You're seriously going to ignore all the financial links between these people?
Yes, because nothing seems to be wrong. What crime is being committed? Google and/or 23 and me paid for an advertisement on a blimp and happened to know the guys operating the blimp... that's somehow bad?
Pointing out that Google's search engine isn't open source gives me anti-Google bent? What my signature implies is that Google is hypocritical for professing to be an openness advocate when their core product is as closed and proprietary as Microsoft Windows. Hiding its secrets out of fear of advertiser exploitation is the same logic used to defend closed source against security hackers. What happened to the philosophy of "many eyes"?
A search engine and an operating system are two very different things, thus it's not hypocritical. You're comparing apples to oranges. I suspect you're doing it intentionally, as google's operating system is, in fact, open source. And that's quite disingenuous, google open sourcing their search engine would in fact break it, unlike an operating system.
Fortunately the convention seems to be that whoever registers for a.com, first implicily has the rights to that name in other
Also fortunately, very few people would actually care if gerber.xxx was a porn site. For a long time whitehouse.com was a porn site. Was good for a laugh, but it wasn't like people were outraged thinking that Bush or Clinton or whoever was in the office at the time was filming all those lesbo scenes. How many people are going to type in gerber.xxx, get porn or viruses, and stop buying baby food?
Anonymous Coward is quite famous around slashdot and is a known troll on top of that, so I have to ask, what's your affiliation with the people who make said tiger-producing donuts?
I think you missed the point of that little Simpson's lesson. No, one would not need to know your investment in it since AN ANTI-TIGER ROCK DOESN'T WORK.
No it's not. Where's the smoking gun? Prove to me the blimp wasn't paid for using legitimate funds. Prove to me that google's planes can't be used for scientific purposes.
Why the anti-google bent anyway? I mean, your signature implies google is hypocritical because they don't release their secrets and allow scummy advertisers to destroy their search engine. Jealous of their success? Being paid by Mark Zuckerberg? Or did google touch you in your bathing suit area when you were younger? Or did you just forget to post anonymously while trolling?
Missing critical information that Sergey Brin isn't really a "celebrity" so much as "google founder." The difference may not be legally relevant, but for fuck's sake, point out in the summary that he's famous for co-founding google, the service he is fucking using to make that "endorsement."
Also worth pointing out that the "endorsement" is less of an endorsement and more of a "explanation as to how he took the picture and mentioning it was a pleasant experience."
If CEOs are barred from mentioning online things about companies they've invested in, then that's not a -terrible- abuse of the laws, but it would still be abusive.
Don't see what that has to do with anything. As agent K said: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals..." The merits of the iphone vs android are not the issue. TFA points out t-mobile is losing the high value customers because it's not offering the iphone. You can tell as many of those customers as you want that the iphone is nothing special, but in my experience, it's near impossible to convince one non-technophile not to get an iphone, let alone enough to save t-mobile.
I'm pretty sure that quite a few species like red pandas could make very viable pets. In fact they're probably endangered by their protection status.
Quite a few? There are 8.7 million species. You name three species. That's not quite a few, that's barely anything. Maybe red pandas would work, tigers -possibly- though I can't really see a use for that (if my housecat were the size of a pony, I'd be dead when he got too playful). Domestication is not easy just because foxes did it. There was a big economic interest there.
We won't be able to domesticate giant pandas, we can barely get them to breed in captivity.
Orcas seem like an extreme long shot too. One is tremendously expensive. A whole flock? No way, no one is going to do that just to keep them around. And if you try selling their meat, no one is going to buy it, and plenty of people will get upset about that.
Polar bears? Alligators? Domesticated =/= harmless. If you spend millions domesticating a gorilla, within a year of pet gorillas going on the market, one is going to get annoyed at a little kid poking it with sticks. Gorilla rips his limbs off, and you'll never sell another one to get your investment back.
And then there's the majority of species that don't require domestication that are going endangered already. Beetles, trees, lizards etc. No, it's not a solution at all.
Important lesson here: there is no "+1 pedantic" mod. On slashdot or in real life, which is why no one was too interested in making out with you new year's eve 1999 when you were telling everyone that the millennium wouldn't start until the next year.
Good to know, but I did work in Japan for a month, and had about a year of Japanese. The language barrier wasn't impossible, and I would have learned, but it just wasn't for me. I was oversimplifying, language wasn't the only reason.
Yes it will. Controls will be treated as well. Furthermore, this isn't a live technique. You fix the embryo with paraformadehyde first probably. This is for looking at morphology of cells or tissues, not living function. You have one mouse line with a mutation that causes blindness, one without, you cross in a fluorescent marker that makes their optic nerves glow. You get the embryos, fix them, do this thing to them, then you can clearly see how it's affecting the nerve, for example. A lot less disruptive than the alternative of cutting it into slices.
They used extremely common lab materials and seem to have told everyone the recipe: no patent was sought here. If they we going to try to sell it, they'd announce they had a secret, proprietary formula that could make your embryos turn clear. RIKEN, the institute that made the discovery, is not greedy. I've gotten DNA constructs from them before, they provided them free of charge, no contact making us promise to not share it, etc. If I could speak Japanese and if they'd hire me, I'd love to work there.
I find it odd that you are sure releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can't possibly be having negative effects, but attempting to regulate the Earth's temperature is sure to cause nothing but doom and ice. Reminds me of those people who won't take drugs they're prescribed because those doctors are out to get them with their "chemicals" but will inhale thousands of chemicals if they're sold by Philip Morris.
a liberal mindset believe that resources are running out, and that they need to force change on other people
As opposed to assuming they'll never run out despite every indication they will, and letting other people selfishly use them up? Gee, we're such assholes.
If you're worried about the climate not staying exactly the same from one year to the next, you have picked the wrong planet to be born on.
When climate change is avoidable by a little self-restraint, we should take steps to avoid that climate change. In life, pain is inevitable, but that's a pretty piss-poor justification for saying "It's okay for me to hurt you, because if you worry about pain you picked the wrong planet to be born on."
The accusation that climate change alarmists are forming a secular religion I believe is not completely unfounded. Anyone who would follow the Goracle on the topic of climate change may not like it when the computer models are finally generated that finally reflect reality.
Some people on this side of the debate are stupid yes, but that doesn't make all of us wrong.
It will be data gathered from satellites that I believe will finally put an end to playing climate games by sampling data in way that produces the desired results.
Your accusations that people are skewing the data have not been backed up. Most recently the whole climategate thing showed the skeptics were trying to make something out of nothing.
If the data is being skewed, where's the smoking gun? If you don't have it, then stop throwing those lies around.
How would we "forget" something that happened before humans were around? Oh, using science to figure out that the climate has changed in the past? So science is good only when it backs up your political agenda? How convenient for you.
Anyway, something happening naturally in the past does not mean it MUST happen naturally always. You know, murder is a thing despite people dying naturally too.
Yes, but not because of climate change. That's like saying "I've really ruined the carpet in this apartment. Better move to a new apartment in a new town."
"upgrade" my taste in music? I'm not going to claim that Lavigne is a respectable artist, but musical tastes are just musical tastes. There's no hierarcy there. You listen to music you enjoy, trying to change the music you like is pretentious, fake, sand for insecure people.
Does the RIAA even care about their image? Most people don't go out choose whether to buy RIAA music or not. You buy a song that isn't indie, it's RIAA, right? They could run ads saying "RIAA: we hate the following ethnic groups..." and tell racist jokes, and unless a boycott of all non-indie was organized, I'm guessing they'd still profit just as much.
And I'll be DAMNED if I listen to some hipster indie crap...
(I kid, but in all honesty, I'm going to buy the next Avril Lavigne single that comes out as soon as it comes out...)
When you say "collapses", I presume you refer to the exchange rate between BTC and USD. This is completely irrelevant to anybody using it as a payment system. All it means is that, in order to send $10 to someone, you'll have to send 100 BTC instead of 1 BTC. The actual number of BTC involved is utterly unimportant.
That makes more sense than I gave it credit. Good form, my apologies for jumping on the bash wagon.
This is not a case of congress saying "You know what's easier than addressing climate change? Going after guitars!" This seems to be a case of law enforcement saying "We got our funding cut and need to make it up elsewhere. You didn't fill out form 1332b-54 with a number two pencil, so that's a $2,000 fine. Chief needs a raise."
That does seem to be the strategy driving bitcoin. You hear about it one time: you laugh hysterically. You hear about it more, you stop laughing and start pointing out what's wrong with it. You hear about it even more and you just ignore it, and then hopefully the rubes will invest in it, and the people pushing it can cash out right before the thing collapses.
Some days I think those who don't care about their privacy are ahead of those of us that do. Privacy is dead, and they are not wasting effort fighting the tide.
I think it's quite often that issues arise in which "most people" are on the side that in retrospect proves idiotic or wrong. Especially when it comes to rights. Maybe there's some cognitive dissonance going on, that people accept if one does not have a right already, they probably don't deserve it or need it. "Right to privacy? Well if you have nothing to hide, you have no need for privacy."
Anyway, it hasn't stopped progress in the past. Facebook seems a very small hurdle to overcome compared to the barriers women's sufferage and civil rights activists were facing.
Yeah, thinkingn outside the box is something nerds NEVER do. We just blindly accept that the way things are always done is the best way to do them. Save this discussion for someone else.
They're state legislators from Missouri. Finding out what is and is not in the constitution would require reading it, which would limit their ability to call things they don't like "unconstitutional" and would limit their ability to propose quick fixes and powergrabs.
I often think that people who advocate states rights aren't paying any attention to the actual state governments they want to give more power to...
Slashdot Mirror
You're seriously going to ignore all the financial links between these people?
Yes, because nothing seems to be wrong. What crime is being committed? Google and/or 23 and me paid for an advertisement on a blimp and happened to know the guys operating the blimp... that's somehow bad?
Pointing out that Google's search engine isn't open source gives me anti-Google bent? What my signature implies is that Google is hypocritical for professing to be an openness advocate when their core product is as closed and proprietary as Microsoft Windows. Hiding its secrets out of fear of advertiser exploitation is the same logic used to defend closed source against security hackers. What happened to the philosophy of "many eyes"?
A search engine and an operating system are two very different things, thus it's not hypocritical. You're comparing apples to oranges. I suspect you're doing it intentionally, as google's operating system is, in fact, open source. And that's quite disingenuous, google open sourcing their search engine would in fact break it, unlike an operating system.
Fortunately the convention seems to be that whoever registers for a .com, first implicily has the rights to that name in other
Also fortunately, very few people would actually care if gerber.xxx was a porn site. For a long time whitehouse.com was a porn site. Was good for a laugh, but it wasn't like people were outraged thinking that Bush or Clinton or whoever was in the office at the time was filming all those lesbo scenes. How many people are going to type in gerber.xxx, get porn or viruses, and stop buying baby food?
Anonymous Coward is quite famous around slashdot and is a known troll on top of that, so I have to ask, what's your affiliation with the people who make said tiger-producing donuts?
I think you missed the point of that little Simpson's lesson. No, one would not need to know your investment in it since AN ANTI-TIGER ROCK DOESN'T WORK.
No it's not. Where's the smoking gun? Prove to me the blimp wasn't paid for using legitimate funds. Prove to me that google's planes can't be used for scientific purposes.
Why the anti-google bent anyway? I mean, your signature implies google is hypocritical because they don't release their secrets and allow scummy advertisers to destroy their search engine. Jealous of their success? Being paid by Mark Zuckerberg? Or did google touch you in your bathing suit area when you were younger? Or did you just forget to post anonymously while trolling?
Missing critical information that Sergey Brin isn't really a "celebrity" so much as "google founder." The difference may not be legally relevant, but for fuck's sake, point out in the summary that he's famous for co-founding google, the service he is fucking using to make that "endorsement."
Also worth pointing out that the "endorsement" is less of an endorsement and more of a "explanation as to how he took the picture and mentioning it was a pleasant experience."
If CEOs are barred from mentioning online things about companies they've invested in, then that's not a -terrible- abuse of the laws, but it would still be abusive.
Don't see what that has to do with anything. As agent K said: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals..." The merits of the iphone vs android are not the issue. TFA points out t-mobile is losing the high value customers because it's not offering the iphone. You can tell as many of those customers as you want that the iphone is nothing special, but in my experience, it's near impossible to convince one non-technophile not to get an iphone, let alone enough to save t-mobile.
I'm pretty sure that quite a few species like red pandas could make very viable pets. In fact they're probably endangered by their protection status.
Quite a few? There are 8.7 million species. You name three species. That's not quite a few, that's barely anything. Maybe red pandas would work, tigers -possibly- though I can't really see a use for that (if my housecat were the size of a pony, I'd be dead when he got too playful). Domestication is not easy just because foxes did it. There was a big economic interest there.
We won't be able to domesticate giant pandas, we can barely get them to breed in captivity.
Orcas seem like an extreme long shot too. One is tremendously expensive. A whole flock? No way, no one is going to do that just to keep them around. And if you try selling their meat, no one is going to buy it, and plenty of people will get upset about that.
Polar bears? Alligators? Domesticated =/= harmless. If you spend millions domesticating a gorilla, within a year of pet gorillas going on the market, one is going to get annoyed at a little kid poking it with sticks. Gorilla rips his limbs off, and you'll never sell another one to get your investment back.
And then there's the majority of species that don't require domestication that are going endangered already. Beetles, trees, lizards etc. No, it's not a solution at all.
Important lesson here: there is no "+1 pedantic" mod. On slashdot or in real life, which is why no one was too interested in making out with you new year's eve 1999 when you were telling everyone that the millennium wouldn't start until the next year.
Good to know, but I did work in Japan for a month, and had about a year of Japanese. The language barrier wasn't impossible, and I would have learned, but it just wasn't for me. I was oversimplifying, language wasn't the only reason.
Yes it will. Controls will be treated as well. Furthermore, this isn't a live technique. You fix the embryo with paraformadehyde first probably. This is for looking at morphology of cells or tissues, not living function. You have one mouse line with a mutation that causes blindness, one without, you cross in a fluorescent marker that makes their optic nerves glow. You get the embryos, fix them, do this thing to them, then you can clearly see how it's affecting the nerve, for example. A lot less disruptive than the alternative of cutting it into slices.
They used extremely common lab materials and seem to have told everyone the recipe: no patent was sought here. If they we going to try to sell it, they'd announce they had a secret, proprietary formula that could make your embryos turn clear. RIKEN, the institute that made the discovery, is not greedy. I've gotten DNA constructs from them before, they provided them free of charge, no contact making us promise to not share it, etc. If I could speak Japanese and if they'd hire me, I'd love to work there.
I find it odd that you are sure releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can't possibly be having negative effects, but attempting to regulate the Earth's temperature is sure to cause nothing but doom and ice. Reminds me of those people who won't take drugs they're prescribed because those doctors are out to get them with their "chemicals" but will inhale thousands of chemicals if they're sold by Philip Morris.
a liberal mindset believe that resources are running out, and that they need to force change on other people
As opposed to assuming they'll never run out despite every indication they will, and letting other people selfishly use them up? Gee, we're such assholes.
If you're worried about the climate not staying exactly the same from one year to the next, you have picked the wrong planet to be born on.
When climate change is avoidable by a little self-restraint, we should take steps to avoid that climate change. In life, pain is inevitable, but that's a pretty piss-poor justification for saying "It's okay for me to hurt you, because if you worry about pain you picked the wrong planet to be born on."
The accusation that climate change alarmists are forming a secular religion I believe is not completely unfounded. Anyone who would follow the Goracle on the topic of climate change may not like it when the computer models are finally generated that finally reflect reality.
Some people on this side of the debate are stupid yes, but that doesn't make all of us wrong.
It will be data gathered from satellites that I believe will finally put an end to playing climate games by sampling data in way that produces the desired results.
Your accusations that people are skewing the data have not been backed up. Most recently the whole climategate thing showed the skeptics were trying to make something out of nothing.
If the data is being skewed, where's the smoking gun? If you don't have it, then stop throwing those lies around.
How would we "forget" something that happened before humans were around? Oh, using science to figure out that the climate has changed in the past? So science is good only when it backs up your political agenda? How convenient for you.
Anyway, something happening naturally in the past does not mean it MUST happen naturally always. You know, murder is a thing despite people dying naturally too.
We need to GET OFF THIS ROCK
Yes, but not because of climate change. That's like saying "I've really ruined the carpet in this apartment. Better move to a new apartment in a new town."
"upgrade" my taste in music? I'm not going to claim that Lavigne is a respectable artist, but musical tastes are just musical tastes. There's no hierarcy there. You listen to music you enjoy, trying to change the music you like is pretentious, fake, sand for insecure people.
but it would soften the RIAA's image
Does the RIAA even care about their image? Most people don't go out choose whether to buy RIAA music or not. You buy a song that isn't indie, it's RIAA, right? They could run ads saying "RIAA: we hate the following ethnic groups..." and tell racist jokes, and unless a boycott of all non-indie was organized, I'm guessing they'd still profit just as much.
And I'll be DAMNED if I listen to some hipster indie crap...
(I kid, but in all honesty, I'm going to buy the next Avril Lavigne single that comes out as soon as it comes out...)
Yeah well MY UID is 2 digits. It's just cold in here. Plus my penis is 21 feet long, so I think we know who wins THIS discussion. (/thread)
When you say "collapses", I presume you refer to the exchange rate between BTC and USD. This is completely irrelevant to anybody using it as a payment system. All it means is that, in order to send $10 to someone, you'll have to send 100 BTC instead of 1 BTC. The actual number of BTC involved is utterly unimportant.
That makes more sense than I gave it credit. Good form, my apologies for jumping on the bash wagon.
This is not a case of congress saying "You know what's easier than addressing climate change? Going after guitars!" This seems to be a case of law enforcement saying "We got our funding cut and need to make it up elsewhere. You didn't fill out form 1332b-54 with a number two pencil, so that's a $2,000 fine. Chief needs a raise."
Please don't laugh
That does seem to be the strategy driving bitcoin. You hear about it one time: you laugh hysterically. You hear about it more, you stop laughing and start pointing out what's wrong with it. You hear about it even more and you just ignore it, and then hopefully the rubes will invest in it, and the people pushing it can cash out right before the thing collapses.
Some days I think those who don't care about their privacy are ahead of those of us that do. Privacy is dead, and they are not wasting effort fighting the tide.
I think it's quite often that issues arise in which "most people" are on the side that in retrospect proves idiotic or wrong. Especially when it comes to rights. Maybe there's some cognitive dissonance going on, that people accept if one does not have a right already, they probably don't deserve it or need it. "Right to privacy? Well if you have nothing to hide, you have no need for privacy."
Anyway, it hasn't stopped progress in the past. Facebook seems a very small hurdle to overcome compared to the barriers women's sufferage and civil rights activists were facing.
Yeah, thinkingn outside the box is something nerds NEVER do. We just blindly accept that the way things are always done is the best way to do them. Save this discussion for someone else.
They're state legislators from Missouri. Finding out what is and is not in the constitution would require reading it, which would limit their ability to call things they don't like "unconstitutional" and would limit their ability to propose quick fixes and powergrabs.
I often think that people who advocate states rights aren't paying any attention to the actual state governments they want to give more power to...