How much do you have to drink to pass out so badly that you don't feel your dog eating your toe??
Maybe not much if the toe is rotting and the nerves are damaged by diabetes and infection.
Besides, the man is a retard - he was urged to check for diabetes, but resisted "fearing the diagnosis" while his brother died of diabetes complications earlier!
It's really easy to point to someone acting out of fear and say "That's irrational: that's stupid." All of us have procrastinated out of fear on smaller things than "You could die." It's a universal human failing, and very common when it comes to scary medical things. Yes he should have done many things different, but we don't know the full story.
Let's reserve terms like "retard" for people who aren't behaving irrationally out of fear for their lives.
People probably -did- say that about sound and color when they first came to movies. If the early iterations were as gimmicky, pointless, poorly done, and marketed half as annoying as 3d is, they DEFINITELY said it.
Maybe 3d movies will eventually mature, but right now hearing "... IN 3D!!!" is in the same group of quality indicator phrases as "Featuring an AWESOME soundtrack by...." "Direct to DVD", or "Starring Paris Hilton."
Or are you going to say that you have a right to privacy from the air? Get real.
Okay, lets get real. Why -shouldn't- we have a right to privacy from the air? Simply because we haven't -needed- to have that privacy historically? Because the founding fathers, when drafting the constitution, should have anticipated satellites and the internet and would have written a provision in about that had they thought it necessary? Because if we're not doing anything wrong, we shouldn't have anything to hide from someone taking pictures from the air?
I don't think it's a trivial point either. Does local law enforcement have the right to use thermal imaging to see what we're doing inside our houses so long as they do it from the air? Because I know what they're saying on that issue, and the rest of us really aren't paying much attention as they start to move toward that direction. As the technology gets better and cheaper, if we don't say something, we may as well all build transparent houses for how much privacy we'll have.
So for all the good google does, this is one small way that it hurts some.
All technology has good and bad side effects. All. Even antibiotics, which are good, you could say it's contributed to population expansion (which is arguably a bad thing), and antibiotics really just fight bacteria. Something more open and versatile like maps? Yes, there are going to be downsides.
If contacts only marginally improves his vision, he doesn't even need glasses.
I meant that 3d is only a marginal improvement. It's just a not-so-cheap gimmick. A 3D movie is at best slightly better than a 2D version of it.
There are no advantages of glasses over contacts whatever
Dry eyes, sensitive eyes, fears about touching one's eyes, cosmetic value (to some people), personal preference, cheaper, less time in the morning and evening, headaches, and aamcf's point, just to name a few.
Getting a prescription for contacts or eye surgery seems like a ridiculous hoop to jump through just to get a marginally improved picture of "Step up."
He's undoubtedly heard of contact lenses before, that he still wears glasses suggests that he prefers them for some reason or another, and I don't see why he should change. Hollywood and theaters are the ones pushing this in the hopes that they can wring more money out of us.
The "forcibly expelling your innards out of both ends of your digestive track within hours or days" levels of radiation were mostly confined to a fairly small area around the reactor (or especially unlucky downwind areas when it was on fire) and are largely gone.
Gee, when you put it like that, it's hard to imagine why anyone would be concerned about nuclear power in their neighborhood:-P
On the other hand, it takes a while to become a good teacher. Some great professors have been teaching on chalkboards for decades, they've become adapted to it and it works. Don't fix what isn't broken or you'll go from a professor who is very effective at to an older person bumbling around on a computer.
The world is not full of evil organizations who are thoroughly evil, yet well funded, that run around doing evil for its own sake.
Alternatively, one or more of these evil-for-evil's-sake, well funded organizations do exist, and have just convinced you that they don't exist. Had you been wearing my tinfoil hat, that wouldn't have happened.
You get piles of stuff for free with any Ubuntu distro, and none of it is pirated (at least I haven't heard of any "Linux for Pirates", but maybe it exists)
Yarr... we be workin' on that, matey. These peg-fingers make the work slow, and it be difficult to motivate without promise of any booty. Ye have me word on the pirate code that it will be free as in grog when we be finished, yar.
Just curious, how would you have gone about finding them? You seem to imply you have a deep understanding of the technology involved.
I'd find someone with a name close to "Mariposa" and then beat them until they confessed to making it. Sister Mary Rosa may look like a sweet old nun, but that's just a cover.
Yes, an R4 isn't as bad as either of these, but, where does it end?
Where does common sense tell you it should end? Mine tells me it should end where waiting until I commit a crime with the thing would leave a lot of people in danger. A crack pipe and a piracy device, you can prosecute me after I use it illegally, the fact that it's harder to do that than try to prevent me from doing that doesn't matter. When talking about the ability to kill hundreds of people, that's another story.
Seeing as how I quite obviously wasn't proposing a sweeping new legal change, I was expressing an opinion flashdrives, I didn't think I needed to spell out specific exceptions.
Heck, I'd say I -should- have a right to own things which are only really usable for illegal activities. If I want to use a crackpipe as a paperweight but never use it to smoke crack (and I, in fact would not use it to smoke crack), then I should be able to.
There is no such thing as a rolling stop - you either stop or you don't
Yes, you've spotted an oxymoron, good job and all, but it's not actually "rolling on through" either. There is a significant difference between a car driving past a stop sign at 30 mph and a car that slows down to 5 mph at the stop sign: one of those gave the driver enough time to make sure they weren't going to t-bone a car or smash a person, satisfying the intended function of a stop.
It's a widely accepted term, the fact that literally it doesn't make much sense doesn't matter.
Perhaps you have never been side swiped by someone who failed to stop at a red light or stop sign?
I wouldn't -assume- that outlaw or allowing rolling stops makes a difference one way or the other, in the absence of evidence.
For one thing, I think it's plausible that coming to a complete stop doesn't mean you are anymore aware of what is going on in the intersection than if you did a rolling stop. For another thing, I think a lot of sideswipes at stop signs are probably due to people not even doing a rolling stop, I think most are probably people not noticing there was a stop sign.
So lets see some studies on the actual safety on rolling stop vs complete stops (which Lauder may have) before we say "think of the pedestrians and bicyclists!"
But most art is lost. And for good reason: because it's not worth saving....and who decides this? You?
No, we collectively decide what gets preserved with emulation or ports, directly by what we port, and indirectly by what we buy. If there's a game that no one ports to new generations of consoles, and no one emulates it, that's a reasonable indication that no one cared about it: it wasn't worth saving.
It's a little less arbitrary than what got saved in pompei. The amount of games preserved in emulation, at least for the moment, is pretty high. Especially the early generations, I mean you could fit the entire libraries of multiple early consoles on one $5 flash drive. Much more is going to be preserved than a city that was destroyed by a volcano.
Sure, it would be nice if we had the capability to preserve every game out there. Feel free to spend your time and money doing that for games no one is interested in. Until someone wastes money like that, preserving the classics and trashing the disposable works for every art form out there, and "what games do people want to see ported or emulated" is a generous standard.
Frankly It's a little pretentious to take GP's observation in the way that you did. He didn't nominate himself to be the one deciding which games were good and which ones were bad.
Probably some of those complaining about patent trolls in this article too will extol the virtues of the PS3 (or PS2) in other threads without realizing that they're really just helping RAMBUS.
It's not outside of the realm of possibility that someone complaining about the patent trolling is actually using the PS3 browser and the troll's own products to do so. (Though hopefully no self-respecting slashdotter would be doing so anyway. Not that there aren't plenty of slashdotters who don't respect themselves.)
Exactly so obvious. And you know, it sounds entirely possible it's superconducting, but you know they really won't know if it is or not until they (mumble mumble mumble...)
Actually, I'll just come right out and ask: how is it that this is just "possible?" I understand that they set up a device to measure resistance, and it sounds like its just a very thin layer that is actually superconducting which sounds like it could complicate things, but then it just says there was a "sharp change" in the conductivity. Sounds like their measurements didn't just say "zero resistance." Guessing they were saying the signal was noisy because the layer was so thin?
I know magnets levitate over at least some superconductors, would that not have been another test here?
After one person makes a claim on them it should be easy to check and see who else did and then start reversing charges.
This seems like such a good idea I found myself saying "Surely they already do that" before remembering, oh yeah, this is the credit card industry we're dealing with here, and there's probably no law forcing them to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
How much do you have to drink to pass out so badly that you don't feel your dog eating your toe??
Maybe not much if the toe is rotting and the nerves are damaged by diabetes and infection.
Besides, the man is a retard - he was urged to check for diabetes, but resisted "fearing the diagnosis" while his brother died of diabetes complications earlier!
It's really easy to point to someone acting out of fear and say "That's irrational: that's stupid." All of us have procrastinated out of fear on smaller things than "You could die." It's a universal human failing, and very common when it comes to scary medical things. Yes he should have done many things different, but we don't know the full story.
Let's reserve terms like "retard" for people who aren't behaving irrationally out of fear for their lives.
People probably -did- say that about sound and color when they first came to movies. If the early iterations were as gimmicky, pointless, poorly done, and marketed half as annoying as 3d is, they DEFINITELY said it.
Maybe 3d movies will eventually mature, but right now hearing "... IN 3D!!!" is in the same group of quality indicator phrases as "Featuring an AWESOME soundtrack by...." "Direct to DVD", or "Starring Paris Hilton."
In a way it should be labeled Malware, but that hardly seems an appropriate label since it's doing the user a favor...
Benware? Beneware? Goodware?
At least it was a current story.
Or are you going to say that you have a right to privacy from the air? Get real.
Okay, lets get real. Why -shouldn't- we have a right to privacy from the air? Simply because we haven't -needed- to have that privacy historically? Because the founding fathers, when drafting the constitution, should have anticipated satellites and the internet and would have written a provision in about that had they thought it necessary? Because if we're not doing anything wrong, we shouldn't have anything to hide from someone taking pictures from the air?
I don't think it's a trivial point either. Does local law enforcement have the right to use thermal imaging to see what we're doing inside our houses so long as they do it from the air? Because I know what they're saying on that issue, and the rest of us really aren't paying much attention as they start to move toward that direction. As the technology gets better and cheaper, if we don't say something, we may as well all build transparent houses for how much privacy we'll have.
What's the specialized oil called, out of curiosity?
So for all the good google does, this is one small way that it hurts some.
All technology has good and bad side effects. All. Even antibiotics, which are good, you could say it's contributed to population expansion (which is arguably a bad thing), and antibiotics really just fight bacteria. Something more open and versatile like maps? Yes, there are going to be downsides.
If contacts only marginally improves his vision, he doesn't even need glasses.
I meant that 3d is only a marginal improvement. It's just a not-so-cheap gimmick. A 3D movie is at best slightly better than a 2D version of it.
There are no advantages of glasses over contacts whatever
Dry eyes, sensitive eyes, fears about touching one's eyes, cosmetic value (to some people), personal preference, cheaper, less time in the morning and evening, headaches, and aamcf's point, just to name a few.
Of course, I get distracted by the film reel change indicators also.
Damn "Fight club." Now I can't stop noticing those either.
Getting a prescription for contacts or eye surgery seems like a ridiculous hoop to jump through just to get a marginally improved picture of "Step up."
He's undoubtedly heard of contact lenses before, that he still wears glasses suggests that he prefers them for some reason or another, and I don't see why he should change. Hollywood and theaters are the ones pushing this in the hopes that they can wring more money out of us.
Sorry, I was making fun of fuzzyfuzzyfungus' phrasing there, not making any type of commentary on nuclear power itself.
The "forcibly expelling your innards out of both ends of your digestive track within hours or days" levels of radiation were mostly confined to a fairly small area around the reactor (or especially unlucky downwind areas when it was on fire) and are largely gone.
Gee, when you put it like that, it's hard to imagine why anyone would be concerned about nuclear power in their neighborhood :-P
On the other hand, it takes a while to become a good teacher. Some great professors have been teaching on chalkboards for decades, they've become adapted to it and it works. Don't fix what isn't broken or you'll go from a professor who is very effective at to an older person bumbling around on a computer.
The world is not full of evil organizations who are thoroughly evil, yet well funded, that run around doing evil for its own sake.
Alternatively, one or more of these evil-for-evil's-sake, well funded organizations do exist, and have just convinced you that they don't exist. Had you been wearing my tinfoil hat, that wouldn't have happened.
You get piles of stuff for free with any Ubuntu distro, and none of it is pirated (at least I haven't heard of any "Linux for Pirates", but maybe it exists)
Yarr... we be workin' on that, matey. These peg-fingers make the work slow, and it be difficult to motivate without promise of any booty. Ye have me word on the pirate code that it will be free as in grog when we be finished, yar.
Just curious, how would you have gone about finding them? You seem to imply you have a deep understanding of the technology involved.
I'd find someone with a name close to "Mariposa" and then beat them until they confessed to making it. Sister Mary Rosa may look like a sweet old nun, but that's just a cover.
Yes, an R4 isn't as bad as either of these, but, where does it end?
Where does common sense tell you it should end? Mine tells me it should end where waiting until I commit a crime with the thing would leave a lot of people in danger. A crack pipe and a piracy device, you can prosecute me after I use it illegally, the fact that it's harder to do that than try to prevent me from doing that doesn't matter. When talking about the ability to kill hundreds of people, that's another story.
Seeing as how I quite obviously wasn't proposing a sweeping new legal change, I was expressing an opinion flashdrives, I didn't think I needed to spell out specific exceptions.
Heck, I'd say I -should- have a right to own things which are only really usable for illegal activities. If I want to use a crackpipe as a paperweight but never use it to smoke crack (and I, in fact would not use it to smoke crack), then I should be able to.
("should", not "do right now.")
There is no such thing as a rolling stop - you either stop or you don't
Yes, you've spotted an oxymoron, good job and all, but it's not actually "rolling on through" either. There is a significant difference between a car driving past a stop sign at 30 mph and a car that slows down to 5 mph at the stop sign: one of those gave the driver enough time to make sure they weren't going to t-bone a car or smash a person, satisfying the intended function of a stop.
It's a widely accepted term, the fact that literally it doesn't make much sense doesn't matter.
Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me
Perhaps you have never been side swiped by someone who failed to stop at a red light or stop sign?
I wouldn't -assume- that outlaw or allowing rolling stops makes a difference one way or the other, in the absence of evidence.
For one thing, I think it's plausible that coming to a complete stop doesn't mean you are anymore aware of what is going on in the intersection than if you did a rolling stop. For another thing, I think a lot of sideswipes at stop signs are probably due to people not even doing a rolling stop, I think most are probably people not noticing there was a stop sign.
So lets see some studies on the actual safety on rolling stop vs complete stops (which Lauder may have) before we say "think of the pedestrians and bicyclists!"
But most art is lost. And for good reason: because it's not worth saving. ...and who decides this? You?
No, we collectively decide what gets preserved with emulation or ports, directly by what we port, and indirectly by what we buy. If there's a game that no one ports to new generations of consoles, and no one emulates it, that's a reasonable indication that no one cared about it: it wasn't worth saving.
It's a little less arbitrary than what got saved in pompei. The amount of games preserved in emulation, at least for the moment, is pretty high. Especially the early generations, I mean you could fit the entire libraries of multiple early consoles on one $5 flash drive. Much more is going to be preserved than a city that was destroyed by a volcano.
Sure, it would be nice if we had the capability to preserve every game out there. Feel free to spend your time and money doing that for games no one is interested in. Until someone wastes money like that, preserving the classics and trashing the disposable works for every art form out there, and "what games do people want to see ported or emulated" is a generous standard.
Frankly It's a little pretentious to take GP's observation in the way that you did. He didn't nominate himself to be the one deciding which games were good and which ones were bad.
What kind of fetish involves raping a man's barbecue?
To me, that sounds pretty
(puts on sunglasses)
hot.
Yeaaah!
Probably some of those complaining about patent trolls in this article too will extol the virtues of the PS3 (or PS2) in other threads without realizing that they're really just helping RAMBUS.
It's not outside of the realm of possibility that someone complaining about the patent trolling is actually using the PS3 browser and the troll's own products to do so. (Though hopefully no self-respecting slashdotter would be doing so anyway. Not that there aren't plenty of slashdotters who don't respect themselves.)
Exactly so obvious. And you know, it sounds entirely possible it's superconducting, but you know they really won't know if it is or not until they (mumble mumble mumble...)
Actually, I'll just come right out and ask: how is it that this is just "possible?" I understand that they set up a device to measure resistance, and it sounds like its just a very thin layer that is actually superconducting which sounds like it could complicate things, but then it just says there was a "sharp change" in the conductivity. Sounds like their measurements didn't just say "zero resistance." Guessing they were saying the signal was noisy because the layer was so thin?
I know magnets levitate over at least some superconductors, would that not have been another test here?
After one person makes a claim on them it should be easy to check and see who else did and then start reversing charges.
This seems like such a good idea I found myself saying "Surely they already do that" before remembering, oh yeah, this is the credit card industry we're dealing with here, and there's probably no law forcing them to do that.