but the greenhouse effect occurred on earth long before there was LIFE let alone Humans.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the activities of humans aren't causing a greenhouse effect now. As much as many people would like to believe they are free to do what they want without worrying about the consequences, the facts show otherwise. Responsible people will face those facts and do what is necessary to deal with them, not hide their heads in the sand.
The problem with that is that many posters don't bother to post what they're replying to, and the discussion becomes nearly unreadable
Perhaps the solution, then, is to make it so that when a "qualified" user replies to an "unqualified" post, the unqualified post gets grandfathered in and shows up as well, despite the filter?
Why is it that people here bitch about software bloat, but think that physical bloat is a god idea?
You think that having to carry six different little gadgets with you everwhere (and change six sets of batteries, and deal with six different sets of user interfaces, six different service contracts, etc) isn't bloat? I don't want to have to carry around more than one device, maximum. (Actually, I don't want to have to carry around any devices... but until they invent software that requires no hardware to run, I will have to settle for one device:^))
If you lower the cost of entry to producing a BT release, won't that mean more.torrent file swimming around?
Hopefully... allowing more people to post more content is one of the project's goals.
With the increase of different torrents everywhere, won't that dilute the power of BT?
No, because the uploaders for a given file consist only of the people who have previously downloaded that file. So no matter how many files are "out there", the total bandwidth available to distribute any particular file is always proportional to the number of people interested in that file.
File-A's popularity won't leech bandwidth from File-B's swarm, because File-B's swarm wasn't providing any bandwidth for File-A in the first place.
I'm sure Energizer and Duracell will do anything and everything to stop these from killing their business....
... or just as likely, Energizer would buy or license the rights to this technology, and use it to kill Duracell's business (or vice versa). Maintaining the status quo isn't the only way to win in business.
Blue screens in airports?? AAAA!!!! Better than the "Core dumped" errors I've gotten now and then on linux I guess?
I don't see how they are better... if you got a "Core dumped" error, then an application died, but the OS was able to handle the dead application and continue running. If you have a blue screen of death, the OS has also died, and your computer is now completely useless until you reboot it.
To this point, we've had no reason to believe that any animals take part in this social contract, so they really do lie outside the scope of ethical consideration.
Since you might have a lot of things in mind, from where does your non-robust ethics of meat-eating thought stem?
Because there is more to ethics than just a "social contract". Ethics also requires that we (try to) determine what "the right thing" is, and do that right thing, even if there is no conceivable penalty for not doing it. For example, the conquistadores are widely condemned for their lousy treatment (mass murder, enslavement, etc) of the native American people, despite the fact that no "social contract" existed between the Europeans and the Americans (such a contract couldn't exist, because their civilizations had never had contact before). The conquistadores themselves probably reasoned along the same lines you do -- no contract, hence no ethical responsibilities -- but in modern ethics, that's not considered sufficient.
Similarly, just because there is no "social contract" with animals (because they can't speak to plead their case or demand their rights), doesn't mean we should be free to not consider their rights as living, sentient entities. People routinely don't, of course, but that doesn't make it right. My argument was that the reasons people don't consider animals' rights are mostly tradition, habit, "necessity", and a (more or less) willful ignorance of just how similar animal cognition and suffering is to human cognition and suffering. If two creatures both have the cognitive ability of a 2 year old child, it's hard to see why it's okay to enslave, butcher, and eat one of them, while it's a capital crime to do the same to the other. Both entities (the animal and the baby) have a right not to be killed.
"Natural" is a fairly malleable concept -- 200 years ago black slavery was considered "natural"... (well, in many places anyway)
My prediction: in twenty years, we'll have discovered how to grow meat in a vat that is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. In forty years it will be considered rather gauche to eat meat from animals. In sixty years it will be illegal, and in eighty years, our grandchildren will find it difficult to believe that anyone ever did such a barbaric thing.
(Note to flamers: I eat meat myself, but I still think that acceptance of killing animals for meat is based more on necessity and tradition than on any sort of robust ethics)
Word. I can understand being against hunting for sport, but hunting for food, resources, etc.... what's wrong with that?
If you hunt your resources to extinction, then they are gone forever; that would definitely be a problem, and wrong in most people's eyes. Probably not such a problem with deer though.
Beyond that, one might argue that the hunted animals have a right not to be killed; certainly most people would agree that humans have a right not to be killed. So why do humans enjoy that right and not animals? One answer would be that humans have the right not to be killed solely because they are human, but that's not a very satisfying answer -- it smacks of chauvinism and "might makes right". A better answer would be, because humans are sentient, they have thoughts and feelings and a desire to live and reproduce, and just as you or I feel that we deserve the right to life, so do they. But surely that argument also applies to other species as well, to varying degrees -- whether deer qualify or not I won't attempt to debate here. (Cognitive science will probably figure it out eventually, but I'm willing to bet that some of the more evolved mammals can be considered more intelligent and self-aware than some mentally impaired humans, who are certainly not allowed to be hunted!)
ps. Before anyone says "but other animals kill deer, therefore it's necessarily okay for humans to kill deer", I want to pre-rebut that logic by noting that other animals kill people as well, so that by that logic it would be okay to kill people. Not to mention that that logic doesn't work in other areas, e.g. "other men rape women, therefore it's okay for our men to rape women". Nope, doesn't follow.
What on earth makes you think IBM, SGI, et al. don't make unreasonable demands of the Linux kernel folks they hire? They still want to sell machines, and they'll still claim that those machines can walk on water and travel through time to make a buck..
They probably do, but the Linux kernel folks can push back with a valid excuse: any features that require horrible twisted hackery won't get accepted into the mainline code branches. Since the companies want to benefit from the ongoing development being done to the main Linux branch, they have a strong incentive not to strand themselves by forking the code. That why you don't see lots of code forks (the likes of which nearly killed Unix back in the 80's and 90's) or things like web servers being compiled into the kernel -- all the companies act as checks on each other.
Don't ask me why, but when it involves anything other than pointing and clicking, they get intimidated
The reason people can handle pointing and clicking but not command line is this: with pointing and clicking, you don't have to remember anything. All your options are visible to you on the screen -- in the worst case, you can try them each in sequence until you find the one you are looking for. With a command line, there are many options but they are all invisible to you. You have to pull them out of your head.
It doesn't need to be. It only needs to make a profit.
You're forgetting opportunity cost -- it needs to not just make a profit, but make more profit than (whatever other movie the people involved could be working on instead). I don't think any studio wants to spend several hundred man-years of their time just to break even...
Slashdot Mirror
Wait 10 seconds, maybe jump around a little if you impatient. It's not really a problem.
And what's to prevent the water from shooting into my ass?
Nothing, but why is that a problem? Certainly if you can handle sticking a wad of paper (and your hand) up there, then water is no worse...
If I did want to though, where would I go to try it?
That's a very good question. The only time I used one was in Thailand...
Try using a bidet. It requires no paper and actually works much better than TP.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the activities of humans aren't causing a greenhouse effect now. As much as many people would like to believe they are free to do what they want without worrying about the consequences, the facts show otherwise. Responsible people will face those facts and do what is necessary to deal with them, not hide their heads in the sand.
Perhaps the solution, then, is to make it so that when a "qualified" user replies to an "unqualified" post, the unqualified post gets grandfathered in and shows up as well, despite the filter?
That's what I said, but they made me shut down my casino anyway. Bunch of fascists pigs running this town!
Better still would be clutter-free by default (as it is now) and you can add clutter to the interface, if you want to.
You think that having to carry six different little gadgets with you everwhere (and change six sets of batteries, and deal with six different sets of user interfaces, six different service contracts, etc) isn't bloat? I don't want to have to carry around more than one device, maximum. (Actually, I don't want to have to carry around any devices... but until they invent software that requires no hardware to run, I will have to settle for one device
Wouldn't you have to leave your client connected 24 hours a day in that case?
Hmm. How does one use a deep fryer for evil? Open a KFC?
Hopefully... allowing more people to post more content is one of the project's goals.
With the increase of different torrents everywhere, won't that dilute the power of BT?
No, because the uploaders for a given file consist only of the people who have previously downloaded that file. So no matter how many files are "out there", the total bandwidth available to distribute any particular file is always proportional to the number of people interested in that file.
File-A's popularity won't leech bandwidth from File-B's swarm, because File-B's swarm wasn't providing any bandwidth for File-A in the first place.
Maybe once FireFox gets a bit more bloated, they'll let it in.
I don't see how they are better... if you got a "Core dumped" error, then an application died, but the OS was able to handle the dead application and continue running. If you have a blue screen of death, the OS has also died, and your computer is now completely useless until you reboot it.
Since you might have a lot of things in mind, from where does your non-robust ethics of meat-eating thought stem?
Because there is more to ethics than just a "social contract". Ethics also requires that we (try to) determine what "the right thing" is, and do that right thing, even if there is no conceivable penalty for not doing it. For example, the conquistadores are widely condemned for their lousy treatment (mass murder, enslavement, etc) of the native American people, despite the fact that no "social contract" existed between the Europeans and the Americans (such a contract couldn't exist, because their civilizations had never had contact before). The conquistadores themselves probably reasoned along the same lines you do -- no contract, hence no ethical responsibilities -- but in modern ethics, that's not considered sufficient.
Similarly, just because there is no "social contract" with animals (because they can't speak to plead their case or demand their rights), doesn't mean we should be free to not consider their rights as living, sentient entities. People routinely don't, of course, but that doesn't make it right. My argument was that the reasons people don't consider animals' rights are mostly tradition, habit, "necessity", and a (more or less) willful ignorance of just how similar animal cognition and suffering is to human cognition and suffering. If two creatures both have the cognitive ability of a 2 year old child, it's hard to see why it's okay to enslave, butcher, and eat one of them, while it's a capital crime to do the same to the other. Both entities (the animal and the baby) have a right not to be killed.
Probably... I understand that pigs are about as smart as dogs. You wouldn't eat Fifi, would you?
Well, at least it keeps them warm... (imagining the Tauntan scene from Empire Strikes Back)
"Natural" is a fairly malleable concept -- 200 years ago black slavery was considered "natural"... (well, in many places anyway)
My prediction: in twenty years, we'll have discovered how to grow meat in a vat that is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. In forty years it will be considered rather gauche to eat meat from animals. In sixty years it will be illegal, and in eighty years, our grandchildren will find it difficult to believe that anyone ever did such a barbaric thing.
(Note to flamers: I eat meat myself, but I still think that acceptance of killing animals for meat is based more on necessity and tradition than on any sort of robust ethics)
If you hunt your resources to extinction, then they are gone forever; that would definitely be a problem, and wrong in most people's eyes. Probably not such a problem with deer though.
Beyond that, one might argue that the hunted animals have a right not to be killed; certainly most people would agree that humans have a right not to be killed. So why do humans enjoy that right and not animals? One answer would be that humans have the right not to be killed solely because they are human, but that's not a very satisfying answer -- it smacks of chauvinism and "might makes right". A better answer would be, because humans are sentient, they have thoughts and feelings and a desire to live and reproduce, and just as you or I feel that we deserve the right to life, so do they. But surely that argument also applies to other species as well, to varying degrees -- whether deer qualify or not I won't attempt to debate here. (Cognitive science will probably figure it out eventually, but I'm willing to bet that some of the more evolved mammals can be considered more intelligent and self-aware than some mentally impaired humans, who are certainly not allowed to be hunted!)
ps. Before anyone says "but other animals kill deer, therefore it's necessarily okay for humans to kill deer", I want to pre-rebut that logic by noting that other animals kill people as well, so that by that logic it would be okay to kill people. Not to mention that that logic doesn't work in other areas, e.g. "other men rape women, therefore it's okay for our men to rape women". Nope, doesn't follow.
Bwahaha, excellent troll! I salute you sir. Getting modded "+1 Informative" is the icing on the cake.
Peter, Susan, Lucy, and Edmund are in LW&W, IIRC. Some additional children appear in later books in the series, but not in the first one.
They probably do, but the Linux kernel folks can push back with a valid excuse: any features that require horrible twisted hackery won't get accepted into the mainline code branches. Since the companies want to benefit from the ongoing development being done to the main Linux branch, they have a strong incentive not to strand themselves by forking the code. That why you don't see lots of code forks (the likes of which nearly killed Unix back in the 80's and 90's) or things like web servers being compiled into the kernel -- all the companies act as checks on each other.
Sure! Think infrared, with a bit of infrawhite mixed in.
The reason people can handle pointing and clicking but not command line is this: with pointing and clicking, you don't have to remember anything. All your options are visible to you on the screen -- in the worst case, you can try them each in sequence until you find the one you are looking for. With a command line, there are many options but they are all invisible to you. You have to pull them out of your head.
You're forgetting opportunity cost -- it needs to not just make a profit, but make more profit than (whatever other movie the people involved could be working on instead). I don't think any studio wants to spend several hundred man-years of their time just to break even...
Hm. I've read more than one review that called her one of the high points of the movie. I guess there's no accounting for taste...
Btw, what was the deal with the face-slapping things on the surface of Magrathea? Those were never explained to my satisfaction (or at all AFAICT).