Why try to use it as a Facebook replacement? It isn't designed to directly compete. Facebook has a "two way" model (where two people have to agree to be 'friends')
Some of us are wishing to replace it maybe? Facebook has annoyed me many times more than google has. Site redesigns that I didn't like, privacy issues. For another, I'm facebook friends with more people than I want to be. Some of my relatives got really upset when they found out I was on facebook, was not friends with them, and had blocked them. People from high school who I didn't bother going to the 10 year reunion to see. Seems like most of my facebook friends are people I don't want any contact with. Meanwhile, most people I know aren't on google plus, and I haven't built up a pile of fake friends in it yet.
I think I'm in the minority here, but I don't want or need people whose interests align with me to "fight the good fight." I want the representatives that I vote for (as opposed to the ones sponsored by interests opposed to mine) to just win, I want consumer interests to just win, I want proponents of things like ending software patents or increasing government transparency to just win.
When your side is playing the game fair and the other side isn't, that becomes frustrating quickly. And it's not like the integrity of the court system is endangered here by the judge staying on. We already have judges who fail to recuse themselves when they should, and most often against our interests.
Fuck ethics. The corrupt side certainly does already.
I've never heard that term applied to anything besides airplanes developed at the lockheed martin facilities. But wiki tells me it "describes a group within an organization given a high degree of autonomy and unhampered by bureaucracy, tasked with working on advanced or secret projects."
Or else maybe lockheed martin researchers got tired of making the next stealth plane and decided to go in a different direction.
As a member of the master race, PC gamer, I'd laugh at you both... except I find myself reloading the ads on the steam page every half an hour to see if there's a deal on a game I already own on the 360.
Automatic driving cars we'd be allowing on the road would have to be to the point of being safer than a human driver. Makes sense that we'd let them go faster.
Am... am I supposed to object to safer cars on the road because the people using them would have more money than me? When we're talking about tax cuts, there is at least an argument that it's a zero sum game, their gain is my loss. With traffic safety, that doesn't really apply.
If the local country club starts making plans of allowing their autocars to drive 100mph through poor residential areas, sure, I'll be at the front lines of that fight comrade, but otherwise, save the class warfare for battles that are actually class warfare.
Yes, in a million years, people will be able to read the information in esperanto, which they will all speak, on their linux desktops in their flying cars.
If LIFE has taught us anything, it's "Store your information in DNA."
For one thing, you simply cannot beat the ability to make backups. You could make an artificial yeast chromesome or chromesomes, grow up several gallons of the stuff, freeze it down and store it in multiple locations. Future generations will probably be able to sequence them instantly with tricorders or the iPad 900.
... of course, you couldn't keep it close to the nuclear waste in question.
How much time does it take to verify someone's information in the Nigerian prince scheme? I thought it was "Send me your bank account info" and if you sent them something else, they'd just ignore it. I'm surprised research indicates they'd save much time filtering out the smart people.
If you want to pin the recent increases on Man and CO2, then you need to explain how the past increases came to be and why the current increases are not driven by the same forces.
By what standard? Is there a set of rules for proving climatology that are universally acknowledged that I haven't heard of? Proving how a past increase in temperature occurred, before we were monitoring the planet as closely as we are monitoring it now could be impossible. Not being able to point to a spike and explain what caused it doesn't mean you pretend we understand nothing.
No, it suggests that society was tolerant of heat. No one is suggesting otherwise now. People won't keel over and die, society won't fall apart if global warming continues.
It can still very much be a bad thing for most people.
Consider that people at that time didn't have electricity, yet people thrived. Does that imply that electricity suddenly not working anymore would be a good thing?
TB was pretty much a solved problem in the 1st world. Then we decided we couldn't force people into quarantine to ensure they got proper treatment and to prevent the spread of such a readily transmissible disease.
Because we have a vaccine.
Today we generally don't forcibly quarantine people even though we aren't vaccinating because it's only contagious for a few weeks after treatment has started, and it's easy enough for people with TB to isolate themselves and or wear a mask. Also the disease is not life threatening and it's treatable.
Best I can tell from what passes as thought in the politically correct set, diseases got rights or something. Or people got the right to not get treated and to pass on the crap they catch. I really can't decipher it.
Maybe then you should avoid jumping to the dumbest possible conclusion before doing the slightest bit of research. Actually, given your track record here, maybe you should just avoid making conclusions period.
But don't worry, this is all the evil Republican's fault. ObamaCare^WTax will fix all these problems.
Something tells me you'd be opposed to the government spending money to start vaccinating people against tuberculosis again. So I'm guessing how you'd deal with this outbreak would be to implement the usual republican healthcare plan: "Don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly."
That was referenced in the wiki link I provided. The orion article seems to indicate that it never got to the testing phase, just design:
Supporters of Project Orion felt that it had potential for cheap interplanetary travel, but it lost political approval over concerns with fallout from its propulsion.[2] The Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 is generally acknowledged to have ended the project.
Actually it sounds like she can do science pretty well. It sounds to me like the failures were in the peer-review process.
We have peer review because scientists are biased and are poor judges of their own work. We naturally think the results we've spent long hours getting are worthwhile, and have a natural human tendency to be biased into thinking our hypotheses are correct. If her experiments didn't prove her case, her mentor should have realized it, and the reviewers should have sent it back. She was no doubt convinced of her findings, even if they did turn out to be wrong.
Seems like in over a thousand tests, we only tested nuclear weapons for their capability to be used as a weapon or to defend against them. I think we shouldn't test any more for that purpose, but testing for awesomeness like "launching stuff into the atmosphere using a nuke"... fuck yes!
I realize this is the internet, and we slashdotters have a reputation to maintain, but seriously... ask yourself if you're proud of that statement. It's a scientist who happens to be female, and your first thought that you share with the world is on her looks?
I can think of better things to with billions of dollars than create strange bacteria. The space elevator comes to mind.
Craig Venter already made an artificial bacterium. Pretty sure there has been at least one slashdot story covering it. Making artificial life is kind of a "We are going to land on the moon" type achievement. A lot was learned or will be learned along the way, like how to manipulate large amounts of DNA sequences, and requirements for life. The longer term goal seems to be to make bacteria that will eat oil spills, or make oil or whatever else we want. Organic nanomachines.
I don't know a whole lot about it, there's plenty of information out there about it that I'm not too interested in reading, but I do know it can't be simply written off as useless. In fact, from what I know, it could be more useful than a space elevator. Space elevators have little chance of reversing global warming, for example, but it's conceivable that we could make microbes that would eat up the excess carbon. Lets not get into an argument about which future technology will be useful, obviously.
Anyway, progress on the two are hardly mutually exclusive.
I think blaming the two party system is missing the point when, again, the primaries are open. There typically FAR more choices than just two, but no one bothers to vote until the field is already narrowed down to two.
That is not the political parties' doing, that is voter laziness. It would be easy to elect a good politician that has our interests in mind, simple three step process:
1. All of us read up on the candidates before the primaries and choose some good ones
2. Vote in the primaries for that person
3. Vote in the general election for that person.
We are a democracy, and there's no power keeping good politicians out of office aside from apathy. Blaming the two parties for the crap that gets elected is foolish, the problem lies squarely with the voters who ignore one of the two votes every single time.
Slashdot Mirror
Why try to use it as a Facebook replacement? It isn't designed to directly compete. Facebook has a "two way" model (where two people have to agree to be 'friends')
Some of us are wishing to replace it maybe? Facebook has annoyed me many times more than google has. Site redesigns that I didn't like, privacy issues. For another, I'm facebook friends with more people than I want to be. Some of my relatives got really upset when they found out I was on facebook, was not friends with them, and had blocked them. People from high school who I didn't bother going to the 10 year reunion to see. Seems like most of my facebook friends are people I don't want any contact with. Meanwhile, most people I know aren't on google plus, and I haven't built up a pile of fake friends in it yet.
Maybe that's just me.
I think I'm in the minority here, but I don't want or need people whose interests align with me to "fight the good fight." I want the representatives that I vote for (as opposed to the ones sponsored by interests opposed to mine) to just win, I want consumer interests to just win, I want proponents of things like ending software patents or increasing government transparency to just win.
When your side is playing the game fair and the other side isn't, that becomes frustrating quickly. And it's not like the integrity of the court system is endangered here by the judge staying on. We already have judges who fail to recuse themselves when they should, and most often against our interests.
Fuck ethics. The corrupt side certainly does already.
I've never heard that term applied to anything besides airplanes developed at the lockheed martin facilities. But wiki tells me it "describes a group within an organization given a high degree of autonomy and unhampered by bureaucracy, tasked with working on advanced or secret projects."
Or else maybe lockheed martin researchers got tired of making the next stealth plane and decided to go in a different direction.
I thought it was HSPA that's not really 4G. LTE seems to be much faster.
You're suggesting someone should use a PC for gaming instead of the xbox on slashdot? You're kind of preaching to the choir there.
If that disc has multiplayer and you're logged into XBL, multiplayer just works -- you're not force fed advertisements at any time.
Indeed, works every time, those three little red lights aren't trying to sell you anything (ZING!)
As a member of the master race, PC gamer, I'd laugh at you both... except I find myself reloading the ads on the steam page every half an hour to see if there's a deal on a game I already own on the 360.
Automatic driving cars we'd be allowing on the road would have to be to the point of being safer than a human driver. Makes sense that we'd let them go faster.
Am... am I supposed to object to safer cars on the road because the people using them would have more money than me? When we're talking about tax cuts, there is at least an argument that it's a zero sum game, their gain is my loss. With traffic safety, that doesn't really apply.
If the local country club starts making plans of allowing their autocars to drive 100mph through poor residential areas, sure, I'll be at the front lines of that fight comrade, but otherwise, save the class warfare for battles that are actually class warfare.
Yes, in a million years, people will be able to read the information in esperanto, which they will all speak, on their linux desktops in their flying cars.
If LIFE has taught us anything, it's "Store your information in DNA."
... of course, you couldn't keep it close to the nuclear waste in question.
For one thing, you simply cannot beat the ability to make backups. You could make an artificial yeast chromesome or chromesomes, grow up several gallons of the stuff, freeze it down and store it in multiple locations. Future generations will probably be able to sequence them instantly with tricorders or the iPad 900.
I, uh, think you linked to the wrong article.
Or else you already tried living without dynamic random-access memory, and your computer randomly linked to the wiki article on poverty as a result.
How much time does it take to verify someone's information in the Nigerian prince scheme? I thought it was "Send me your bank account info" and if you sent them something else, they'd just ignore it. I'm surprised research indicates they'd save much time filtering out the smart people.
If you want to pin the recent increases on Man and CO2, then you need to explain how the past increases came to be and why the current increases are not driven by the same forces.
By what standard? Is there a set of rules for proving climatology that are universally acknowledged that I haven't heard of? Proving how a past increase in temperature occurred, before we were monitoring the planet as closely as we are monitoring it now could be impossible. Not being able to point to a spike and explain what caused it doesn't mean you pretend we understand nothing.
No, it suggests that society was tolerant of heat. No one is suggesting otherwise now. People won't keel over and die, society won't fall apart if global warming continues.
It can still very much be a bad thing for most people.
Consider that people at that time didn't have electricity, yet people thrived. Does that imply that electricity suddenly not working anymore would be a good thing?
TB was pretty much a solved problem in the 1st world. Then we decided we couldn't force people into quarantine to ensure they got proper treatment and to prevent the spread of such a readily transmissible disease.
Because we have a vaccine.
Today we generally don't forcibly quarantine people even though we aren't vaccinating because it's only contagious for a few weeks after treatment has started, and it's easy enough for people with TB to isolate themselves and or wear a mask. Also the disease is not life threatening and it's treatable.
There are exceptions, and quarantine does happen in those cases
Best I can tell from what passes as thought in the politically correct set, diseases got rights or something. Or people got the right to not get treated and to pass on the crap they catch. I really can't decipher it.
Maybe then you should avoid jumping to the dumbest possible conclusion before doing the slightest bit of research. Actually, given your track record here, maybe you should just avoid making conclusions period.
But don't worry, this is all the evil Republican's fault. ObamaCare^WTax will fix all these problems.
Something tells me you'd be opposed to the government spending money to start vaccinating people against tuberculosis again. So I'm guessing how you'd deal with this outbreak would be to implement the usual republican healthcare plan: "Don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly."
Sounds a little like wall street. Except his shady operations gives me free movies. Wall street scams give me a broken economy and threaten my job.
So if you take hundred Kims, 40 of them are male.
Sounds like a party.
Yeah, but the FPS for that platform all really suck.
As an American, I think a case could be made for giving NZ control of our DOJ.
Supporters of Project Orion felt that it had potential for cheap interplanetary travel, but it lost political approval over concerns with fallout from its propulsion.[2] The Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 is generally acknowledged to have ended the project.
Actually it sounds like she can do science pretty well. It sounds to me like the failures were in the peer-review process.
We have peer review because scientists are biased and are poor judges of their own work. We naturally think the results we've spent long hours getting are worthwhile, and have a natural human tendency to be biased into thinking our hypotheses are correct. If her experiments didn't prove her case, her mentor should have realized it, and the reviewers should have sent it back. She was no doubt convinced of her findings, even if they did turn out to be wrong.
During the operation plumbob tests, a 900kg steel plate may have been launched into orbit.
Seems like in over a thousand tests, we only tested nuclear weapons for their capability to be used as a weapon or to defend against them. I think we shouldn't test any more for that purpose, but testing for awesomeness like "launching stuff into the atmosphere using a nuke"... fuck yes!
I realize this is the internet, and we slashdotters have a reputation to maintain, but seriously... ask yourself if you're proud of that statement. It's a scientist who happens to be female, and your first thought that you share with the world is on her looks?
I can think of better things to with billions of dollars than create strange bacteria. The space elevator comes to mind.
Craig Venter already made an artificial bacterium. Pretty sure there has been at least one slashdot story covering it. Making artificial life is kind of a "We are going to land on the moon" type achievement. A lot was learned or will be learned along the way, like how to manipulate large amounts of DNA sequences, and requirements for life. The longer term goal seems to be to make bacteria that will eat oil spills, or make oil or whatever else we want. Organic nanomachines.
I don't know a whole lot about it, there's plenty of information out there about it that I'm not too interested in reading, but I do know it can't be simply written off as useless. In fact, from what I know, it could be more useful than a space elevator. Space elevators have little chance of reversing global warming, for example, but it's conceivable that we could make microbes that would eat up the excess carbon. Lets not get into an argument about which future technology will be useful, obviously.
Anyway, progress on the two are hardly mutually exclusive.
I think blaming the two party system is missing the point when, again, the primaries are open. There typically FAR more choices than just two, but no one bothers to vote until the field is already narrowed down to two.
That is not the political parties' doing, that is voter laziness. It would be easy to elect a good politician that has our interests in mind, simple three step process:
1. All of us read up on the candidates before the primaries and choose some good ones
2. Vote in the primaries for that person
3. Vote in the general election for that person.
We are a democracy, and there's no power keeping good politicians out of office aside from apathy. Blaming the two parties for the crap that gets elected is foolish, the problem lies squarely with the voters who ignore one of the two votes every single time.