So, how much of my taxpayer dollars were spent creating a computer that works about as well and reliably as a stoner highschool dropout? Shall we call it the Spicoli Chip? If you criticize it's answers, does it just take a solid hit off it's digital doobie and say to you "..that's just, like, your opinion, man"? Should we refer to this as 'Millennial processing'?
They have this at one of the gym locations I go to. There's always a puddle of water on the floor right below the thing.
Guess I'm bringing a hand towel with me from home from now on, in addtion to the gym towel I usually bring. It's got to be at least as 'green' to wash and re-use a hand towel as it is to use a blowing-air hand dryer.
Where's the petition to sign to send to this corporate asshat to tell him this is one of the stupidest ideas anyone has ever had? You want to drive people away from the movies? This sure as shit is one of the most effective ways to do that.
Have you seen a picture of Diane Feinstein? She was always a little scary looking, but now it's pretty obvious she's a scary-looking old biddy, who, as you say, doesn't understand what it is she's doing, or worse, does understand what she's doing, and will just try to ram it through, right down our throats, regardless. It's time she resigned, she's just thrashing around and doing damage to everyone around her now, like a sadly elderly person who insists on still driving their car even when it's clear they're no longer capable of doing so safely.
In 'a few decades' we either won't have movies at all anymore, or they'll find some way to erase people's memory of them, so they have to pay to see it again once the memory fades into nothingness. Given their druthers I'm sure they'd love something like that to improve their revenues.
Let's say I have an eidetic memory for all I see and hear. Is the MPAA justified in seeking a court order legally preventing me from ever going to a movie, because my brain retains a perfect copy of it, that I can replay in my mind any time I want, as many times as I want? Haha, I can even give my friends a complete recitation of every line in every movie I ever go to, and describe for them in exquisite detail every scene. Do they have me blinded and made deaf, so I don't 'steal' their IP? Or do they just have me killed outright, because I infringe on their copyright just by existing?
Basically, nobody knows a gods-be-damned thing. It's all a bunch of guesses, some of them more educated than others. Even 'calories in, calories out' and 'move more, eat less' gets disputed, because for some reason it doesn't seem to work 100% of the time for 100% of people (although I have my own personal suspicions about the 'why' of that, but I'll keep them to myself).
I actually read this news story elsewhere earlier today; it's worth noting that in the actual article, the results of this 'study' are disputed, it's claimed that it's a flawed study, etc. Which just reinforces the above: Nobody seems to 'know' anything, they're just making educated guesses.
Eat what seems to work best for you. Make the most informed, intelligent choices you can manage. Don't assume that just because someone is addressed as 'Doctor' that everything they're telling you is 100% correct or that it's the best advice you'll get; personally, if I'd've unquestioningly done everything that doctors told me to do over the course of my life, I'd still be grossly fat, weak, diseased, have all sorts of strange emotional problems, and be taking a bunch of expensive prescription pills every day that did next to nothing for me. Happy to report that I'm lean, strong, healthy, genuinely athletic, relatively happy and well-balanced, and generally in the top few percent health-wise of anybody in what is considered 'middle age'. Don't do what I do, though, just because I do it; decide for yourself what works best. Your mileage may vary.
Well the better alternative is for people to not be ignorant jackasses about things like this in the first place but we see that's a non-starter, so we're left with less than perfect solutions.
I'm sure the very vocal religious types in North Carolina, whether they ever say it out loud or not, likely espouse a general sentiment of 'God hates fags' and would just as soon they all dropped off the face of the Earth for good.
Here's what they ought to do: Pass a law that all public restrooms be single-user and unisex, with a lock on the door. That way it really doesn't matter which plumbing you were born with, or ended up with, nobody has to get all flustered and uncomfortable because of anyone else on either side of the equation. Of course this doesn't solve the problem of some people and their bigotry, but it at least gives them the finger.
We should wish we were far enough along in our space-based industry to have anything at all on Mercury. I'll consider it a real treat just to see Man go back to the Moon before I'm dead, at the rate things are going.
The only entity that should be able to compel them to disconnect any paying user, is a Judge, issuing a court order to do so, following a conviction for violating copyright law, or as part of a settlement after the end user is sued successfully in civil court -- which would still be a court order. Otherwise it just amounts to hearsay.
Friend, the real fun will begin, when people start to realize that the majority of their 4 or 5-digits' worth of 'friends' (with a small 'f', if you get my meaning) on Facebook, were just 'bots all along, and that there are (maybe!) 5 or 6 of them that were real people. Think Ashley Madison.
Well, see, it's like this: This guy, here gave me an appropriate, helpful answer to an earlier question, which I appreciated. In contrast to this is you, who gave an inappropriate, non-helpful comment, because apparently you're a jackass. Or are you not aware that you're being a jackass? Here's a suggestion for you: Have you ever tried not being a jackass? You might want to try it.
Ah. Well, not being someone with a Ph.D in physics, and certainly not quantum physics, there was no way I'd've known that, which is why I ask questions.;-) After all we're having a discussion here, right?;-) Always nice when I can learn something.
Sure, that's my whole point: At this point in time how can anyone have an accurate read on how much that could be developed by a focused, concerted effort?
They'd be better off building and situating the launching laser in orbit, or perhaps on the Moon, or perhaps out in one of Earths' L-points, where an atmosphere won't disperse the beam.. and while I'm thinking about it, why rely entirely on a launching laser? They could use a combination of solar sails and gravity assist from Sol, then supplement that with a launching laser.
Of course building a gigantic laser in orbit around the Earth, or on the Moon, or anywhere it could possibly be pointed back at the Earths' surface, isn't going to play well with just about any nation on Earth..
Um, small or not, have they considered how the craft is going to be shielded against collisions at that speed? Even something as small as a grain of sand at 0.2C packs quite a wallop. Also, is radiation an issue at that velocity?
They've supposedly been doing some interesting experiments with quantum entanglement, and as this is a totally privately-funded project, is it too outrageous to try to develop those experiments into an interstellar communications system?
TV is almost 100% reality garbage now because most people who still watch "regular" TV aren't all that swift, so the advertisers give them their junk food.
I guess you're still subscribing to cable or satellite TV then, with all those useless 'junk food' channels that have nothing but the garbage you allude to. I stopped paying for cable TV years ago and have been on OTA broadcasts exclusively (I don't stream anything; no Hulu, Netflix, or anything I have to pay for) and my DVR almost always has more on it than I have time to watch during the week -- and none of it is 'reality' shows -- so again, I wonder what your entertainment source(s) are, that all you're saying you see is 'reality shows'.
my impression of the Twitterverse & Facebook is that they're 90% "look at me!"
I'd say it's probably more like 95% or more, really. All so-called 'social media', going back to before Myspace, probably before AOL (I never used AOL) and very possibly even before the general public had access to the Internet (I'm talking about the dialup BBS days, now) has largely been about 'LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!'.
Saying that 'Twitter and Facebook must be what all people want' is like saying that so many of these political polls (or Primary election results) are really representative of what all citizens want: It's only really reppresentative of what the people who are showing up (at Twitter or Facebook, or at the polls) want. There are plenty of people who are disaffected of Twitter and Facebook (and so-called 'social media' in general) and therefore they just don't participate; how do you count them, then? Also, as TFA alludes to, if Twitter and Facebook are all there really is, how many people who are participating in those are doing so only because there really isn't anything else? Of course there are those of us for which there is no 'social media' that will satisfy us because we think the whole concept is whack to start with; how are they counting us?
Slashdot Mirror
So, how much of my taxpayer dollars were spent creating a computer that works about as well and reliably as a stoner highschool dropout? Shall we call it the Spicoli Chip? If you criticize it's answers, does it just take a solid hit off it's digital doobie and say to you "..that's just, like, your opinion, man"? Should we refer to this as 'Millennial processing'?
They have this at one of the gym locations I go to. There's always a puddle of water on the floor right below the thing.
Guess I'm bringing a hand towel with me from home from now on, in addtion to the gym towel I usually bring. It's got to be at least as 'green' to wash and re-use a hand towel as it is to use a blowing-air hand dryer.
Where's the petition to sign to send to this corporate asshat to tell him this is one of the stupidest ideas anyone has ever had? You want to drive people away from the movies? This sure as shit is one of the most effective ways to do that.
Have you seen a picture of Diane Feinstein? She was always a little scary looking, but now it's pretty obvious she's a scary-looking old biddy, who, as you say, doesn't understand what it is she's doing, or worse, does understand what she's doing, and will just try to ram it through, right down our throats, regardless. It's time she resigned, she's just thrashing around and doing damage to everyone around her now, like a sadly elderly person who insists on still driving their car even when it's clear they're no longer capable of doing so safely.
In 'a few decades' we either won't have movies at all anymore, or they'll find some way to erase people's memory of them, so they have to pay to see it again once the memory fades into nothingness. Given their druthers I'm sure they'd love something like that to improve their revenues.
Let's say I have an eidetic memory for all I see and hear. Is the MPAA justified in seeking a court order legally preventing me from ever going to a movie, because my brain retains a perfect copy of it, that I can replay in my mind any time I want, as many times as I want? Haha, I can even give my friends a complete recitation of every line in every movie I ever go to, and describe for them in exquisite detail every scene. Do they have me blinded and made deaf, so I don't 'steal' their IP? Or do they just have me killed outright, because I infringe on their copyright just by existing?
What Scott Adams said.
Basically, nobody knows a gods-be-damned thing. It's all a bunch of guesses, some of them more educated than others. Even 'calories in, calories out' and 'move more, eat less' gets disputed, because for some reason it doesn't seem to work 100% of the time for 100% of people (although I have my own personal suspicions about the 'why' of that, but I'll keep them to myself).
I actually read this news story elsewhere earlier today; it's worth noting that in the actual article, the results of this 'study' are disputed, it's claimed that it's a flawed study, etc. Which just reinforces the above: Nobody seems to 'know' anything, they're just making educated guesses.
Eat what seems to work best for you. Make the most informed, intelligent choices you can manage. Don't assume that just because someone is addressed as 'Doctor' that everything they're telling you is 100% correct or that it's the best advice you'll get; personally, if I'd've unquestioningly done everything that doctors told me to do over the course of my life, I'd still be grossly fat, weak, diseased, have all sorts of strange emotional problems, and be taking a bunch of expensive prescription pills every day that did next to nothing for me. Happy to report that I'm lean, strong, healthy, genuinely athletic, relatively happy and well-balanced, and generally in the top few percent health-wise of anybody in what is considered 'middle age'. Don't do what I do, though, just because I do it; decide for yourself what works best. Your mileage may vary.
Oh my, I see the ignorant bigots of Slashdot have decided to use their moderation points. What's the matter, truth hurt too much?
Well the better alternative is for people to not be ignorant jackasses about things like this in the first place but we see that's a non-starter, so we're left with less than perfect solutions.
I'm sure the very vocal religious types in North Carolina, whether they ever say it out loud or not, likely espouse a general sentiment of 'God hates fags' and would just as soon they all dropped off the face of the Earth for good.
Here's what they ought to do: Pass a law that all public restrooms be single-user and unisex, with a lock on the door. That way it really doesn't matter which plumbing you were born with, or ended up with, nobody has to get all flustered and uncomfortable because of anyone else on either side of the equation. Of course this doesn't solve the problem of some people and their bigotry, but it at least gives them the finger.
We should wish we were far enough along in our space-based industry to have anything at all on Mercury. I'll consider it a real treat just to see Man go back to the Moon before I'm dead, at the rate things are going.
Yeah, well, those probes are not travelling at 1.341e+8 miles per hour, either.
The only entity that should be able to compel them to disconnect any paying user, is a Judge, issuing a court order to do so, following a conviction for violating copyright law, or as part of a settlement after the end user is sued successfully in civil court -- which would still be a court order. Otherwise it just amounts to hearsay.
Friend, the real fun will begin, when people start to realize that the majority of their 4 or 5-digits' worth of 'friends' (with a small 'f', if you get my meaning) on Facebook, were just 'bots all along, and that there are (maybe!) 5 or 6 of them that were real people. Think Ashley Madison.
Am I the only one that thinks these will just end up being used to send Messenger SPAM to people on Facebook?
Well, see, it's like this:
This guy, here gave me an appropriate, helpful answer to an earlier question, which I appreciated. In contrast to this is you, who gave an inappropriate, non-helpful comment, because apparently you're a jackass. Or are you not aware that you're being a jackass? Here's a suggestion for you: Have you ever tried not being a jackass? You might want to try it.
Ah. Well, not being someone with a Ph.D in physics, and certainly not quantum physics, there was no way I'd've known that, which is why I ask questions. ;-) After all we're having a discussion here, right? ;-) Always nice when I can learn something.
They'll probably use force fields and/or deflector shields.
Oh come on, I'm being serious here, this is not a Star Trek fan forum we're commenting in.
..at least an not currently understood.
Sure, that's my whole point: At this point in time how can anyone have an accurate read on how much that could be developed by a focused, concerted effort?
They'd be better off building and situating the launching laser in orbit, or perhaps on the Moon, or perhaps out in one of Earths' L-points, where an atmosphere won't disperse the beam.. and while I'm thinking about it, why rely entirely on a launching laser? They could use a combination of solar sails and gravity assist from Sol, then supplement that with a launching laser.
Of course building a gigantic laser in orbit around the Earth, or on the Moon, or anywhere it could possibly be pointed back at the Earths' surface, isn't going to play well with just about any nation on Earth..
Um, small or not, have they considered how the craft is going to be shielded against collisions at that speed? Even something as small as a grain of sand at 0.2C packs quite a wallop. Also, is radiation an issue at that velocity?
They've supposedly been doing some interesting experiments with quantum entanglement, and as this is a totally privately-funded project, is it too outrageous to try to develop those experiments into an interstellar communications system?
TV is almost 100% reality garbage now because most people who still watch "regular" TV aren't all that swift, so the advertisers give them their junk food.
I guess you're still subscribing to cable or satellite TV then, with all those useless 'junk food' channels that have nothing but the garbage you allude to. I stopped paying for cable TV years ago and have been on OTA broadcasts exclusively (I don't stream anything; no Hulu, Netflix, or anything I have to pay for) and my DVR almost always has more on it than I have time to watch during the week -- and none of it is 'reality' shows -- so again, I wonder what your entertainment source(s) are, that all you're saying you see is 'reality shows'.
my impression of the Twitterverse & Facebook is that they're 90% "look at me!"
I'd say it's probably more like 95% or more, really. All so-called 'social media', going back to before Myspace, probably before AOL (I never used AOL) and very possibly even before the general public had access to the Internet (I'm talking about the dialup BBS days, now) has largely been about 'LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!'.
Saying that 'Twitter and Facebook must be what all people want' is like saying that so many of these political polls (or Primary election results) are really representative of what all citizens want: It's only really reppresentative of what the people who are showing up (at Twitter or Facebook, or at the polls) want. There are plenty of people who are disaffected of Twitter and Facebook (and so-called 'social media' in general) and therefore they just don't participate; how do you count them, then? Also, as TFA alludes to, if Twitter and Facebook are all there really is, how many people who are participating in those are doing so only because there really isn't anything else? Of course there are those of us for which there is no 'social media' that will satisfy us because we think the whole concept is whack to start with; how are they counting us?