agrees that aborting a fetus is wrong. Pretty much everyone believes that torture is wrong. There are a few who may approve of it in special circumstances, but as a concept, everyone agrees it is not good.
Because democrats totally can't comment to news outlets directly, rather than by CSpan? And they have the advantage of commenting when they would like. The republicans would have to keep talking, even long after they had run out of things to say.
I would imagine the first 10 hours might be of great appeal to republican news outlets, but after several hundred hours of republicans talking, I imagine the democrats would be the ones to come away from it with plenty of juicy tidbits. After all, how long do you think it would take for George W Bush, given a microphone, a recorder, and no prompt, to say something so stupid that it would alienate his supporters? I give it less than a day.
Mod parent up. This is something I think we all frequently overlook - they may not be funding the research, but at some point they may have funded the equipment, and thus it's illegal.
But checks and balances worked here, so that isn't of much interest to Slashdot. Religion interfering with science, on the other hand, is right up Slashdot's alley...
I don't know if this is intended to be insightful or snarky, but I am totally on board with defining an embryo to be human when it can survive without its mother (even if it gets medical assistance). At this point, I will accept all arguments for not aborting, but not prior to this point.
I'm mostly kidding, but isn't there some decent way to weasel around this?
Spoken like a true Republican. If you don't like a law, ignore it. Don't enforce it. Weasel around it. And abuse those who want the law to be obeyed.
Don't like dealing with wall street bankers, because you think they can become votes for your party in the next election? Don't to it, and attack New York when they try to enforce the existing federal law.
See what I did there?
However, the larger problem is that the "people who believe embryos are humans" camp falls squarely within the "people who believe in God" camp, in at least 99 times out of 100.