Not as dumb as people who don't read the article and don't bother to try to understand why this is important becasue there too busy showing slashdot how smart they think they are. amirite?
When ever you read something, especially a summary, and have a thought like that please remember these 2 things: 1) The people doing it have a reason. 2) Read up and find out why they are doing it and how it applies to other factors. In this case cell phones.
You will find out that many things presented as obvious and dumb only seemed that way becasue you lacked some data.
I read that post a couple of time, and really the only think I can think of is that you are either really stupid, or a troll.
The Bill is in CA, written and passed by Ca elected officials. Of course it only applies to California. No one is saying other wise. The context is California, and it even says it in the bill.
Froms the Bill: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Why would you think they are trying to apply it anywhere else?
" If the feds can control what you grow on your own land for consumption by your own family"
You will note all fed drug busts involve movement of the drug over state lines, or the movement of money in a transaction to buy drugs over state lines.
As far as anything else, you can grow what to want as long as it's not impacting people not on your property and you are using it your self. If you are transporting food, or selling food across state lines then the feds can regulate it.
Are you that clueless? Even in the summary, it mentions companies..all of whom are in California. So the law isn't bogus becasue it applies to California.
You're so busy with your knee jerk reactions you forgot to think. Please take time to think.
If the person in Poughkeepsie stores the data of the website in California, then what?
I'm far, far from being a teen, and likely over twice you age.* Like his shows, and I think he's a good presenter in that he makes t seem anyone can go into the sciences. Which is true, but often sidelined by social perceptions.
*I point that out so show I"m not a teen, or young. Not to make it seem like my age, in and of itself, should lend any weight to my argument
"If you think it's such good value, then why not give people the choice about funding it rather than forcing everyone?"
Because some thing provide a societal good. The value makes spreading the cost out worth while. There are economic tomes written on the subject. Tons of data.
Once you add advertising, YOU are no longer the customer., You are the products and you will only get to see what advertisers approve of. Having a non advertise based media stream is extremely valuable.
Actually, it sets off loud ignorant people with nothing better to do then scream about how 'everyone' hates what science finds. The politician reflect that.
Slashdot Mirror
All that means is we have to genetically engineer it.
Man, you people are going to grow up to be bitter, angry and boring* old people if you don't remember to think of possibilities to do amazing things.
*the worst one
That's hilarious. I bet you're a fungi.
I think it would be interesting to see if we can create a plant that can live in martian atmosphere. IT's 96% CO2...at 600 pascals.
Bonus if it's edible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
It is...on Mars.
What a doof! everyone knows Steven Spielberg created Firefly, not Star Wars.
There specialized cell for solar farms. They will be under a lens.
eet me know when they got to 120%.
heh.
This is good news.
Why more ethical?
That's false. For more the 60 million people eat meat every day.
More like part of the 75%
Everything cooked like chicken tastes like chicken because it smells similar.
Which is a pretty arbitrary line.
I can name as many 'bad' things about cows as you can about Lobsters.
I'm not saying don't eat steak. I love steak. I'm only saying it's a perception issue.
Some of the best art in the world where funded by outside sources, so I"m not sure what you think you are driving towards.
I am going to be blunt: that vast majority of 'art' isn't any good, and the vast majority of artists aren't any good.
If you want to make money doing art, then you have to do what people will pay for, or getting funding elsewhere.
" Wihtout agenda."
Of course they have an agenda
Not as dumb as people who don't read the article and don't bother to try to understand why this is important becasue there too busy showing slashdot how smart they think they are. amirite?
When ever you read something, especially a summary, and have a thought like that please remember these 2 things:
1) The people doing it have a reason.
2) Read up and find out why they are doing it and how it applies to other factors. In this case cell phones.
You will find out that many things presented as obvious and dumb only seemed that way becasue you lacked some data.
I did. It was called 'Theater'
I have none of those issues when using it. Mabye it's you?
So you are saying it's impossible to delete anything, but it's possible to hide it?
I read that post a couple of time, and really the only think I can think of is that you are either really stupid, or a troll.
The Bill is in CA, written and passed by Ca elected officials. Of course it only applies to California. No one is saying other wise.
The context is California, and it even says it in the bill.
Froms the Bill:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Why would you think they are trying to apply it anywhere else?
Let me help you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB568
really? you can go back 5 years and have them remove all the data ?
I don't think so.
Anyways, even of they do, this means they will have to continue to do so and will mean other countries will as well.
" If the feds can control what you grow on your own land for consumption by your own family"
You will note all fed drug busts involve movement of the drug over state lines, or the movement of money in a transaction to buy drugs over state lines.
As far as anything else, you can grow what to want as long as it's not impacting people not on your property and you are using it your self.
If you are transporting food, or selling food across state lines then the feds can regulate it.
Are you that clueless? Even in the summary, it mentions companies..all of whom are in California. So the law isn't bogus becasue it applies to California.
You're so busy with your knee jerk reactions you forgot to think. Please take time to think.
If the person in Poughkeepsie stores the data of the website in California, then what?
Society still hasn't dealt with that issue.
Ah, you don't like TV; therefore you assume the thing you so like are better.
well done.
I'm far, far from being a teen, and likely over twice you age.*
Like his shows, and I think he's a good presenter in that he makes t seem anyone can go into the sciences. Which is true, but often sidelined by social perceptions.
*I point that out so show I"m not a teen, or young. Not to make it seem like my age, in and of itself, should lend any weight to my argument
"If you think it's such good value, then why not give people the choice about funding it rather than forcing everyone?"
Because some thing provide a societal good. The value makes spreading the cost out worth while.
There are economic tomes written on the subject. Tons of data.
Once you add advertising, YOU are no longer the customer., You are the products and you will only get to see what advertisers approve of. Having a non advertise based media stream is extremely valuable.
I wish the US had a BBC equivalent.
Actually, it sets off loud ignorant people with nothing better to do then scream about how 'everyone' hates what science finds.
The politician reflect that.