Google just killed their competition instead of trying to develop something that is better then it. Basically they said "we can't or don't feel like being creative so we will buy something out and shut it down"...it fosters anti-competitive behavior...which is something MS gets slammed for all the time.
Now on a personal note if I knew how to program I would continuously make apps in the hope that a big company buys me out with tons of money. It's a great way to get rich. Then get hired by the company and make even more money. Nothing is wrong with this model.
So not evil in the way they treated the developer, but evil that they are preventing innovative competition.
Sounds like the same strategy some other big computer company would do and get flamed for it. As far as I am concerned as long as they are going to make an equal or better product I couldn't care less, but still Google is exerting it's influence, money and power to control the intarweb.
And with that, the troll/flame mods can post their displeasure for my anti-Google statement.
How do you buy games from Sony at a cost of $20? All of the sony games are in the 40-60 range. If you are talking about buying pre-owned games from places like craigslist, gamestop, etc then by not buying these games you are not really hurting Sony. Actually you are, in a marginal way. There are people who can't afford to buy new games all that often and they subsidize those new games by selling their used ones. If they can't sell their used ones they may not get a new game, or at least get it later - so yes that will hurt sony...but it would take a while and be marginal.
I no longer view the Olympics as an idealistic sporting event. I now view it as a viscous commercial enterprise that exploits the dreams of young athletes.
Except these exploited athletes become retardedly rich if they win. If they lose the olympic committee couldn't care less about who uses their names, but if they win the olympic committee starts to care. Look at Apollo ohno (sp) - after the last winter olympics he became a multi-millionaire, got invited to all the exclusive events (as in where hollywood type stars go to) and was living the life. That's not a bad deal. In fact, I would love to be exploited in that fashion.
Or what if I decide to go to my friends house and bring my PS3 game so I can play there? What now we won't be able to play? This isn't a hard concept - I play a game, then go to a friends house where we play it together.
The warranty item is also an issue if they don't manage it correctly.
As for the limit of 5 downloads per game...while I may never need to reinstall a game 5 times it is the possibility that I might which is one of the reasons I only buy games that come in a DVD format.
While I don't object to the reward for buying brand new, I do object to having to register seperately to play online. 1) It's an extra step which I shouldn't have to take, and 2) It just means the game company will sell my information so I get more spam.
Well, I'll make sure to avoid any games that require me to register online to play online. I've registered with Xbox live and PS3 network - i don't need to register anymore. In fact, even games that have a seperate registeration to track my online progress - yea i could care less how I rank against the rest of the world so I never do it.
Other then including XP computers in the test pool (which is just plain dumb), how are they getting these numbers? When I bought my computer (two years ago, during the vista days) it came with 8 gigs of ram. Even then it was typical for me to see 4 gigs of ram at best buy, dell, etc. 4 gigs of ram is more then enough to handle vista/win7 smoothly for most users. Most users don't use graphics rendering tools, high end motion graphics, etc. Gaming doesn't even come close to taxing computers
So now I am sitting on a dual core, 8 gigs of ram, and probably average the 15-20% usage range even when playing games like Warhammer Online with the highest sound/graphics settings, while running Ventrilo, Curse, firefox, WoW Mouse software, Logitech G15 keyboard software (with scripting), and other standard stuff (e.g. antivirus, firewall, brother printer/scanner software, and other tools I can't think of right now)...oh and dual monitors
I would say 99% of all software out there does not fully utilize what an "average" computer can dish out - the software is just not that intensive. It reminds me when the SNES came out years ago and they mentioned how much storage capacity the game cartridges had- and what they could handle...then there was an article stating they use less then 10% of the game cartridge and system capacity for the games...so basically the system was 10times more powerful then needed. THere is very little reason for people to buy quad core - because for the most part people can't utilize it to the max even if they are heavy gamers. BTW that tidbit of info I got from 1) a computer sales person who told me not to waste my money on quad core, and instead get dual core when buying a computer from her and 2) my friend who has been in IT for about 25 years dealing with this type of hardware decisions.
Standby mode is a complete canard, and fixing it won't even come close to addressing our energy problems. Combine all of your standby mode power, and it would be dwarfed by the power taken up by your A/C, or your computer (how many of us have a 200-300W computer left on all the time?), or your TV. It would take hundreds of devices in standby mode to make up for the power taken up by a comparatively low-power computer that's left on 24/7. Fixing standby mode devices is fixing a problem that's almost an order of magnitude smaller than the real one.
Actually stand-by mode works VERY well. Lets say that one airconditioners draw on power uses more energy then ALL of the standby modes in the entire world...not a problem. That's an AMAZING thing. In the case of standby mode the concern is not how much power a "live" system takes when in operation, it is concerned with how much power it takes when not in operation but still in "live" mode. So if your computer did not have standby mode and it was always on then it always took full energy - this is terrible. Standby mode makes it so that device takes a lot less energy which is great. Yes it would be nice to have standby mode for more items. Personally when I leave my home I turn off (or reduce to a low setting) all heat, ac, power, etc - even if i am only gone for a couple of hours. In the long run turning down my heater when i am gone will save me some money, and i will only be mildly inconvenienced when i get home (the time it takes to get the heat back).
Anyhow - standby mode is great. But we need more.
On a side note: Nuclear power is not clean energy. It annoys me when people say that. It may not cause smog, or pollute water (unless some mishap occurs) but when you have very nasty stuff hanging out for tens of thousands of years, which takes special storage then you cannot say it is clean. Hopefully, one day, space travel will be safe enough we can launch this crap into the sun.
.
Does anyone know - i thought a number of years ago they developed a process to make nuclear energy and the byproduct can be nullified with some technique. They actually had active energy plants to do away with the waste (as in use it again to make more energy and then make it inert and safe).
Interstellar travel makes for great space opera, but it has no more bearing on reality than unicorns and dragons
While this is true, and likely to remain true for a long long long LONG freaking time if ever....and I know it is true...it is still depressing and sinks the heart reading it:(
It also makes it that much more important that we take care of this rock we call home
I printed it out at one point, so I could take it to dinner and work on some bug, and someone swiped it off the printer, and subsequently copied the WHOLE THING and turned it in for the assignment.
SO what happened? Did the other guy get caught, in trouble, etc? Or did you take the fall?
Wait...TV is just a different form of TV streaming then internet streaming. In TV the ads are fairly general (shotgun). Online the ads can be tailored towards the viewer (it stores your watching habits, asks you questionnaires when you register an account, etc). Basically the advertising done for internet can be targeted for YOU which makes it more valuable to ad companies...more value = more money. Add to that fact you can keep a sidebar open with the ad so the person watching the view always has a picture of that burger king whopper. Basically..how are they not making MORE money on internet streaming then TV streaming...oh and btw, they don't have to pay cable providers a cut of the ad dollars.
In very few cases is anyone exposed to tobacco smoke in any significant quantity these days without their consent. Your logic is being used by nosy busybodies who use even the slightest cost to any government program as justification for broad reaching legislation and taxes.
You have lots of qualifiers there. Up until they passed the smoking ban in restaurants (at least in philadelphia) anytiem I would go to a restaurant/bar/club I would be exposed against my consent. In fact, anytime I am exposed it is against my concsent. I like to be practical in my though-process. I think searches are necessary, scans are necessary, etc. I am also from the middle east and more pron to profiling - and guess what - if it keeps the plane safer that is great. Keeping in line with my "practical thought-process" I do think these machines are a bit invasive and they can be modified to be more respectful of folks
I have a magic rock that keeps the tigers away. If you doubt it's needed or effective....well, I've been living here in the States for years, and haven't been attacked by a tiger even once! Thank god I have my magic rock, and fie on those who doubt the need for it!
Or it's possible that
1) Cities keep tigers away
2) We don't have a large, free-roaming population of tigers in the US (I don't think we have any, and if we do it's not many at all)
3) You live in an area tigers would care not to be in, assuming we had enough of a population to see
4) Tigers are nicely kept in cages in the zoo.
However, in the course of "years" we have suffered attacks on US soil from foreign terrorists (I am not even including our domestic brand). Two trade center attacks (9/11 and the earlier attempt in the 90s). Do they happen often, no. We are blessed by geography, but also because we have active intelligence agencies working to protect us.
You know, i've never been shot before in my life. I've only been mugged at gun point once (they caught the guy). I wonder - i guess we don't need police or detectives. I mean it couldn't possibly because there are police roaming the streets that muggings don't happen more often. And I am sure that if the cops weren't there to catch the guy who mugged me, he wouldn't go on and mug someone else...that couldn't possibly be it.
Do you work for DHS or just watch too much Fox? How many attacks have been stopped by invading innocent civilians' rights?[/quote]
Neither. I don't have the information, hence my point which says lots of the attacks prevented are not disclosed. This doesn't mean they aren't being prevented, it just means they are not telling you about it. Do you think the terrorist cells don't care anymore?
Bullshit. It would add to the propaganda you are swallowing.[/quote]
Not true. It would, however, prevent information getting to the hands of the terrorists. If a terrorist group knows we stopped cell 123, then they will stop any actions relating to cell 123. If a terrorist group does not know that cell 123 got pinched, then they will work on their normal course of action...and just maybe we will catch someone else. Hell that scenario is not that hard to imagine or "swallow" and I am sure there are many other reasons.
You, sir, are a fucking coward. Man up and grow a pair. The terrorists have won, and you have personally helped them by agreeing with the government cowards. You're the kid in Gran Torino that's walking with Sue when the three black guys accost her. To quote Eastwood's character, "get on down the road, pussy".
You, moron, fail at reading. I just said, and you quoted it, "I do think these scans are invasive and remove human dignity", which means I do not back the gov'ts actions and you call me a fucking coward, a pussy, and to grow a pair -- oh and to man up. I'd imagine you wouldn't say those words to my face, not to mention you still failed at reading.
Yeahh... That's probably complete bullshit. I can just see British parents dragging their children through scanners that take pictures of their genitals.
If it is true, I see a precipitous drop in air travel in that country. Screwing with adults and their privacy is one thing, photographing naked children is some next level shit to put it bluntly.
According to the makers of the systems they do not capture photos/video. Though that doesn't prevent someone from using their telephone to take a picture of the screen...or for some security pedophile (hey i can see pedo's applying for these jobs now) from gawking at the screen, or some security personnel taking bets on genital sizes. Either way, it will end up on the intarweb.
'cos those in charge are trying to convince us of the existence of these so-called phantom terrorists
Really? You think terrorists do not exist? You think the government made up terrorists and are lying to us? This is about ten steps dumber then the people who believe the apollo moon landing was a hoax. At least then those conspiracy theorists have a point - the only proof is pictures - where we have seen terroists, experienced terrorists, and met terrorists - plus the terrorists freely admit their actions and reasons.
THere is a very real threat, and it is being thwarted constantly. These cameras are too invasive, but to say terrorists are a phantom is moronic and irresponsible. I hope nobody pays attention to tyour threat other then to mock it...though unfortunately someoen thinks you are insightful.
You're more likely to die from falling down your basement stairs, and far more likely to die at the hands of your own family than a terrorist.
And why do you think the terrorists aren't carpet-bombing the friendly skys? You think they are lazy, don't have funding, or just go on sabatical instead of bombing us? The reason terrorists aren't as effective as they could be is because they are being stopped by counter terrorist units (no pun intended JackB). We don't get all the reports of when terrorists are being stopped, in fact we don't get most of them...we just go on about our way thinking "oh wow, our civil liberties are being violated for nothing...i'm more likely to die at the hands of my cat then a terrorist"...which is so far from the truth. It's more likely that nobody is preventing your cat from killing you...on the other hand someone is working hard to prevent the terrorists from killing you.
I do think these scans are invasive and remove human dignity. I think there could be a solution; in another post i said to do a metal detection scan on the genital area, and then give people a lead-lined jock strap before entering the scanner. We can scan people effectively and still let them feel less then ridiculed, unless we think someone's penis is a lethal weapon...and i'm pretty sure that only happens in xxx movies.
Making explosives is just not hard for a dedicated person with basic reading comprehension and math skills. Your best bet is to ban education and close libraries, and well, the internet is right out.
The total lack of things blowing up all around us, combined with the relative ease by which an adversary could do so, tends to poke a giant fucking whole in the theory that specific measures to protect against all these people who aren't blowing anything up.
I know you were being sarcastic to get a point across (and i think you did a fine job). Just to add a note - the people making the bombs aren't the ones who are blowing up...they are too valuable to the cause. Making good bombs takes some skill. No need to sacrifice those folks.
Use a metal detector to scan the genital area. Then give (males and females) a lead jock-strap type cup. Now nobody can see your genitals, and you get a full body cavity scan. If lead doesn't work, figure out another material
We can do the safe thing and still have people feel like they are human beings treated with dignity.
I don't think you got the point of my post either. Homeschooling doesn't mean keeping kids at home in some isolated bubble, away from other children, and only interacting with mommy and daddy.
Oh wow, you definitely didn't read my post. I said homeschooling gives less options. Kids are less likely to hang out with other kids when they don't know them. School, obviously, gives you many options to get to know people, while being at home limits those options...a LOT. Also, in school you don't get to always pick who you associate with - which is important...want to know why? What other place in life will you have to deal with people you don't want to deal with? Well, other then the world the obvious answer is work. School teaches you to deal with people you don't like, and then work with them.
There are hundreds, maybe even over a thousand, of homeschooling parents where I'm from:
Considering you guys don't all live in the same area, you don't all know each other that is limiting your options as to how your kid learns to interact.
Enough that there are multiple organizations supporting them, representing them in legal battles, helping them network, giving them places to bring their children for socialization amongst other homeschooled children, and so on.
Again, why do i care there are organizations supporting them? I don't. My original point, and you keep arguing something else, was that a judge abused their power for granting asylum on this topic.
This is not how "homeschooling" works at all. Homeschooling parents often work together to school their kids, and such children generally get more---and better---social interaction than they do in public schools. When kids are allowed to learn at their own pace, and interact with whom they want, when and how, they do a lot better than they do by being forced to sit in a classroom learning what the teacher says, when the teacher says, at the rate the teacher says, and then getting a few brief periods of "social interaction" (lunch hour, recess, after school activities) in an equally tightly controlled environment. And like I said in another post, if I had a kid and wanted him to have social interaction public school--style, I can beat him up and steal his lunch money myself.:)
Really? I knew a kid who was homeschooled (medical reasons). In his case the school sent him a teacher from the neighborhood school once a day for an hour to see what he learned. Other then that - he didn't have much interaction with other kids...why? Well, the kids didn't know him (he never went to school to meet them) so he never hung out with them after school. That is social interaction you can't get from mommy/daddy. That is how homeschooling works - you are in an environment where you are more secluded from other people. As for interaction - i am not sure about the school you went to - but i got TONS of interacton with teachers/students during classtime. I couldn't avoid it even if i wanted to. In fact, if you were not a popular kid, you got less interaction time because kids may not have wanted to hang out with you...btw while getting beatup is not a positive lesson of life...it is a lesson of life that I would rather my kid experience in 3rd grade, then when he is 23 and gets mugged by someone who sticks a knife in him. (i know you were kinda kidding, but i wanted to make a point...and by kinda I am not sure if you wouldn't mug your kid;) )
Human beings are curious and gregarious creatures, and like to learn and be social, if you let them do it at their own pace and leisure. Force them to do how you want, and they learn to hate it.
If kids have limited access to other folks - to how they act, etc then they will have limited social lessons and social lessons are as simple as seeing how you behave when you sneeze (cover your mouth), to picking your nose, to not touching the girls butt without her permission. Being taught at home, meaning spending most of your day not with kids your own age, is removing a large part of your social interaction - and that is not a positive thing since "human beings...like to learn and be SOCIAL"
BTW - please re-read my original posts...i specifically said I could care less if someone wants to homeschool their kids (though i think it is a mistake)....I don't care about your new hampshire issues, and your political groups (no offense meant). My concern is that some judge used his power and in my opinion abused it. These people were not repressed - they broke the law and their penalty was a fine and some truant officer escorting their kids to school...which is a far cry from places in the world where asylum is needed from rape, executions, unreasonable jailings, etc because you didn't lick your politicians butt.
mean the US is granting that its Political Asylum for this family because they didn't want their kids to go to school in Germany, they prefered home schooling, is basically what it boils down to. So the opposite of it would be extraditing, sending them back to Germany to pay for their crimes, this is the States way of saying: We will protect you if you flee Germany because you want to want to home school your children.
Now - I don't know what to think about all this. In one hand, I think Germany is its own sovereign nation and it should be allowed to run its country how it sees fits, however I also think that if people don't like the way the country is run they should be able to leave.
Where do we draw the line? Just because the US doesn't agree with a law of another country does not make that countries law wrong. For example: In certain muslim countries they cut your hand off for stealing. Would we grant political asylum for that? If you think that is wrong do you think it is wrong to execute children for capital crimes? If you think that is wrong, then you better look at your own (presumably) gov't as the US is one of a few nations who execute children.
The problem with intervention is when do we do it - are we right or wrong and by whose perspective? If we are doing intervention we need to be right by the majority of the worlds perspective...otherwise we are nothing more then dictators. Also, Germany and the US have very friendly relations. I doubt the family had a hard time coming to the US on a VISA...most likely their VISA expired and this hearing was to grant them perm residence and they used the asylum angle to get it (getting a green card takes many years).
Personally I do not think this warranted political asylum and in all honesty I think the judge abused his ability to grant it. Political asylum should be used for more severe things...don't get me wrong, if someone wants to homeschool I think they should be allowed to do so - it's their kids....but if someone breaks the law then political asylum should not be granted....better yet, if someone in germany does not agree with the driving laws should they be granted political asylum for that too?
So is this the best course of action? I mean the black and white of it is to send them Back to Germany - or to roll in with the tanks and reform the country (a popular choice lately). So this kind of lands in a semi-grey area which should make me happy.
You are really getting overexcited about the options. The options are 1) Deport them, 2) do nothing - ignore the situation, they are here big whoop, 3) grant them asylum...yea we could start a war over it, but man someone must be really tripping on acid to see that as an option. Next thing you know we will start war with canada for serving mayo with their fries.
But somehow I see this opening a whole new can of worms. Now Germany is going to restrict people flying to the U.S. - based on facts about children and schooling, and likewise, people might run away to the US claiming they are doing it for their children as opposed to some ulterior motive (other more heineous crimes).
It is possible germany might take that road - i highly doubt it - i mean REALLY highly doubt it. If they did then those people, who are restricted from flying, would have a better case of getting political asylum (as now they are held hostages and not allowed to travel)....they would obviously need to manage to flee the coutnry first.
This is unfortunately one of those rights that never got expressly enumerated in the Constitution (although in New Hampshire we're trying to fix this) most likely because, much like a right to privacy, the idea of violating it was so beyond the pale in 1789 that no one thought it needed to be written down. What was put into the Bill of Rights were eight articles specifically in reaction to abuses committed by the British government, followed by two catch-all articles clarifying that the powers of the Federal Government are expressly enumerated (Article X), but the rights of the people are not (Article IX). Unfortunately this hasn't worked out too well in practice...
The constitution was not meant to enumerate ALL laws, as this would make it cumbersome, and eventually wrong (as it was anyhow in some cases). The more verbose something is the more chances you get for loopholes...hence the ten commandments are pretty much good as written...there is not enough language to find a loophole. You may not agree with honor thy father...but it's straight forward. The constitution was meant to codify the most important laws of the time, and homeschooling wasn't an issue...for one i don't think publci education really existed as it does now and nobody cared if you went to school, worked on a farm or were taught in home. Most "Doctors" didn't even have any kind of medical training (or any higher education training)...they were people who went about saying "hey i'm a doctor, look at my black bag". Plus education is left to the state level, not the federal level.
On a side note - schooling provides you with a certification that says "hey i passed the rigours of class, social interaction, etc" --- home schooling could lead to "yea i watched opera and mom took my math test for me...thanks for the GED". Anyhow, if someone wants to homeschool their kids so be it - i don't care....though if I were looking at their resume' and could tell they were homeschooled I might be less inclined to give them a job involving social interaction or one where the other candidates were taught in school....social interaction is huge - and being home all day just talking to your mom is going to seriously gimp that.
The nerd angle is this: an increasing number of us nerds (where 'nerd' == cerebral) are dissatisfied with the dull slow lowest-common-denominator pop-psychology politically-correct schlock ladled out at public schools. Meanwhile private schools are not a whole lot better, and cost too much anyway (typically $650/month/child with discounts for multiple children). So we are homeschooling.
Before I read your comment I figured someone would answer this way, and sorry that is a stretch. I agree with the GF poster who said this is not really related enough to be on/. Interesting, yes, a good thing for german homeschooling parents who want to flee to the US so they don't have their kids escorted to school, yes...but/. material? Nah...if your criteria is enough to make this article/. material then this site is going to get a flood of news articles under the guise that some nerds would be interested...well yea, we are a large population, i am willing to bet that at least one of us will be interested in ANY story printed out there. Just the laws of numbers swing in that favor.
I am not slamming you, i just think this story should not be here. BTW homeschooled != better educated then school schooled
Slashdot Mirror
Google just killed their competition instead of trying to develop something that is better then it. Basically they said "we can't or don't feel like being creative so we will buy something out and shut it down"...it fosters anti-competitive behavior...which is something MS gets slammed for all the time.
Now on a personal note if I knew how to program I would continuously make apps in the hope that a big company buys me out with tons of money. It's a great way to get rich. Then get hired by the company and make even more money. Nothing is wrong with this model.
So not evil in the way they treated the developer, but evil that they are preventing innovative competition.
Sounds like the same strategy some other big computer company would do and get flamed for it. As far as I am concerned as long as they are going to make an equal or better product I couldn't care less, but still Google is exerting it's influence, money and power to control the intarweb.
And with that, the troll/flame mods can post their displeasure for my anti-Google statement.
How do you buy games from Sony at a cost of $20? All of the sony games are in the 40-60 range. If you are talking about buying pre-owned games from places like craigslist, gamestop, etc then by not buying these games you are not really hurting Sony. Actually you are, in a marginal way. There are people who can't afford to buy new games all that often and they subsidize those new games by selling their used ones. If they can't sell their used ones they may not get a new game, or at least get it later - so yes that will hurt sony...but it would take a while and be marginal.
So, how are you getting $20 games from Sony?
I no longer view the Olympics as an idealistic sporting event. I now view it as a viscous commercial enterprise that exploits the dreams of young athletes.
Except these exploited athletes become retardedly rich if they win. If they lose the olympic committee couldn't care less about who uses their names, but if they win the olympic committee starts to care. Look at Apollo ohno (sp) - after the last winter olympics he became a multi-millionaire, got invited to all the exclusive events (as in where hollywood type stars go to) and was living the life. That's not a bad deal. In fact, I would love to be exploited in that fashion.
Or what if I decide to go to my friends house and bring my PS3 game so I can play there? What now we won't be able to play? This isn't a hard concept - I play a game, then go to a friends house where we play it together.
The warranty item is also an issue if they don't manage it correctly.
As for the limit of 5 downloads per game...while I may never need to reinstall a game 5 times it is the possibility that I might which is one of the reasons I only buy games that come in a DVD format.
While I don't object to the reward for buying brand new, I do object to having to register seperately to play online. 1) It's an extra step which I shouldn't have to take, and 2) It just means the game company will sell my information so I get more spam.
Well, I'll make sure to avoid any games that require me to register online to play online. I've registered with Xbox live and PS3 network - i don't need to register anymore. In fact, even games that have a seperate registeration to track my online progress - yea i could care less how I rank against the rest of the world so I never do it.
Other then including XP computers in the test pool (which is just plain dumb), how are they getting these numbers? When I bought my computer (two years ago, during the vista days) it came with 8 gigs of ram. Even then it was typical for me to see 4 gigs of ram at best buy, dell, etc. 4 gigs of ram is more then enough to handle vista/win7 smoothly for most users. Most users don't use graphics rendering tools, high end motion graphics, etc. Gaming doesn't even come close to taxing computers
So now I am sitting on a dual core, 8 gigs of ram, and probably average the 15-20% usage range even when playing games like Warhammer Online with the highest sound/graphics settings, while running Ventrilo, Curse, firefox, WoW Mouse software, Logitech G15 keyboard software (with scripting), and other standard stuff (e.g. antivirus, firewall, brother printer/scanner software, and other tools I can't think of right now)...oh and dual monitors
I would say 99% of all software out there does not fully utilize what an "average" computer can dish out - the software is just not that intensive. It reminds me when the SNES came out years ago and they mentioned how much storage capacity the game cartridges had- and what they could handle...then there was an article stating they use less then 10% of the game cartridge and system capacity for the games...so basically the system was 10times more powerful then needed. THere is very little reason for people to buy quad core - because for the most part people can't utilize it to the max even if they are heavy gamers. BTW that tidbit of info I got from 1) a computer sales person who told me not to waste my money on quad core, and instead get dual core when buying a computer from her and 2) my friend who has been in IT for about 25 years dealing with this type of hardware decisions.
Standby mode is a complete canard, and fixing it won't even come close to addressing our energy problems. Combine all of your standby mode power, and it would be dwarfed by the power taken up by your A/C, or your computer (how many of us have a 200-300W computer left on all the time?), or your TV. It would take hundreds of devices in standby mode to make up for the power taken up by a comparatively low-power computer that's left on 24/7. Fixing standby mode devices is fixing a problem that's almost an order of magnitude smaller than the real one.
Actually stand-by mode works VERY well. Lets say that one airconditioners draw on power uses more energy then ALL of the standby modes in the entire world...not a problem. That's an AMAZING thing. In the case of standby mode the concern is not how much power a "live" system takes when in operation, it is concerned with how much power it takes when not in operation but still in "live" mode. So if your computer did not have standby mode and it was always on then it always took full energy - this is terrible. Standby mode makes it so that device takes a lot less energy which is great. Yes it would be nice to have standby mode for more items. Personally when I leave my home I turn off (or reduce to a low setting) all heat, ac, power, etc - even if i am only gone for a couple of hours. In the long run turning down my heater when i am gone will save me some money, and i will only be mildly inconvenienced when i get home (the time it takes to get the heat back).
Anyhow - standby mode is great. But we need more.
On a side note: Nuclear power is not clean energy. It annoys me when people say that. It may not cause smog, or pollute water (unless some mishap occurs) but when you have very nasty stuff hanging out for tens of thousands of years, which takes special storage then you cannot say it is clean. Hopefully, one day, space travel will be safe enough we can launch this crap into the sun.
. Does anyone know - i thought a number of years ago they developed a process to make nuclear energy and the byproduct can be nullified with some technique. They actually had active energy plants to do away with the waste (as in use it again to make more energy and then make it inert and safe).
Interstellar travel makes for great space opera, but it has no more bearing on reality than unicorns and dragons
While this is true, and likely to remain true for a long long long LONG freaking time if ever....and I know it is true...it is still depressing and sinks the heart reading it :(
It also makes it that much more important that we take care of this rock we call home
I printed it out at one point, so I could take it to dinner and work on some bug, and someone swiped it off the printer, and subsequently copied the WHOLE THING and turned it in for the assignment.
SO what happened? Did the other guy get caught, in trouble, etc? Or did you take the fall?
Wait...TV is just a different form of TV streaming then internet streaming. In TV the ads are fairly general (shotgun). Online the ads can be tailored towards the viewer (it stores your watching habits, asks you questionnaires when you register an account, etc). Basically the advertising done for internet can be targeted for YOU which makes it more valuable to ad companies...more value = more money. Add to that fact you can keep a sidebar open with the ad so the person watching the view always has a picture of that burger king whopper. Basically..how are they not making MORE money on internet streaming then TV streaming...oh and btw, they don't have to pay cable providers a cut of the ad dollars.
In very few cases is anyone exposed to tobacco smoke in any significant quantity these days without their consent. Your logic is being used by nosy busybodies who use even the slightest cost to any government program as justification for broad reaching legislation and taxes.
You have lots of qualifiers there. Up until they passed the smoking ban in restaurants (at least in philadelphia) anytiem I would go to a restaurant/bar/club I would be exposed against my consent. In fact, anytime I am exposed it is against my concsent. I like to be practical in my though-process. I think searches are necessary, scans are necessary, etc. I am also from the middle east and more pron to profiling - and guess what - if it keeps the plane safer that is great. Keeping in line with my "practical thought-process" I do think these machines are a bit invasive and they can be modified to be more respectful of folks
I have a magic rock that keeps the tigers away. If you doubt it's needed or effective....well, I've been living here in the States for years, and haven't been attacked by a tiger even once! Thank god I have my magic rock, and fie on those who doubt the need for it!
Or it's possible that
1) Cities keep tigers away
2) We don't have a large, free-roaming population of tigers in the US (I don't think we have any, and if we do it's not many at all)
3) You live in an area tigers would care not to be in, assuming we had enough of a population to see
4) Tigers are nicely kept in cages in the zoo.
However, in the course of "years" we have suffered attacks on US soil from foreign terrorists (I am not even including our domestic brand). Two trade center attacks (9/11 and the earlier attempt in the 90s). Do they happen often, no. We are blessed by geography, but also because we have active intelligence agencies working to protect us.
You know, i've never been shot before in my life. I've only been mugged at gun point once (they caught the guy). I wonder - i guess we don't need police or detectives. I mean it couldn't possibly because there are police roaming the streets that muggings don't happen more often. And I am sure that if the cops weren't there to catch the guy who mugged me, he wouldn't go on and mug someone else...that couldn't possibly be it.
Do you work for DHS or just watch too much Fox? How many attacks have been stopped by invading innocent civilians' rights?[/quote] Neither. I don't have the information, hence my point which says lots of the attacks prevented are not disclosed. This doesn't mean they aren't being prevented, it just means they are not telling you about it. Do you think the terrorist cells don't care anymore?
Bullshit. It would add to the propaganda you are swallowing.[/quote] Not true. It would, however, prevent information getting to the hands of the terrorists. If a terrorist group knows we stopped cell 123, then they will stop any actions relating to cell 123. If a terrorist group does not know that cell 123 got pinched, then they will work on their normal course of action...and just maybe we will catch someone else. Hell that scenario is not that hard to imagine or "swallow" and I am sure there are many other reasons.
You, sir, are a fucking coward. Man up and grow a pair. The terrorists have won, and you have personally helped them by agreeing with the government cowards. You're the kid in Gran Torino that's walking with Sue when the three black guys accost her. To quote Eastwood's character, "get on down the road, pussy".
You, moron, fail at reading. I just said, and you quoted it, "I do think these scans are invasive and remove human dignity", which means I do not back the gov'ts actions and you call me a fucking coward, a pussy, and to grow a pair -- oh and to man up. I'd imagine you wouldn't say those words to my face, not to mention you still failed at reading.
Yeahh... That's probably complete bullshit. I can just see British parents dragging their children through scanners that take pictures of their genitals. If it is true, I see a precipitous drop in air travel in that country. Screwing with adults and their privacy is one thing, photographing naked children is some next level shit to put it bluntly.
According to the makers of the systems they do not capture photos/video. Though that doesn't prevent someone from using their telephone to take a picture of the screen...or for some security pedophile (hey i can see pedo's applying for these jobs now) from gawking at the screen, or some security personnel taking bets on genital sizes. Either way, it will end up on the intarweb.
It is sadly ironic that you complain about a government limitation of your freedom by suggesting that they limit your freedom.
It is sad that someones addiction/habit hurts innocent bystanders and we stand by and let them do it.
'cos those in charge are trying to convince us of the existence of these so-called phantom terrorists
Really? You think terrorists do not exist? You think the government made up terrorists and are lying to us? This is about ten steps dumber then the people who believe the apollo moon landing was a hoax. At least then those conspiracy theorists have a point - the only proof is pictures - where we have seen terroists, experienced terrorists, and met terrorists - plus the terrorists freely admit their actions and reasons.
THere is a very real threat, and it is being thwarted constantly. These cameras are too invasive, but to say terrorists are a phantom is moronic and irresponsible. I hope nobody pays attention to tyour threat other then to mock it...though unfortunately someoen thinks you are insightful.
You're more likely to die from falling down your basement stairs, and far more likely to die at the hands of your own family than a terrorist.
And why do you think the terrorists aren't carpet-bombing the friendly skys? You think they are lazy, don't have funding, or just go on sabatical instead of bombing us? The reason terrorists aren't as effective as they could be is because they are being stopped by counter terrorist units (no pun intended JackB). We don't get all the reports of when terrorists are being stopped, in fact we don't get most of them...we just go on about our way thinking "oh wow, our civil liberties are being violated for nothing...i'm more likely to die at the hands of my cat then a terrorist"...which is so far from the truth. It's more likely that nobody is preventing your cat from killing you...on the other hand someone is working hard to prevent the terrorists from killing you.
I do think these scans are invasive and remove human dignity. I think there could be a solution; in another post i said to do a metal detection scan on the genital area, and then give people a lead-lined jock strap before entering the scanner. We can scan people effectively and still let them feel less then ridiculed, unless we think someone's penis is a lethal weapon...and i'm pretty sure that only happens in xxx movies.
Making explosives is just not hard for a dedicated person with basic reading comprehension and math skills. Your best bet is to ban education and close libraries, and well, the internet is right out. The total lack of things blowing up all around us, combined with the relative ease by which an adversary could do so, tends to poke a giant fucking whole in the theory that specific measures to protect against all these people who aren't blowing anything up.
I know you were being sarcastic to get a point across (and i think you did a fine job). Just to add a note - the people making the bombs aren't the ones who are blowing up...they are too valuable to the cause. Making good bombs takes some skill. No need to sacrifice those folks.
Use a metal detector to scan the genital area. Then give (males and females) a lead jock-strap type cup. Now nobody can see your genitals, and you get a full body cavity scan. If lead doesn't work, figure out another material
We can do the safe thing and still have people feel like they are human beings treated with dignity.
I don't think you got the point of my post either. Homeschooling doesn't mean keeping kids at home in some isolated bubble, away from other children, and only interacting with mommy and daddy.
Oh wow, you definitely didn't read my post. I said homeschooling gives less options. Kids are less likely to hang out with other kids when they don't know them. School, obviously, gives you many options to get to know people, while being at home limits those options...a LOT. Also, in school you don't get to always pick who you associate with - which is important...want to know why? What other place in life will you have to deal with people you don't want to deal with? Well, other then the world the obvious answer is work. School teaches you to deal with people you don't like, and then work with them.
There are hundreds, maybe even over a thousand, of homeschooling parents where I'm from:
Considering you guys don't all live in the same area, you don't all know each other that is limiting your options as to how your kid learns to interact.
Enough that there are multiple organizations supporting them, representing them in legal battles, helping them network, giving them places to bring their children for socialization amongst other homeschooled children, and so on.
Again, why do i care there are organizations supporting them? I don't. My original point, and you keep arguing something else, was that a judge abused their power for granting asylum on this topic.
This is not how "homeschooling" works at all. Homeschooling parents often work together to school their kids, and such children generally get more---and better---social interaction than they do in public schools. When kids are allowed to learn at their own pace, and interact with whom they want, when and how, they do a lot better than they do by being forced to sit in a classroom learning what the teacher says, when the teacher says, at the rate the teacher says, and then getting a few brief periods of "social interaction" (lunch hour, recess, after school activities) in an equally tightly controlled environment. And like I said in another post, if I had a kid and wanted him to have social interaction public school--style, I can beat him up and steal his lunch money myself. :)
Really? I knew a kid who was homeschooled (medical reasons). In his case the school sent him a teacher from the neighborhood school once a day for an hour to see what he learned. Other then that - he didn't have much interaction with other kids...why? Well, the kids didn't know him (he never went to school to meet them) so he never hung out with them after school. That is social interaction you can't get from mommy/daddy. That is how homeschooling works - you are in an environment where you are more secluded from other people. As for interaction - i am not sure about the school you went to - but i got TONS of interacton with teachers/students during classtime. I couldn't avoid it even if i wanted to. In fact, if you were not a popular kid, you got less interaction time because kids may not have wanted to hang out with you...btw while getting beatup is not a positive lesson of life...it is a lesson of life that I would rather my kid experience in 3rd grade, then when he is 23 and gets mugged by someone who sticks a knife in him. (i know you were kinda kidding, but i wanted to make a point...and by kinda I am not sure if you wouldn't mug your kid ;) )
Human beings are curious and gregarious creatures, and like to learn and be social, if you let them do it at their own pace and leisure. Force them to do how you want, and they learn to hate it.
If kids have limited access to other folks - to how they act, etc then they will have limited social lessons and social lessons are as simple as seeing how you behave when you sneeze (cover your mouth), to picking your nose, to not touching the girls butt without her permission. Being taught at home, meaning spending most of your day not with kids your own age, is removing a large part of your social interaction - and that is not a positive thing since "human beings...like to learn and be SOCIAL" BTW - please re-read my original posts...i specifically said I could care less if someone wants to homeschool their kids (though i think it is a mistake)....I don't care about your new hampshire issues, and your political groups (no offense meant). My concern is that some judge used his power and in my opinion abused it. These people were not repressed - they broke the law and their penalty was a fine and some truant officer escorting their kids to school...which is a far cry from places in the world where asylum is needed from rape, executions, unreasonable jailings, etc because you didn't lick your politicians butt.
mean the US is granting that its Political Asylum for this family because they didn't want their kids to go to school in Germany, they prefered home schooling, is basically what it boils down to. So the opposite of it would be extraditing, sending them back to Germany to pay for their crimes, this is the States way of saying: We will protect you if you flee Germany because you want to want to home school your children.
Now - I don't know what to think about all this. In one hand, I think Germany is its own sovereign nation and it should be allowed to run its country how it sees fits, however I also think that if people don't like the way the country is run they should be able to leave.
Where do we draw the line? Just because the US doesn't agree with a law of another country does not make that countries law wrong. For example: In certain muslim countries they cut your hand off for stealing. Would we grant political asylum for that? If you think that is wrong do you think it is wrong to execute children for capital crimes? If you think that is wrong, then you better look at your own (presumably) gov't as the US is one of a few nations who execute children.
The problem with intervention is when do we do it - are we right or wrong and by whose perspective? If we are doing intervention we need to be right by the majority of the worlds perspective...otherwise we are nothing more then dictators. Also, Germany and the US have very friendly relations. I doubt the family had a hard time coming to the US on a VISA...most likely their VISA expired and this hearing was to grant them perm residence and they used the asylum angle to get it (getting a green card takes many years).
Personally I do not think this warranted political asylum and in all honesty I think the judge abused his ability to grant it. Political asylum should be used for more severe things...don't get me wrong, if someone wants to homeschool I think they should be allowed to do so - it's their kids....but if someone breaks the law then political asylum should not be granted....better yet, if someone in germany does not agree with the driving laws should they be granted political asylum for that too?
So is this the best course of action? I mean the black and white of it is to send them Back to Germany - or to roll in with the tanks and reform the country (a popular choice lately). So this kind of lands in a semi-grey area which should make me happy.
You are really getting overexcited about the options. The options are 1) Deport them, 2) do nothing - ignore the situation, they are here big whoop, 3) grant them asylum...yea we could start a war over it, but man someone must be really tripping on acid to see that as an option. Next thing you know we will start war with canada for serving mayo with their fries.
But somehow I see this opening a whole new can of worms. Now Germany is going to restrict people flying to the U.S. - based on facts about children and schooling, and likewise, people might run away to the US claiming they are doing it for their children as opposed to some ulterior motive (other more heineous crimes).
It is possible germany might take that road - i highly doubt it - i mean REALLY highly doubt it. If they did then those people, who are restricted from flying, would have a better case of getting political asylum (as now they are held hostages and not allowed to travel)....they would obviously need to manage to flee the coutnry first.
This is unfortunately one of those rights that never got expressly enumerated in the Constitution (although in New Hampshire we're trying to fix this) most likely because, much like a right to privacy, the idea of violating it was so beyond the pale in 1789 that no one thought it needed to be written down. What was put into the Bill of Rights were eight articles specifically in reaction to abuses committed by the British government, followed by two catch-all articles clarifying that the powers of the Federal Government are expressly enumerated (Article X), but the rights of the people are not (Article IX). Unfortunately this hasn't worked out too well in practice...
The constitution was not meant to enumerate ALL laws, as this would make it cumbersome, and eventually wrong (as it was anyhow in some cases). The more verbose something is the more chances you get for loopholes...hence the ten commandments are pretty much good as written...there is not enough language to find a loophole. You may not agree with honor thy father...but it's straight forward. The constitution was meant to codify the most important laws of the time, and homeschooling wasn't an issue...for one i don't think publci education really existed as it does now and nobody cared if you went to school, worked on a farm or were taught in home. Most "Doctors" didn't even have any kind of medical training (or any higher education training)...they were people who went about saying "hey i'm a doctor, look at my black bag". Plus education is left to the state level, not the federal level.
On a side note - schooling provides you with a certification that says "hey i passed the rigours of class, social interaction, etc" --- home schooling could lead to "yea i watched opera and mom took my math test for me...thanks for the GED". Anyhow, if someone wants to homeschool their kids so be it - i don't care....though if I were looking at their resume' and could tell they were homeschooled I might be less inclined to give them a job involving social interaction or one where the other candidates were taught in school....social interaction is huge - and being home all day just talking to your mom is going to seriously gimp that.
The nerd angle is this: an increasing number of us nerds (where 'nerd' == cerebral) are dissatisfied with the dull slow lowest-common-denominator pop-psychology politically-correct schlock ladled out at public schools. Meanwhile private schools are not a whole lot better, and cost too much anyway (typically $650/month/child with discounts for multiple children). So we are homeschooling.
Before I read your comment I figured someone would answer this way, and sorry that is a stretch. I agree with the GF poster who said this is not really related enough to be on /. Interesting, yes, a good thing for german homeschooling parents who want to flee to the US so they don't have their kids escorted to school, yes...but /. material? Nah...if your criteria is enough to make this article /. material then this site is going to get a flood of news articles under the guise that some nerds would be interested...well yea, we are a large population, i am willing to bet that at least one of us will be interested in ANY story printed out there. Just the laws of numbers swing in that favor.
I am not slamming you, i just think this story should not be here. BTW homeschooled != better educated then school schooled