The few that I checked out, were all clarifying legitimate typos.
Looks like there are several of those. But then there's the one about a radio host saying he's a disinformation agent of the Kremlin. Or the tea bagger that had a paragraph added with wording that sounds like it's from a campaign pamphlet (rather than facts about what his platforms are).
The possibility of it collapsing is probably more of a concern than "chemicals." (FYI water is a chemical, and concrete generally contains water, so I guess they're screwed).
What happened to listening to your customers? To providing options? Historically MS has always been all about that, and *Apple* has been the "our way, or the highway" company. It was really strange to see things reversed for Windows 8.
The big difference being that, at least when Jobs was around, Jobs was almost always right about what a vast majority of the users actually wanted vs what they said they wanted. Yes, I know you want to say how much it sucked, but that's why I said a vast majority of users, certainly not all users. MS, OTOH, has generally gone for what users say they want rather than what they really want (anybody who has developed software for non-techy customers knows what I mean). They tried it Apple's way for Windows 8, but apparently they didn't have anybody pragmatic enough to understand real-life users.
In other words, users said they wanted A, but Jobs knew they'd like B better. He made B, and 90% of them loved it. MS users said that wanted C, MS thought they'd like D better, they made D, and 90% of them hated it. The right answer for MS is probably not C or D, so they need to find the value of E.
Note the bit about probable cause and due process (which means getting a proper warrant supported by an affidavit). I was looking for the part that said "except where such person is suspected of terrorism," but just couldn't find it. And even if it was there, 19,000 terrorists, holy shit we're all DOOMED!!!!
It's like trusting a proctologist to give you brain surgery
No, it's not. If we were talking about general chemistry, then it's like getting medical advice about the brain from a proctologist vs. somebody who took biology 101 in college. The proctologist still went to medical school and completed a residency which included a neurology rotation. However, in this case, these astronomers specialize in determining the composition of ginormous things, so it's pretty safe to assume that they're a bit more informed in that area than a typical physics major, and especially more than some anonymous coward that likely only took high school chemistry and physics (and maybe read a couple of Wikipedia pages) or at best a few classes of chemistry and/or physics in college.
Yes, I know, I took the bait and I'm feeding the troll.
and now they've shown you can run 50% of an industrial economy off the power of the sun
Wow, just wow. I've seen plenty of comments on/. modded insightful that were in clear conflict with the article, but this one takes the cake! I mean, at least read the last word of the damn headline. Then you could even try reading the summary. I know your reading comprehension skills are lacking, but you could even try reading the article! Also note that only about 5% of Germany's total annual power generation was from solar. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for solar, the problem is that most of the nuclear wasn't replaced by solar, it was replaced by coal, as numerous other commenters have pointed out.
When there is an amendment that prohibits the ACTION
There is. Specifically, the 4th one. It's the executive branch that's tasked with enforcement, but since they're the ones violating it congress really only has 2 ways to enforce it: Cut funding or impeach the president*.
*In the last 150 years, presidential impeachment only comes from getting a blowjob, not from committing crimes or blatant constitutional violations. In order for the president to be impeached, James Clapper would have to say he gave a blowjob to the president. Since that's unlikely to happen, funding is the only other avenue.
I *want* the authorities, with proper warrant, to be able to access any digital/analog communication
if you were the victim you'd expect it
Emphasis mine. That's really the key, isn't it...proper warrant? Having a proper warrant also means they have to show probable cause. This law is about defunding warrantless wiretapping. But, like was pointed out, it doesn't name the FBI. Did you know that the FBI is officially no longer a law enforcement agency, but is instead now an anti-terror agency? This pretty much means that the FBI can use it as an excuse to be the ones doing domestic warrantless wiretapping. However, even though this law may just shuffle things around (even if it miraculously passes the senate), I see it as a Very Good Thing because it's a step in the right direction: Pushing back against blatant constitutional violations.
Consider yourself lucky. A lot of people in a lot of areas don't get anywhere near that, especially at peak times. Where I used to live, I only had cable available and during peak times I was lucky to be able to stream Netflix. Speeds were all over the place, but usually between 2Mbps and 10Mbps (when I was lucky) and only a few times above that (I was paying for 50Mbps). I actually called them once hoping that there was something wrong with the connection, their techs came out and did some tests and confirmed everything was "normal." I moved across town, I now have DSL available. I only have a 15Mbps connection, but I actually get 15Mbps consistently, so I consider myself lucky!
Basically, if you claim that anything other than simple biology was at work in creating animals, then you lose your funding (and possibly right to call yourselves a school).
No, only if you make it those claims (because they violate the scientific method) in a class that you label as "science." Nothing is preventing a school from teaching it in a class labeled as "theology." The point is to be clear that one idea is based on evidence backed up using the scientific method ("science"), while the other is based on belief without evidence and/or despite evidence to the contrary ("faith" or "theology"), or with supposed evidence that cannot be validated using the scientific method (pseudoscience).
“This decision is a step forward for Indian Country & for all Americans who champion tolerance.”
Since when does tolerance == anti-bigotry? It seems to me like they're not being very tolerant of bigotry. Has this now become one of those words that doesn't really mean what it really means, like "organic" or "chemical?" I mean, I'm pretty tolerant of people of different races, sexual orientations, nationalities, etc, but I'm intolerant of bigots, assholes, idiots, liars, people driving slow in the left lane, and a variety of others. So, I don't consider myself tolerant, but I do consider myself to be anti-bigotry, and I'm having a bit of a tough time reconciling these terms.
That's why he used the term effective monopoly. A vast majority of people wanting to watch music videos will only look on Youtube. If they don't find it there in a few seconds, they'll move on to the next one they think of, or just casually follow links from one to the next.
And you do it all in the name of saving $0.10 on a box of cereal.
First of all, the savings can be pretty significant if you shop smart. The thing is, before "loyalty cards," they were simply called "sale items" and had the same discounts. Nowadays though, they don't have to have a loyalty card to track you. They can track you by your credit/debit card. For example, Lowe's recently created the "My Lowe's" card, which doesn't give you any discounts but the supposed benefit is if you lose your receipt you can still return stuff. The thing is...even if you don't use your My Lowe's card, you can return stuff without a receipt because they can look it up based on your credit card number that you used to purchase the item. That shows that they're tracking your purchases even without a loyalty card. Wal-Mart doesn't have Loyalty cards, but you can bet your ass they're still tracking your purchases.
More importantly, even though these companies may be evil, they are not bound by the 4th amendment and their stated purpose is to make a profit for the benefit of their shareholders. The government, on the other hand, is bound by the constitution (even though they ignore it), and their stated purpose is for the people (even though it's now to benefit the profits of politicians' campaign contributors).
Umm, fat's dont convert to body fat very well. The blood transfers the energy for cell building as sugars, not fats, thus cheap refined carbs and sugars are the culprits, they convert very efficiently into blood sugars.
It's also about overall calories. Foods that are fattier tend to contain more calories. So for many "processed"* (stupid hippy term, but you know what I mean) foods, the fat increases their calories significantly, and the sugars and salt make people crave more without feeling full.
My employer won't hire a person with an online degree. They are open to fraud by people paying someone for college papers and taking tests.
Sorry, but that's just stupid. Yes, possession of any degree by itself certainly shouldn't be a sole decision making factor in choosing to hire somebody, and I would certainly be more suspicious of an online degree, although that would also depend on what institution the degree is from and what the degree is in. Of course, if the online degree was from some bogus institution that's not properly accredited, then I don't consider that a degree, I consider that fraud, but we're talking about a degree from ASU here, not the Babylonian Online College of Bullshittery. I've also dealt with people with brick-and-mortor degrees that were completely incompetent too. That's what the rest of the resume and in particular the interview is for, so you can figure out if they're legit or not.
Your employer could be missing out on some really intelligent people who might be a great fit for the company. There are lots of reasons to get an online degree vs. brick-and-motor, for example, if you don't want or can't afford to quit your existing job, if you have young kids, etc.
Perhaps instead of having blanket disqualifications like that, your employer should work on their interviewing skills. There might even be some online classes they could take for that.
Just tossing out a stray thought, but how much value would there be in having maybe one person at a Starbucks with some sort of culinary arts education/training? I'm sure it wouldn't be much, but it was an interesting thought I had.
Value? None. It breaks the Starbucks model. Starbucks is really just a fast-food place like McDonald's, the employees at their locations are not chefs and don't come up with the recipes. They are not supposed to make culinary decisions, they follow a specific set of procedures, and although those procedures may be more complex and require more skill than at other fast-food restaurants, they are still a set of procedures that somebody else came up with.
I see him having two options; 1) comply and take down all the advertising plus put up a clear disclaimer that he's not affiliated with IKEA or 2) radically change the site to remove all mention of IKEA and their trademarks.
It seems nuts that he should have to change the domain or remove advertising (not that I'm a fan of advertising, but it's not my site), when the whole point about this Trademark protection is brand confusion. The C&D letter is not a court order, the real problem is that this guy doesn't have a dedicated team of lawyers to fight it if it does go further. Or, can somebody with actual Trademark law knowledge explain to me what's different about this guy's site compared to other fan sites for other companies?
How about option 3: 3) Keep the advertising, keep the mention of IKEA products, but make sure the design of the site and logo don't look just like IKEA's, and put up a statement that makes it clear.
There are plenty of fan sites for various other things that use the name of the thing they're a fan of and have advertising, but which nobody would be stupid enough to confuse with the actual thing's site. For example, I have a Nissan Xterra. I sometimes visit the forums on xterraownersclub.com. I'm pretty sure I've seen advertising there. The site actually uses the same colors as nissanusa.com (black and red, although it might be a darker red), however the design is different, and the site's logo looks nothing like Nissan's logo.
Why should this guy have to remove advertising, and why shouldn't he be able to use IKEA's name in that context? The problem comes if his logo and site look just like IKEA's. Frankly, unless he's already changed it, his logo looks nothing like IKEA's. However, if that isn't good enough for IKEA, I doubt he'd have a problem putting a little disclaimer right below the logo along the lines of "This site is not affiliated with Inter IKEA Systems B.V. IKEA is a trademark of Inter IKEA Systems B.V." I doubt IKEA had to make him remove advertising in order to protect their trademark.
Slashdot Mirror
The few that I checked out, were all clarifying legitimate typos.
Looks like there are several of those. But then there's the one about a radio host saying he's a disinformation agent of the Kremlin. Or the tea bagger that had a paragraph added with wording that sounds like it's from a campaign pamphlet (rather than facts about what his platforms are).
The possibility of it collapsing is probably more of a concern than "chemicals." (FYI water is a chemical, and concrete generally contains water, so I guess they're screwed).
The deal will indeed be scrutinized by federal officials, to ensure that campaign contributions are large enough.
What happened to listening to your customers? To providing options? Historically MS has always been all about that, and *Apple* has been the "our way, or the highway" company. It was really strange to see things reversed for Windows 8.
The big difference being that, at least when Jobs was around, Jobs was almost always right about what a vast majority of the users actually wanted vs what they said they wanted. Yes, I know you want to say how much it sucked, but that's why I said a vast majority of users, certainly not all users. MS, OTOH, has generally gone for what users say they want rather than what they really want (anybody who has developed software for non-techy customers knows what I mean). They tried it Apple's way for Windows 8, but apparently they didn't have anybody pragmatic enough to understand real-life users.
In other words, users said they wanted A, but Jobs knew they'd like B better. He made B, and 90% of them loved it. MS users said that wanted C, MS thought they'd like D better, they made D, and 90% of them hated it. The right answer for MS is probably not C or D, so they need to find the value of E.
NSLs should be made illegal
They already are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Note the bit about probable cause and due process (which means getting a proper warrant supported by an affidavit). I was looking for the part that said "except where such person is suspected of terrorism," but just couldn't find it. And even if it was there, 19,000 terrorists, holy shit we're all DOOMED!!!!
It's like trusting a proctologist to give you brain surgery
No, it's not. If we were talking about general chemistry, then it's like getting medical advice about the brain from a proctologist vs. somebody who took biology 101 in college. The proctologist still went to medical school and completed a residency which included a neurology rotation. However, in this case, these astronomers specialize in determining the composition of ginormous things, so it's pretty safe to assume that they're a bit more informed in that area than a typical physics major, and especially more than some anonymous coward that likely only took high school chemistry and physics (and maybe read a couple of Wikipedia pages) or at best a few classes of chemistry and/or physics in college.
Yes, I know, I took the bait and I'm feeding the troll.
FTA:
Astronomers believe that such a cool, collapsed star would be largely crystallized carbon, not unlike a diamond.
But I'm sure you know more about it than these folks with PhDs in astronomy.
and now they've shown you can run 50% of an industrial economy off the power of the sun
Wow, just wow. I've seen plenty of comments on /. modded insightful that were in clear conflict with the article, but this one takes the cake! I mean, at least read the last word of the damn headline. Then you could even try reading the summary. I know your reading comprehension skills are lacking, but you could even try reading the article! Also note that only about 5% of Germany's total annual power generation was from solar. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for solar, the problem is that most of the nuclear wasn't replaced by solar, it was replaced by coal, as numerous other commenters have pointed out.
When there is an amendment that prohibits the ACTION
There is. Specifically, the 4th one. It's the executive branch that's tasked with enforcement, but since they're the ones violating it congress really only has 2 ways to enforce it: Cut funding or impeach the president*.
*In the last 150 years, presidential impeachment only comes from getting a blowjob, not from committing crimes or blatant constitutional violations. In order for the president to be impeached, James Clapper would have to say he gave a blowjob to the president. Since that's unlikely to happen, funding is the only other avenue.
I *want* the authorities, with proper warrant, to be able to access any digital/analog communication
if you were the victim you'd expect it
Emphasis mine. That's really the key, isn't it...proper warrant? Having a proper warrant also means they have to show probable cause. This law is about defunding warrantless wiretapping. But, like was pointed out, it doesn't name the FBI. Did you know that the FBI is officially no longer a law enforcement agency, but is instead now an anti-terror agency? This pretty much means that the FBI can use it as an excuse to be the ones doing domestic warrantless wiretapping. However, even though this law may just shuffle things around (even if it miraculously passes the senate), I see it as a Very Good Thing because it's a step in the right direction: Pushing back against blatant constitutional violations.
Any large company with knowledge of how to do business in America would have known to invest a little in lobbying and campaign contributions.
I actually get average of 20Mbps down/2mbps
Consider yourself lucky. A lot of people in a lot of areas don't get anywhere near that, especially at peak times. Where I used to live, I only had cable available and during peak times I was lucky to be able to stream Netflix. Speeds were all over the place, but usually between 2Mbps and 10Mbps (when I was lucky) and only a few times above that (I was paying for 50Mbps). I actually called them once hoping that there was something wrong with the connection, their techs came out and did some tests and confirmed everything was "normal." I moved across town, I now have DSL available. I only have a 15Mbps connection, but I actually get 15Mbps consistently, so I consider myself lucky!
Basically, if you claim that anything other than simple biology was at work in creating animals, then you lose your funding (and possibly right to call yourselves a school).
No, only if you make it those claims (because they violate the scientific method) in a class that you label as "science." Nothing is preventing a school from teaching it in a class labeled as "theology." The point is to be clear that one idea is based on evidence backed up using the scientific method ("science"), while the other is based on belief without evidence and/or despite evidence to the contrary ("faith" or "theology"), or with supposed evidence that cannot be validated using the scientific method (pseudoscience).
“This decision is a step forward for Indian Country & for all Americans who champion tolerance.”
Since when does tolerance == anti-bigotry? It seems to me like they're not being very tolerant of bigotry. Has this now become one of those words that doesn't really mean what it really means, like "organic" or "chemical?" I mean, I'm pretty tolerant of people of different races, sexual orientations, nationalities, etc, but I'm intolerant of bigots, assholes, idiots, liars, people driving slow in the left lane, and a variety of others. So, I don't consider myself tolerant, but I do consider myself to be anti-bigotry, and I'm having a bit of a tough time reconciling these terms.
For many people, the limit on the size of their solar array is the size of their roof.
But for most people, the limit on the size of their solar array is the size of their budget.
Vimeo? Your mp4 or mpeg2 on any website?
That's why he used the term effective monopoly. A vast majority of people wanting to watch music videos will only look on Youtube. If they don't find it there in a few seconds, they'll move on to the next one they think of, or just casually follow links from one to the next.
And you do it all in the name of saving $0.10 on a box of cereal.
First of all, the savings can be pretty significant if you shop smart. The thing is, before "loyalty cards," they were simply called "sale items" and had the same discounts. Nowadays though, they don't have to have a loyalty card to track you. They can track you by your credit/debit card. For example, Lowe's recently created the "My Lowe's" card, which doesn't give you any discounts but the supposed benefit is if you lose your receipt you can still return stuff. The thing is...even if you don't use your My Lowe's card, you can return stuff without a receipt because they can look it up based on your credit card number that you used to purchase the item. That shows that they're tracking your purchases even without a loyalty card. Wal-Mart doesn't have Loyalty cards, but you can bet your ass they're still tracking your purchases.
More importantly, even though these companies may be evil, they are not bound by the 4th amendment and their stated purpose is to make a profit for the benefit of their shareholders. The government, on the other hand, is bound by the constitution (even though they ignore it), and their stated purpose is for the people (even though it's now to benefit the profits of politicians' campaign contributors).
Umm, fat's dont convert to body fat very well. The blood transfers the energy for cell building as sugars, not fats, thus cheap refined carbs and sugars are the culprits, they convert very efficiently into blood sugars.
It's also about overall calories. Foods that are fattier tend to contain more calories. So for many "processed"* (stupid hippy term, but you know what I mean) foods, the fat increases their calories significantly, and the sugars and salt make people crave more without feeling full.
Really? What's the positive argument for global warming?
$$$$$
Cool, so I can blow through my 2GB in a matter of seconds!
My employer won't hire a person with an online degree. They are open to fraud by people paying someone for college papers and taking tests.
Sorry, but that's just stupid. Yes, possession of any degree by itself certainly shouldn't be a sole decision making factor in choosing to hire somebody, and I would certainly be more suspicious of an online degree, although that would also depend on what institution the degree is from and what the degree is in. Of course, if the online degree was from some bogus institution that's not properly accredited, then I don't consider that a degree, I consider that fraud, but we're talking about a degree from ASU here, not the Babylonian Online College of Bullshittery. I've also dealt with people with brick-and-mortor degrees that were completely incompetent too. That's what the rest of the resume and in particular the interview is for, so you can figure out if they're legit or not.
Your employer could be missing out on some really intelligent people who might be a great fit for the company. There are lots of reasons to get an online degree vs. brick-and-motor, for example, if you don't want or can't afford to quit your existing job, if you have young kids, etc.
Perhaps instead of having blanket disqualifications like that, your employer should work on their interviewing skills. There might even be some online classes they could take for that.
Just tossing out a stray thought, but how much value would there be in having maybe one person at a Starbucks with some sort of culinary arts education/training? I'm sure it wouldn't be much, but it was an interesting thought I had.
Value? None. It breaks the Starbucks model. Starbucks is really just a fast-food place like McDonald's, the employees at their locations are not chefs and don't come up with the recipes. They are not supposed to make culinary decisions, they follow a specific set of procedures, and although those procedures may be more complex and require more skill than at other fast-food restaurants, they are still a set of procedures that somebody else came up with.
I see him having two options; 1) comply and take down all the advertising plus put up a clear disclaimer that he's not affiliated with IKEA or 2) radically change the site to remove all mention of IKEA and their trademarks.
It seems nuts that he should have to change the domain or remove advertising (not that I'm a fan of advertising, but it's not my site), when the whole point about this Trademark protection is brand confusion. The C&D letter is not a court order, the real problem is that this guy doesn't have a dedicated team of lawyers to fight it if it does go further. Or, can somebody with actual Trademark law knowledge explain to me what's different about this guy's site compared to other fan sites for other companies?
How about option 3:
3) Keep the advertising, keep the mention of IKEA products, but make sure the design of the site and logo don't look just like IKEA's, and put up a statement that makes it clear.
There are plenty of fan sites for various other things that use the name of the thing they're a fan of and have advertising, but which nobody would be stupid enough to confuse with the actual thing's site. For example, I have a Nissan Xterra. I sometimes visit the forums on xterraownersclub.com. I'm pretty sure I've seen advertising there. The site actually uses the same colors as nissanusa.com (black and red, although it might be a darker red), however the design is different, and the site's logo looks nothing like Nissan's logo.
Why should this guy have to remove advertising, and why shouldn't he be able to use IKEA's name in that context? The problem comes if his logo and site look just like IKEA's. Frankly, unless he's already changed it, his logo looks nothing like IKEA's. However, if that isn't good enough for IKEA, I doubt he'd have a problem putting a little disclaimer right below the logo along the lines of "This site is not affiliated with Inter IKEA Systems B.V. IKEA is a trademark of Inter IKEA Systems B.V." I doubt IKEA had to make him remove advertising in order to protect their trademark.
the United States has some of the worst prices, service and competition with the...regulation that already exists
Then clearly, the answer is to completely deregulate! It's worked out quite well for [the CEOs in] other industries.
I sadly can't think of a better alternative, though.
For a start, how about calling "campaign contributions" what they really are, "bribes," and make it illegal.