It's not a sinister plot by the Evil Liberal Conspiracy, nor is it the result of some sinister plot by oil & coal companies. The simple truth is that nuclear plants are not economically viable without an enormous amount of financial assistance from the government. If oil & coal prices go up enough, eventually nuclear power plants will become economically viable, but right now they're not.
...unfortunately, what you're talking about is well beyond the technical expertise of a great many people. Most users don't know a monitor from a computer and they're expected to be tech cops for the movie/music/games industries?
Claiming to cure anything by doing an adjustment is exactly what chiropractic "medicine" is. Yes, they are good at helping with certain very specific back problems, but other than that the entire field is woo-woo.
When 90% of scientists from the related field and 90% of all scientists agree on something, we call that a "scientific consensus". When the "skeptics" can only counter the prevailing view with laughably bad "research" that hinges on "honest mistakes" like getting degrees and radians mixed up, it's hard to take the conspiracy theorists seriously.
How dare you question FOX News' journalistic integrity? You're just bashing them because they once argued in a court of law that it's OK for them to fire reporters for not lying. Waitaminnit....
Both the global warming conspiracy theorists and the Talking Snake Theory of Creation proponents have been borrowing tactics from the tobacco industry. They create a series of fake labs that churn out laughably bad "science papers" that are full of big words that fool none of the scientists but are more than enough to fool the average joe on the street. Funding for the labs, the research, and the "science publications" are hidden behind a series of shell companies. Then they have the usual blowhards in the media throwing tantrums about how the "real science" is being suppressed by a communist conspiracy.
Even if he is right, I would still rather go back to the way we were. Even if this made us more safe, it has made us less free. Both Democrats and especially Republicans have used 9/11 as an excuse to erode a lot of our rights and freedoms. I'll happily trade whatever measure of safety we got to get our freedom back. We've come to the point where people are seriously debating whether or not American citizens should be told of their Miranda rights.
...what's the point of having four color output if the input is still three colors? If the input isn't in four colors, then this is just a gimmick on par with Creative Labs' "24-bit sound".
So you want the Nannystate to fix this for you because you're too lazy to fix this yourself? Collectivist! We don't need your fascist-socialism here! Leave America if you hate it so much! [/sarcasm]
Actually, I'm a liberal, although in this case, I don't think we need any draconian laws or oversized bureaucracies to deal with this issue. Why? Because even though it would cost ISPs money to address this issue, infected computers on their network costs them money in the form of more traffic (they gotta pay for the pipes to the backbone after all). They therefore have a financial motive for dealing with their customers' infected computers, and some ISPs have in fact taken it upon themselves to warn users that they suspect have compromised computers. All on their own.
So I think it would only take a little nudge from the government to encourage the other ISPs to start doing something similar. Just stress to them that the extra traffic from infected computers is probably costing them money.
So if a manufacturer of food products starts inadvertently poisoning its customers, we are only allowed to complain about it if we don't eat? How can anyone refute logic like that?
...it is entirely possible that Twilight is not crap and that slashdotters don't like it because the target audience is teenage girls, a demographic largely missing from this group.
Mind you, I said possible. I have not read the books nor seen the movies, but based on what I've read it probably is crap. I just brought this up to mention that there might be other considerations at play here. You made it sound like anything not liked by us must be of low quality, and that simply isn't true.
...and frankly it floors me. How can a company be advanced enough to build equipment like that, but not advanced enough to allow for a more modern means of storing data on an external device?
Price plays a factor too, and the truth is, the cheapest foods are often very bad for you. Try feeding yourself on $100/month/person and see what kind of crap you end up eating. Going after the toys misses the fundamental problem entirely. Give some kind of tax break/subsidy to places that sell items with lots of raw produce instead.
I am not fine with copyrights extending past the life of the creator. I also think copyrights should belong solely to the creator(s) and be non-transferable. Big content corporations can still make money without holding the copyrights themselves.
You mean like Ross McKitrick? Or do you perhaps mean one of the guys who actually manages to be less qualified, less prominent, and less competent than even McKitrick?
I don't have any opinion on the relationship between cell phone use and health. None. However, the more information the better, particularly in a field as fuzzy and complicated as health. Given how new cell phones are, I would be very much surprised if there was already enough research to consider the matter settled.
Surely, if there is a correlation between cell phone use and this or that health problem, the effect is rather small. Otherwise, as others have noted, we would have already noticed the effect without the assistance of detailed research and statistical analysis. If a problem is found, hopefully sufficiently detailed research will help cell phone manufacturers make cell phones that minimize or even eliminate the effect.
I don't think they care much about stockholders either. Just look at some of the scams over the last decade of executives screwing over stockholders with faked accounting/audits.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a sinister plot by the Evil Liberal Conspiracy, nor is it the result of some sinister plot by oil & coal companies. The simple truth is that nuclear plants are not economically viable without an enormous amount of financial assistance from the government. If oil & coal prices go up enough, eventually nuclear power plants will become economically viable, but right now they're not.
...unfortunately, what you're talking about is well beyond the technical expertise of a great many people. Most users don't know a monitor from a computer and they're expected to be tech cops for the movie/music/games industries?
Thanks for making me laugh.
Claiming to cure anything by doing an adjustment is exactly what chiropractic "medicine" is. Yes, they are good at helping with certain very specific back problems, but other than that the entire field is woo-woo.
When 90% of scientists from the related field and 90% of all scientists agree on something, we call that a "scientific consensus". When the "skeptics" can only counter the prevailing view with laughably bad "research" that hinges on "honest mistakes" like getting degrees and radians mixed up, it's hard to take the conspiracy theorists seriously.
Obviously, you have been duped by the Vast International Conspiracy to Make American Conservatives Feel Bad!
How dare you question FOX News' journalistic integrity? You're just bashing them because they once argued in a court of law that it's OK for them to fire reporters for not lying. Waitaminnit....
Both the global warming conspiracy theorists and the Talking Snake Theory of Creation proponents have been borrowing tactics from the tobacco industry. They create a series of fake labs that churn out laughably bad "science papers" that are full of big words that fool none of the scientists but are more than enough to fool the average joe on the street. Funding for the labs, the research, and the "science publications" are hidden behind a series of shell companies. Then they have the usual blowhards in the media throwing tantrums about how the "real science" is being suppressed by a communist conspiracy.
Even if he is right, I would still rather go back to the way we were. Even if this made us more safe, it has made us less free. Both Democrats and especially Republicans have used 9/11 as an excuse to erode a lot of our rights and freedoms. I'll happily trade whatever measure of safety we got to get our freedom back. We've come to the point where people are seriously debating whether or not American citizens should be told of their Miranda rights.
...what's the point of having four color output if the input is still three colors? If the input isn't in four colors, then this is just a gimmick on par with Creative Labs' "24-bit sound".
And if so, won't this mess with the water supply that nearly all land-based life depends on?
So you want the Nannystate to fix this for you because you're too lazy to fix this yourself? Collectivist! We don't need your fascist-socialism here! Leave America if you hate it so much! [/sarcasm]
Actually, I'm a liberal, although in this case, I don't think we need any draconian laws or oversized bureaucracies to deal with this issue. Why? Because even though it would cost ISPs money to address this issue, infected computers on their network costs them money in the form of more traffic (they gotta pay for the pipes to the backbone after all). They therefore have a financial motive for dealing with their customers' infected computers, and some ISPs have in fact taken it upon themselves to warn users that they suspect have compromised computers. All on their own.
So I think it would only take a little nudge from the government to encourage the other ISPs to start doing something similar. Just stress to them that the extra traffic from infected computers is probably costing them money.
So if a manufacturer of food products starts inadvertently poisoning its customers, we are only allowed to complain about it if we don't eat? How can anyone refute logic like that?
...it is entirely possible that Twilight is not crap and that slashdotters don't like it because the target audience is teenage girls, a demographic largely missing from this group.
Mind you, I said possible. I have not read the books nor seen the movies, but based on what I've read it probably is crap. I just brought this up to mention that there might be other considerations at play here. You made it sound like anything not liked by us must be of low quality, and that simply isn't true.
Just curious.
...and frankly it floors me. How can a company be advanced enough to build equipment like that, but not advanced enough to allow for a more modern means of storing data on an external device?
Price plays a factor too, and the truth is, the cheapest foods are often very bad for you. Try feeding yourself on $100/month/person and see what kind of crap you end up eating. Going after the toys misses the fundamental problem entirely. Give some kind of tax break/subsidy to places that sell items with lots of raw produce instead.
I am not fine with copyrights extending past the life of the creator. I also think copyrights should belong solely to the creator(s) and be non-transferable. Big content corporations can still make money without holding the copyrights themselves.
The worst kind of evil is having the power to stop evil, but doing nothing about it
Looking at it from that angle, the Catholic church is merely imitating God. A certain quote from Epicurus comes to mind.
I think it's safe to say they didn't have any exotic computer technology. Of course, hindsight is 20-20. ^.^
will probably find *NIX even more annoying.
I'm not saying *NIX isn't a great platform, but there are aspects of it that the average person would struggle with.
You mean like Ross McKitrick? Or do you perhaps mean one of the guys who actually manages to be less qualified, less prominent, and less competent than even McKitrick?
I don't have any opinion on the relationship between cell phone use and health. None. However, the more information the better, particularly in a field as fuzzy and complicated as health. Given how new cell phones are, I would be very much surprised if there was already enough research to consider the matter settled.
Surely, if there is a correlation between cell phone use and this or that health problem, the effect is rather small. Otherwise, as others have noted, we would have already noticed the effect without the assistance of detailed research and statistical analysis. If a problem is found, hopefully sufficiently detailed research will help cell phone manufacturers make cell phones that minimize or even eliminate the effect.
Well said.
I don't think they care much about stockholders either. Just look at some of the scams over the last decade of executives screwing over stockholders with faked accounting/audits.