Not to say that ol' Meg Whitman was a great alternative
Heloooo understatement! We'll never know for sure, but my crystal ball says Whitman also would have vetoed this, and would have killed public education too. I regret that Brown was the alternative to Whitman, I don't regret voting for Brown over Whitman though.
I don't know that it's that gloomy, I think patience, Valve, and indie games are pretty good solutions. Let the big game developers make big expensive DRM, DLC games for the prime age demographic with lots of disposable income. Buying said games are not compulsory, the rest of us can avoid overpriced games just fine.
Interesting that you blame the consumers for being clueless morons instead of the game industry for being greedy. Gamers are an unorganized, disunited collection of individuals, while someone making a game has a monopoly on that game. There are plenty of other gamers that will buy a game regardless of DRM or DLC, while if you want to play the game, there's no competition. Expecting individuals to make their game choices based on long-term considerations of consumer rights? I'm skeptical that it could ever work on it's own, it's like trying to herd cats.
Even if it did, those greedy developers and marketers would only see it as a failure of marketing, or the individual game, rather than the DRM or pricing structure itself. Which isn't crazy. I heard a lot about Spore's DRM, but it seems like what ultimately did Spore in was that it was a mediocre game.
If you think that ESC are completely redundant with adult stem cells, why do you think researchers are still pushing for ESC research? Even if you presume to be an expert in the field, it's awfully arrogant to assume you know better than the rest of the field.
The track record for ESC is quite good. We discovered a lot about adult stem cells and biology by doing studies on embryonic stem cells. We even discovered induced pluripotent stem cells via studying ESC, which are going to be far more useful for treatment than adult stem cells.
OTOH, it still means the source wasn't a separate and distinct human being that had to be destroyed in order to produce them (which is the whole kick against the embryonic ones in the first place)
Don't fool yourself. Theological arguments are not a significant factor impediment to using ESC right now. They're already being used for what they're useful for, which is research. Theological arguments are also not a significant factor impeding ESC therapy, what's stopping that is immune rejection and the fact that they're hard to control. If you take an ESC, it's not going to be your cells, and so your immune system is going to reject it. If it doesn't, the ESC would still either die, or produce tumors, not cure you.
If neither of those were issues, and ESC worked like magic, do you actually think the rest of us who don't share your opinions on when life begins would forgo treatment? Hell, do you think people who DO share your opinions would? At most, we'd see ESC treatments effectively outlawed in poor conservative areas, some legislation might be introduced to ban insurance from covering it, but when push comes to shove, the rich would get the effective treatment they needed while the poor would have your morality forced on them, much as is the situation with abortion today. Some of the rich, cured people would feel guilty for it, maybe they'd have to fly overseas to countries where religious fundamentalists were a little less in control, but the ethical dilemma would not stop treatment for everyone.
I'm still hoping to get my invite to diaspora, and I'll be delighted if it takes off, but lets be honest: it's never going to reach where even google+ is right now. Quitting facebook and google+ for diaspora is basically quitting social networking altogether. As I understand it, diaspora had two selling points: one it was not under the control of a large corporation who could abuse you, and two you were able to choose who you shared what with. Google+ scooped that second feature already, and it probably won't be long before facebook does too if they haven't already.
I don't think highly enough of my friends to be that they'll make the switch due to privacy reasons alone.
(Now seems like a good time to remind mods not to mod the messenger down just because they don't like the message...)
Both of you are giving away free content and clearly are violating some copyright law. I demand you send me royalties in the amount of 49 bajillion dollars. I would be willing to settle for a mere 49 THOUSAND dollars for a limited time though.
I would suggest that google plus does not necessarily have to beat facebook in terms of numbers in order to be a success. If you use the google search engine, gmail, or google maps, and have a google plus account, you'll get notifications about activity on google plus. Moreover, you are still a google user, and are sellable in terms of advertising.
If and when facebook comes out with an e-mail product, a maps product, and a search engine, then google might start to sweat.
If google plus dies, I doubt it will be because so many users are upset they had to use their real name. I suspect it will be because people compare the "everything is visible to everyone" of facebook to the "you can actually limit who sees what you post" on google plus and assume that means google plus is dead.
Also worth noting that as with any disease, rare but serious complications can arise. Birth defects are possible. The virus can also suddenly take a liking to your eyes, Herpes is the leading cause of blindness in one eye.
A disease is ONLY a non-issue when it is eradicated completely.
I'd say it was funny, except you ran the joke into the ground. How much time total did you spend on this little project? Also, you were evidently complaining about slashdot heading down the tubes while injecting shit into every other discussion.
squid (Score 1)
by grub on Thursday September 15, @11:52AM (#37410324) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Low-Cost Tools To Track Employees' Web Use?
Use squid and a squid log analyzer.
Since when did Ask Slashdot become a Google proxy? Sheesh.
You seem convinced that it's very slow warming we can safely ignore in the short term, despite a reported shift in the message. Is it possible you stick to the reports about "We have a hundred years before we have to do anything about it" because that was much easier, and/or because we tend to stubbornly cling to the first message we hear despite indications the situation has changed?
I used to have low blood pressure. In recent years it has risen. Until recently, I had much the same reaction: "Bah, that must be wrong. I have low blood pressure. It can't be high now! And I know it because it was low years ago, plus I don't want to have to change my diet."
I'd guess it has more to do with liability and regulations, which is usually the case for questionable medical tourism. There are some valuable treatments being delayed by comparatively rigorous testing regulations in the US to make sure the treatment works and is safe. There are also a lot of people who will sell you snake oil.
If you do your homework, you will probably be able to distinguish the two faster than the FDA, but you also assume more risk and costs than the average american is willing to take on.
And they're being used in cell biology for fluorescence. Compared with the uses you just mentioned, that seems a little like using a gun to hammer nails, but hey, useful is useful.
Your comparison is wrong. No, I don't think we're so dumb that we would be using candles rather than lightbulbs. And according to the above, it's dead, they didn't hype it ENOUGH. I have yet to see a billboard or commercial for google plus, there was a marketing blitz?
No competitors? Myspace was what we were using before facebook. And while facebook has been established for a while, it didn't perfect it by any stretch. There's plenty of improving to do, the different classes of associations / circles was a big one. In any event, it's too early to be saying google plus is a failed experiment.
You're thinking about bolting from google apps because their google+ is taking a while longer than they promised? I assume there's a reason that signing up for a regular gmail account and using google plus in the meantime isn't acceptable?
IT LAUNCHED TWO FUCKING MONTHS AGO. You know what my facebook wall looked like two months after launch? Nothing, because I hadn't signed up for it yet. Also, the facebook wall didn't go up until 7 months after launch. 10 months it had 1 million users. Two months out, google+ has 10 million users.
Anyway, I see facebook making changes in response to the competition. Not fixing all gripes with it of course, but changes are being made to the... er... "game" as it were.
(By the way, let's not start using the term "gamechange." Sounds too much like some douchebag marketing suit talking.)
Sorry to go off-topic here, but what the hell law did shouting "bang bang" break?!? Surely the UK has not outlawed "being an arse," and surely no one thought an actual gun was being fired. That was covered under the same "Malicious communication" that TFA involves?
Mocking a policeman wounded in the line of duty IS despicable, but doesn't seem like something that needs to involve the law or courts.
WHO stands to profit from "preaching" global warming? I see a lot of slashdotters offended by Gore's supposed hypocrisy. Those boil down to ad-homenim attacks. One hypocrite subscribing to an idea does not make that idea untrue.
A google search came up with only more ad-homenim attacks on hollywood celebrities, which I have no desire to defend, so I'll ask again: who is it you think stands to profit from cutting carbon emissions that is making people skeptical of climate change? It's not Al Gore or Hollywood celebrities.
First, the study of climate (or astronomy) is not strictly a science. There are no opportunities to conduct controlled experiments.
That's not true. Computer models are experiments used in many other fields. Here's an example of a computer model being used in cell biology. Quite obviously it's not science if you tinker around with it until it tells you what you want to hear, and will always lose out to real-world experiments if the real world disagrees with it, but they can be experiments.
And there's plenty of science to it besides computer models. CO2 absorbing heat, measuring the levels of CO2, etc.
Many other fields of science don't have controlled experiments as their basis. Evolution has little room for experimenting, but is still science.
Lastly, we ARE doing the experiment. Stupidly, we are doing it with the same petri dish we live in. The Koch brothers are surely going for a nobel prize.
Not everybody has any gripe with climate scientists because they are climate scientists.
That was the POINT. It's not the science bit that bothers people. It's not a question of credibility or skepticism either. People like scientists and science and will eat their findings up without a trace of hesitation. Right up until they say something the people don't want to hear for religious, economic, political, or other non-scientific reasons. Then the response is various degrees of "Shoot the messenger."
I guess a black light might work, that's true. The maximum excitation for GFP is 488nm, which is well within the visible spectrum, but googling black light and GFP showed it does have that effect.
No. The excitation light for a fluorophore is always going to be more intense and higher-energy than the emitted light, otherwise it would violate the laws of thermodynamics. If the LED light on your clock isn't bright enough to wake you up, the light emitted from your cat will not be bright enough to wake you up.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to say that ol' Meg Whitman was a great alternative
Heloooo understatement! We'll never know for sure, but my crystal ball says Whitman also would have vetoed this, and would have killed public education too. I regret that Brown was the alternative to Whitman, I don't regret voting for Brown over Whitman though.
Do you really need your whole life on your phone?
Do I need to give up something as useful as a smartphone simply because our elected officials are too chicken shit to defend the constitution?
I don't know that it's that gloomy, I think patience, Valve, and indie games are pretty good solutions. Let the big game developers make big expensive DRM, DLC games for the prime age demographic with lots of disposable income. Buying said games are not compulsory, the rest of us can avoid overpriced games just fine.
Interesting that you blame the consumers for being clueless morons instead of the game industry for being greedy. Gamers are an unorganized, disunited collection of individuals, while someone making a game has a monopoly on that game. There are plenty of other gamers that will buy a game regardless of DRM or DLC, while if you want to play the game, there's no competition. Expecting individuals to make their game choices based on long-term considerations of consumer rights? I'm skeptical that it could ever work on it's own, it's like trying to herd cats.
Even if it did, those greedy developers and marketers would only see it as a failure of marketing, or the individual game, rather than the DRM or pricing structure itself. Which isn't crazy. I heard a lot about Spore's DRM, but it seems like what ultimately did Spore in was that it was a mediocre game.
The track record for ESC is quite good. We discovered a lot about adult stem cells and biology by doing studies on embryonic stem cells. We even discovered induced pluripotent stem cells via studying ESC, which are going to be far more useful for treatment than adult stem cells.
OTOH, it still means the source wasn't a separate and distinct human being that had to be destroyed in order to produce them (which is the whole kick against the embryonic ones in the first place)
Don't fool yourself. Theological arguments are not a significant factor impediment to using ESC right now. They're already being used for what they're useful for, which is research. Theological arguments are also not a significant factor impeding ESC therapy, what's stopping that is immune rejection and the fact that they're hard to control. If you take an ESC, it's not going to be your cells, and so your immune system is going to reject it. If it doesn't, the ESC would still either die, or produce tumors, not cure you.
If neither of those were issues, and ESC worked like magic, do you actually think the rest of us who don't share your opinions on when life begins would forgo treatment? Hell, do you think people who DO share your opinions would? At most, we'd see ESC treatments effectively outlawed in poor conservative areas, some legislation might be introduced to ban insurance from covering it, but when push comes to shove, the rich would get the effective treatment they needed while the poor would have your morality forced on them, much as is the situation with abortion today. Some of the rich, cured people would feel guilty for it, maybe they'd have to fly overseas to countries where religious fundamentalists were a little less in control, but the ethical dilemma would not stop treatment for everyone.
I'm still hoping to get my invite to diaspora, and I'll be delighted if it takes off, but lets be honest: it's never going to reach where even google+ is right now. Quitting facebook and google+ for diaspora is basically quitting social networking altogether. As I understand it, diaspora had two selling points: one it was not under the control of a large corporation who could abuse you, and two you were able to choose who you shared what with. Google+ scooped that second feature already, and it probably won't be long before facebook does too if they haven't already.
I don't think highly enough of my friends to be that they'll make the switch due to privacy reasons alone.
(Now seems like a good time to remind mods not to mod the messenger down just because they don't like the message...)
Both of you are giving away free content and clearly are violating some copyright law. I demand you send me royalties in the amount of 49 bajillion dollars. I would be willing to settle for a mere 49 THOUSAND dollars for a limited time though.
Sincerely, Righthaven LLC
I would suggest that google plus does not necessarily have to beat facebook in terms of numbers in order to be a success. If you use the google search engine, gmail, or google maps, and have a google plus account, you'll get notifications about activity on google plus. Moreover, you are still a google user, and are sellable in terms of advertising.
If and when facebook comes out with an e-mail product, a maps product, and a search engine, then google might start to sweat.
If google plus dies, I doubt it will be because so many users are upset they had to use their real name. I suspect it will be because people compare the "everything is visible to everyone" of facebook to the "you can actually limit who sees what you post" on google plus and assume that means google plus is dead.
Also worth noting that as with any disease, rare but serious complications can arise. Birth defects are possible. The virus can also suddenly take a liking to your eyes, Herpes is the leading cause of blindness in one eye.
A disease is ONLY a non-issue when it is eradicated completely.
squid (Score 1) by grub on Thursday September 15, @11:52AM (#37410324) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Low-Cost Tools To Track Employees' Web Use? Use squid and a squid log analyzer. Since when did Ask Slashdot become a Google proxy? Sheesh.
You seem convinced that it's very slow warming we can safely ignore in the short term, despite a reported shift in the message. Is it possible you stick to the reports about "We have a hundred years before we have to do anything about it" because that was much easier, and/or because we tend to stubbornly cling to the first message we hear despite indications the situation has changed?
I used to have low blood pressure. In recent years it has risen. Until recently, I had much the same reaction: "Bah, that must be wrong. I have low blood pressure. It can't be high now! And I know it because it was low years ago, plus I don't want to have to change my diet."
I'd guess it has more to do with liability and regulations, which is usually the case for questionable medical tourism. There are some valuable treatments being delayed by comparatively rigorous testing regulations in the US to make sure the treatment works and is safe. There are also a lot of people who will sell you snake oil.
If you do your homework, you will probably be able to distinguish the two faster than the FDA, but you also assume more risk and costs than the average american is willing to take on.
And they're being used in cell biology for fluorescence. Compared with the uses you just mentioned, that seems a little like using a gun to hammer nails, but hey, useful is useful.
Your comparison is wrong. No, I don't think we're so dumb that we would be using candles rather than lightbulbs. And according to the above, it's dead, they didn't hype it ENOUGH. I have yet to see a billboard or commercial for google plus, there was a marketing blitz?
No competitors? Myspace was what we were using before facebook. And while facebook has been established for a while, it didn't perfect it by any stretch. There's plenty of improving to do, the different classes of associations / circles was a big one. In any event, it's too early to be saying google plus is a failed experiment.
You're thinking about bolting from google apps because their google+ is taking a while longer than they promised? I assume there's a reason that signing up for a regular gmail account and using google plus in the meantime isn't acceptable?
IT LAUNCHED TWO FUCKING MONTHS AGO. You know what my facebook wall looked like two months after launch? Nothing, because I hadn't signed up for it yet. Also, the facebook wall didn't go up until 7 months after launch. 10 months it had 1 million users. Two months out, google+ has 10 million users.
Anyway, I see facebook making changes in response to the competition. Not fixing all gripes with it of course, but changes are being made to the... er... "game" as it were.
(By the way, let's not start using the term "gamechange." Sounds too much like some douchebag marketing suit talking.)
Sorry to go off-topic here, but what the hell law did shouting "bang bang" break?!? Surely the UK has not outlawed "being an arse," and surely no one thought an actual gun was being fired. That was covered under the same "Malicious communication" that TFA involves?
Mocking a policeman wounded in the line of duty IS despicable, but doesn't seem like something that needs to involve the law or courts.
The matrix AND terminator TRILOGIES involved computers going evil: what the hell are you doing USING ONE?!?
WHO stands to profit from "preaching" global warming? I see a lot of slashdotters offended by Gore's supposed hypocrisy. Those boil down to ad-homenim attacks. One hypocrite subscribing to an idea does not make that idea untrue.
A google search came up with only more ad-homenim attacks on hollywood celebrities, which I have no desire to defend, so I'll ask again: who is it you think stands to profit from cutting carbon emissions that is making people skeptical of climate change? It's not Al Gore or Hollywood celebrities.
First, the study of climate (or astronomy) is not strictly a science. There are no opportunities to conduct controlled experiments.
That's not true. Computer models are experiments used in many other fields. Here's an example of a computer model being used in cell biology. Quite obviously it's not science if you tinker around with it until it tells you what you want to hear, and will always lose out to real-world experiments if the real world disagrees with it, but they can be experiments.
And there's plenty of science to it besides computer models. CO2 absorbing heat, measuring the levels of CO2, etc.
Many other fields of science don't have controlled experiments as their basis. Evolution has little room for experimenting, but is still science.
Lastly, we ARE doing the experiment. Stupidly, we are doing it with the same petri dish we live in. The Koch brothers are surely going for a nobel prize.
Not everybody has any gripe with climate scientists because they are climate scientists.
That was the POINT. It's not the science bit that bothers people. It's not a question of credibility or skepticism either. People like scientists and science and will eat their findings up without a trace of hesitation. Right up until they say something the people don't want to hear for religious, economic, political, or other non-scientific reasons. Then the response is various degrees of "Shoot the messenger."
I guess a black light might work, that's true. The maximum excitation for GFP is 488nm, which is well within the visible spectrum, but googling black light and GFP showed it does have that effect.
No. The excitation light for a fluorophore is always going to be more intense and higher-energy than the emitted light, otherwise it would violate the laws of thermodynamics. If the LED light on your clock isn't bright enough to wake you up, the light emitted from your cat will not be bright enough to wake you up.