I'd say it's just PR and possible sacrificial lamb. Why would they hire someone just to violate liberties? That's like hiring someone to take the profits of your company off your hands.
I'd argue it's results that count. If action is only taken based on what the media is reporting on, and the media reports only on things for a few days no matter how important they are, then the nation has an attention span even if people remember the NSA thing.
Spineless? I take great offense to that! We have PLENTY of spine! It's ATTENTION SPAN that we... oh my gosh! Did you hear about the navy yard shootings? Was I saying something? I think it was about Syria and NASA...
Fluorescent imaging involves shining excitation light of a specific wavelength at the sample, and filtering out any light but the emission spectrum light. THEN there's the lens. Build your own fluorescent microscope and I'd be impressed. Build your own fluorescent microscope that can fit in your pocket, and that's actually an achievement.
At least, I think it is, compared the usual slashdot stories. "OMG, the next android is going to be named KIT KAT!!!!" Or "Copyright troll... SUES SOMEONE FOR SOMETHING STUPID!!!"
Have you ever seen a normal fluorescence microscope? They're not portable, lightweight, and they're not cheap.
With fluorescent microscopes, researchers can detect and study important biomolecules or single cells that they’ve labeled with fluorescent dyes. But the instruments are bulky and expensive, says Aydogan Ozcan at the University of California, Los Angeles. As a result, people with limited resources, such as those in developing countries, often don’t have access to these diagnostic tools.
Why is it with every story on slashdot that is ACTUALLY ABOUT SCIENCE, there's some guy here talking uninformed trash on it?
Well, there are a whole lot of things less dramatic than an atomic bomb which could have prevented me from being born. Like my mother having a headache on that night...
Scary in a different way.
Anyway, look on the bright side: we aren't currently in a nuclear cold war. It would seem we either actually learned something and aren't repeating it, or got lucky enough for the moment to not make enemies with anyone else who could blow up the world. Either way, it's a good thing.
Lastly, laughing about dangers that didn't come to pass is about the same as taking them very seriously, except that laughing relieves a bit of stress and is probably slightly better for your health.
They succeeded too. Not in stopping it, that was never their goal. They just wanted to delay it as long as possible to keep the CD cash cow going as long as possible and get as much control (money) from the new way as they could.
The same thing will happen with 3D printing. It will take FOREVER to get here due to lawsuits, censorship over printing instructions, new laws, ACTA. If they completely prevent it, they'll be thrilled, but that's impossible, it's just delay tactics until they come up with a way to profit off of it.
I fault both the music industry and the forces that will unite against 3D printing not for wanting a cut but for the delay tactics. I should have been able to download an MP3 of the song I wanted for a dollar back in 1995. Granted, the connection time would have cost me more than the song itself...
Look at it more of a "voting with your wallet" type deal and maybe it will make more sense. If you view it as purchasing something, yeah, it's a stupid way to do that. Uncertainty if you're going to actually get it, long delays, etc. But that's not what you're doing, you're putting money to see a product become developed.
If you're entirely happy with what consumer products you are being offered, you don't need to tell yourself it has to do with trust. You can just say "I don't want to invest in cool new products." No one will think you're a coward. Except for slashdot, which has already labeled you an anonymous coward.
Gould described evolution as fact AND theory, since scientific "theories" are basically the closest thing to what non-scientists would call "facts." I think there's benefit to the scientific community continuing to describe things as theory: it reminds us that our deepest held ideas about how the world works are still not 100% certain. Perhaps we will be slightly less likely to reject evidence and studies overturning theories out of hand if we refrain from calling them facts.
More specific to evolution, there have been ground-shaking changes IN the theory of evolution within the lifetimes of some living evolutionary biologists. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was a pretty substantial revision to Darwin's ideas, so much so that there was significant opposition to it. People would have labeled Darwin's gradualism as fact, which may have increased resistance to punctuated equilibrium.
Finally, where do we draw the line between fact and theory? There are definitely some parts of evolutionary... thinking... which are as far as you can go towards "fact", and there are other parts which are much less certain, more toward the "guessing" side of things. There's no good way to quantify how certain we are of something and assign it fact based on that.
No, the best options in my opinion is to inform the public that "Evolution IS what you would call a fact. We call it theory. And no one can rightly call creationism either."
Right. Polarizing is something we should avoid. Because we're SO close to a diplomatic, mature, mutually beneficial compromise with creationists... ~ (/s)
The Creator would appear as endowed with a passion for stars, on the one hand, and for beetles on the other, for the simple reason that there are nearly 300,000 species of beetle known, and perhaps more, as compared with somewhat less than 9,000 species of birds and a little over 10,000 species of mammals. Beetles are actually more numerous than the species of any other insect order. That kind of thing is characteristic of nature.
To be fair, this is just PR to make fracking out to be something good we should allow in our backyards. No one intends to ACTUALLY solve climate change this way. That'd cost MONEY!
Will someone explain to me like I'm five how it is that most large corporations seem to have buckets of cash lying around to waste on executive pay? It seems to me that executives rarely do anything similar to pitching a perfect game in major league baseball, yet they're given money like they are. And how is it that companies that do this aren't out competed by companies who give reasonable pay?
I'm a flamingly liberal academic. I have no understanding of business. I don't worship at the altar of "free market economics solves all problems," so I wouldn't be surprised if there were an obvious reason such wasteful spending isn't going extinct. Still, a simpler explanation would be that these executives actually DO make decisions which justify their absurd paychecks, or at least make it worth it to a company.
What confounds me is why the PR effort to save face? Why not openly admit what you greedily tried to do and that you failed? It's not like that's going to change anything. The court isn't going to say "Oh, well given your graceful press statement after the ruling, we're going to reconsider somethings. Case REOPENED!"
If he had said "Yeah, we tried to steal and then sue when we got called out for it," would the courts have disbarred him? (Honest question, that).
Companies of course have no loyalty to specific fanbases. And it's the whole industry, not just Rockstar. For instance, Bungie started out with Marathon on the mac, then made Halo exclusive for the xbox. Their next game that doesn't belong to MS? Still going to be skipping any machine with a mouse.
Blizzard and Valve seem to be the only large developers that aren't focusing on consoles.
And buying a used copy of a console game or borrowing one from a friend is far and away the easiest way of playing the game without paying for it. What's your point?
They "lack depth?" In what aspect? They're sandbox style games. GTA has some of the biggest maps with the most you can do in them. It's quite deep compared to other games in that reguard.
If you're talking about "it has a shallow plot" then you need to realize you aren't reading a book. You are playing a sandbox style game.
If you are complaining about shallow driving, shooting, and dart minigames, then you need to realize you aren't playing a driving simulator, a shooter, or a dart videogame. You are playing a sandbox style game.
Why not just say "overrated?" The hipsters do it for a reason: no one can argue with overrated, and it shows your disdain of the vulgar pleasures of the commonfolk. If you find one guy who says "I LUV GTA! IT'S THE BEST!' then you can accurately say that the game is overrated. If you make more specific picks about a popular game you hate simply because it's popular, you could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say it's just PR and possible sacrificial lamb. Why would they hire someone just to violate liberties? That's like hiring someone to take the profits of your company off your hands.
I'd argue it's results that count. If action is only taken based on what the media is reporting on, and the media reports only on things for a few days no matter how important they are, then the nation has an attention span even if people remember the NSA thing.
Spineless? I take great offense to that! We have PLENTY of spine! It's ATTENTION SPAN that we... oh my gosh! Did you hear about the navy yard shootings? Was I saying something? I think it was about Syria and NASA...
Ah, well then my rage was misplaced. I'm sorry for that, and specifically for calling you uninformed.
That's not a fluorescent microscope though.
Fluorescent imaging involves shining excitation light of a specific wavelength at the sample, and filtering out any light but the emission spectrum light. THEN there's the lens. Build your own fluorescent microscope and I'd be impressed. Build your own fluorescent microscope that can fit in your pocket, and that's actually an achievement.
At least, I think it is, compared the usual slashdot stories. "OMG, the next android is going to be named KIT KAT!!!!" Or "Copyright troll... SUES SOMEONE FOR SOMETHING STUPID!!!"
With fluorescent microscopes, researchers can detect and study important biomolecules or single cells that they’ve labeled with fluorescent dyes. But the instruments are bulky and expensive, says Aydogan Ozcan at the University of California, Los Angeles. As a result, people with limited resources, such as those in developing countries, often don’t have access to these diagnostic tools.
Why is it with every story on slashdot that is ACTUALLY ABOUT SCIENCE, there's some guy here talking uninformed trash on it?
Well, there are a whole lot of things less dramatic than an atomic bomb which could have prevented me from being born. Like my mother having a headache on that night...
Scary in a different way.
Anyway, look on the bright side: we aren't currently in a nuclear cold war. It would seem we either actually learned something and aren't repeating it, or got lucky enough for the moment to not make enemies with anyone else who could blow up the world. Either way, it's a good thing.
Lastly, laughing about dangers that didn't come to pass is about the same as taking them very seriously, except that laughing relieves a bit of stress and is probably slightly better for your health.
They succeeded too. Not in stopping it, that was never their goal. They just wanted to delay it as long as possible to keep the CD cash cow going as long as possible and get as much control (money) from the new way as they could.
The same thing will happen with 3D printing. It will take FOREVER to get here due to lawsuits, censorship over printing instructions, new laws, ACTA. If they completely prevent it, they'll be thrilled, but that's impossible, it's just delay tactics until they come up with a way to profit off of it.
I fault both the music industry and the forces that will unite against 3D printing not for wanting a cut but for the delay tactics. I should have been able to download an MP3 of the song I wanted for a dollar back in 1995. Granted, the connection time would have cost me more than the song itself...
If you're wondering...
Look at it more of a "voting with your wallet" type deal and maybe it will make more sense. If you view it as purchasing something, yeah, it's a stupid way to do that. Uncertainty if you're going to actually get it, long delays, etc. But that's not what you're doing, you're putting money to see a product become developed.
If you're entirely happy with what consumer products you are being offered, you don't need to tell yourself it has to do with trust. You can just say "I don't want to invest in cool new products." No one will think you're a coward. Except for slashdot, which has already labeled you an anonymous coward.
I think this is the first time I've seen a "+5 underrated."
Quick, someone mod it troll and then someone else mod it underrated again, so we can get "Score: 5, Troll"
Bit of a straw man there. OP was only saying nuclear might not be carbon neutral or negative, not that nuclear was worse than coal.
Gould described evolution as fact AND theory, since scientific "theories" are basically the closest thing to what non-scientists would call "facts." I think there's benefit to the scientific community continuing to describe things as theory: it reminds us that our deepest held ideas about how the world works are still not 100% certain. Perhaps we will be slightly less likely to reject evidence and studies overturning theories out of hand if we refrain from calling them facts.
More specific to evolution, there have been ground-shaking changes IN the theory of evolution within the lifetimes of some living evolutionary biologists. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was a pretty substantial revision to Darwin's ideas, so much so that there was significant opposition to it. People would have labeled Darwin's gradualism as fact, which may have increased resistance to punctuated equilibrium.
Finally, where do we draw the line between fact and theory? There are definitely some parts of evolutionary... thinking... which are as far as you can go towards "fact", and there are other parts which are much less certain, more toward the "guessing" side of things. There's no good way to quantify how certain we are of something and assign it fact based on that.
No, the best options in my opinion is to inform the public that "Evolution IS what you would call a fact. We call it theory. And no one can rightly call creationism either."
Right. Polarizing is something we should avoid. Because we're SO close to a diplomatic, mature, mutually beneficial compromise with creationists... ~ (/s)
The Creator would appear as endowed with a passion for stars, on the one hand, and for beetles on the other, for the simple reason that there are nearly 300,000 species of beetle known, and perhaps more, as compared with somewhat less than 9,000 species of birds and a little over 10,000 species of mammals. Beetles are actually more numerous than the species of any other insect order. That kind of thing is characteristic of nature.
Seems to be illegal in most states. So it's the only way you can do it legally.
That doesn't explain why companies that do not play this game aren't driving such companies to extinction.
To be fair, this is just PR to make fracking out to be something good we should allow in our backyards. No one intends to ACTUALLY solve climate change this way. That'd cost MONEY!
I'm going to skip ahead to the punchline: when wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death
Will someone explain to me like I'm five how it is that most large corporations seem to have buckets of cash lying around to waste on executive pay? It seems to me that executives rarely do anything similar to pitching a perfect game in major league baseball, yet they're given money like they are. And how is it that companies that do this aren't out competed by companies who give reasonable pay?
I'm a flamingly liberal academic. I have no understanding of business. I don't worship at the altar of "free market economics solves all problems," so I wouldn't be surprised if there were an obvious reason such wasteful spending isn't going extinct. Still, a simpler explanation would be that these executives actually DO make decisions which justify their absurd paychecks, or at least make it worth it to a company.
So seriously, what's the deal?
What confounds me is why the PR effort to save face? Why not openly admit what you greedily tried to do and that you failed? It's not like that's going to change anything. The court isn't going to say "Oh, well given your graceful press statement after the ruling, we're going to reconsider somethings. Case REOPENED!"
If he had said "Yeah, we tried to steal and then sue when we got called out for it," would the courts have disbarred him? (Honest question, that).
Companies of course have no loyalty to specific fanbases. And it's the whole industry, not just Rockstar. For instance, Bungie started out with Marathon on the mac, then made Halo exclusive for the xbox. Their next game that doesn't belong to MS? Still going to be skipping any machine with a mouse.
Blizzard and Valve seem to be the only large developers that aren't focusing on consoles.
And buying a used copy of a console game or borrowing one from a friend is far and away the easiest way of playing the game without paying for it. What's your point?
You're suggesting the number of sales would decrease if they increased the number of potential customers?
... I suppose homeopathic principles don't really sound DUMBER applied economics than they do in medicine, but that's not really saying much.
They "lack depth?" In what aspect? They're sandbox style games. GTA has some of the biggest maps with the most you can do in them. It's quite deep compared to other games in that reguard.
If you're talking about "it has a shallow plot" then you need to realize you aren't reading a book. You are playing a sandbox style game.
If you are complaining about shallow driving, shooting, and dart minigames, then you need to realize you aren't playing a driving simulator, a shooter, or a dart videogame. You are playing a sandbox style game.
Why not just say "overrated?" The hipsters do it for a reason: no one can argue with overrated, and it shows your disdain of the vulgar pleasures of the commonfolk. If you find one guy who says "I LUV GTA! IT'S THE BEST!' then you can accurately say that the game is overrated. If you make more specific picks about a popular game you hate simply because it's popular, you could be wrong.