For some reason most people seem to think that every drink with coffee as an ingredient qualifies as being coffee, so they complain about four dollar coffee every time they buy some sort of 500-calorie grande mochachino (or whatever they call it) at Starbucks.
This is a different situation than the company who produce, for example, "The Corbert Report" limiting the free streaming on their website to US only since they are getting funded by the Ad revenue of the viewers
The problem isn't that Comedy Central doesn't think they can make money by showing ads to foreigners; the problem is that in they have given other TV channels the exclusive rights to broadcast shows like "The Colbert Report" in foreign countries. If they started streaming their shows for free to countries where the rights to broadcast them belong to another company, they would be violating the terms of the licensing agreements. The only company there is to blame for not streaming the Colbert Report in your country is the channel that airs it on TV.
I'm rather impressed that my 3rd grad Science Fair project was apparently at the forefront of modern technology. Just wait until the Lemon-juice battery is invented!
You're missing the point. The question was "which saves more gas: going from 10 to 20 mpg or going from 33 to 50 mpg?", not "which of these cars is the best one". If you're looking to replace the 10 mpg car, going to the 50 mpg car or the 33 mpg car would ALWAYS save more gas than going to the 20 mpg car.
Not only that, but sometimes movie companies even stream scenes from the film online for free before it's released. If that's not the film industry equivalent of a demo, then I don't know what is.
I don't see how the first two options would be possible. They'd need to actually know where he lives in order to bomb his house, at which case they'd have already contacted his ISP (you can't actually get somebody's address from their IP; the best you can do is an office building owned by it) and already know the nature of the threat, meaning that the worst thing that could happen to him is getting extradited like McKinnon.
The other two, I will concede, actually sound plausible, but that's one of the risks you take when you rely upon a network whose creation was largely funded by another country's military.
Newsflash: we did that 40 years ago to prove we were better than the Soviets. We came back a few more times before finally establishing that there's nothing there, and we haven't returned since.
If the biggest thing China, India and Japan are doing with their space programs is something that we did 40 years ago and then decided was fruitless, we don't have to worry about falling behind technologically.
In WW2 you got hit by the Japanese and invaded Germany. In 2001 you got hit by a multinational group of thugs and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not seeing a big difference there. Anyone who can argue that Iraq was unjustified can just as easily argue that American involvement in Germany was unjustified. Of course, they don't, because their views are inconsistent, but I was simply pointing out that both positions are equally "logical".
Actually, we declared war on Japan following their unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, and then the Germans and Italians (their allies) declared war on us, thus dragging us into the war in Europe. In the War on Terror, we invaded Afghanistan because their government was providing a safe haven for a terrorist organization that slaughtered innocent people, and then invaded Iraq because Bush lied and said they were trying to gather up WMDs with which they planned to blow us to Kingdom Come.
There is a huge difference between our motives for invading Iraq and our motives for invading Germany.
That's only because there are areas outside of Africa capable of supporting life. Believe me, if Africa was the only place on Earth with air and water, nobody would've left.
Here we have a program that would provide real long term benefits to not only the United States, but the world in general. Those benefits would not only come in the form of new technologies but in humanity's expansion into space.
This is the end of our plans to return to the moon, not the end of NASA. Sending people to the moon has no real benefits, and neither does sending them to Mars or any other planet in our solar system. The only technology that can benefit humanity's expansion into space right now is faster-than-light travel, and even that doesn't seem possible. Even if it is possible, there's no logical reason why we have to go to the moon first.
We went to the moon to make us look better than the Soviets, we got some rocks and then we went home. We came back a few more times, then we realized it was a massive waste of money, and we never returned.
At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon.
I'm pretty sure we beat them to that over 40 years ago.
Putting more men on the moon isn't going to get us any closer to spreading into space unless we start a moon colony or something (although IMO that doesn't really count as "spreading"). The human race isn't going anywhere unless it can figure out a way to travel faster than the speed of light, which isn't looking very possible at the moment, and no crowd-pleasing trips to the moon or Mars are going to change that.
Also, i seriously doubt the Human race isn't going to survive the next millenium. Issues like overcrowding and global warming could kill a great many people, but I don't see them causing extinction. The only thing I can think of (other than a massive asteroid unlike any seen in millions of years) destroying the entire human race is a nuclear war.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see any resistance to this device.
For some reason most people seem to think that every drink with coffee as an ingredient qualifies as being coffee, so they complain about four dollar coffee every time they buy some sort of 500-calorie grande mochachino (or whatever they call it) at Starbucks.
This is why we need, needed and will need that time-traveling grammar book mentioned, being mentioned and to be mentioned in Hitchhiker's guide.
Tattoo one of those Resistor color code charts on your arm so you never have to worry about forgetting.
This is a different situation than the company who produce, for example, "The Corbert Report" limiting the free streaming on their website to US only since they are getting funded by the Ad revenue of the viewers
The problem isn't that Comedy Central doesn't think they can make money by showing ads to foreigners; the problem is that in they have given other TV channels the exclusive rights to broadcast shows like "The Colbert Report" in foreign countries. If they started streaming their shows for free to countries where the rights to broadcast them belong to another company, they would be violating the terms of the licensing agreements. The only company there is to blame for not streaming the Colbert Report in your country is the channel that airs it on TV.
Is it not obvious that they cannot handle the situation at all?
No, but it is hilarious to watch them try.
I'm rather impressed that my 3rd grad Science Fair project was apparently at the forefront of modern technology. Just wait until the Lemon-juice battery is invented!
You're missing the point. The question was "which saves more gas: going from 10 to 20 mpg or going from 33 to 50 mpg?", not "which of these cars is the best one". If you're looking to replace the 10 mpg car, going to the 50 mpg car or the 33 mpg car would ALWAYS save more gas than going to the 20 mpg car.
No, Grays as in Asgard.
Hey, dumbing down the interface worked for the Windows Control Panel. Oh, wait...never mind.
The same thing happened to the new Stargate Atlantis and Stargate SG-1 TV movies that were in the works.
Does anybody on /. actually read the articles?
What if instead of making it legal to attempt suicide, we just punished it with the death penalty?
Not only that, but sometimes movie companies even stream scenes from the film online for free before it's released. If that's not the film industry equivalent of a demo, then I don't know what is.
Did you read the part where I pointed out that they need to know the attacker's identity in order to figure out where to drop the bombs?
I don't see how the first two options would be possible. They'd need to actually know where he lives in order to bomb his house, at which case they'd have already contacted his ISP (you can't actually get somebody's address from their IP; the best you can do is an office building owned by it) and already know the nature of the threat, meaning that the worst thing that could happen to him is getting extradited like McKinnon.
The other two, I will concede, actually sound plausible, but that's one of the risks you take when you rely upon a network whose creation was largely funded by another country's military.
If only they made some of those robots similar to Serge Graystone; or perhaps, more appropriately, to few targetbots we've seen in the pilot.
Pilot? If I recall, they've shown up in later episodes as well.
Just Serge. In the pilot, the Cylon was shooting at similar robots in some sort of testing chamber.
They've already built their great firewall - why is that not working fine enough?
Apparently the Great Firewall of China is as effective at keeping out Google as the Great Wall of China is at keeping out Mongolians.
ZING!
Newsflash: we did that 40 years ago to prove we were better than the Soviets. We came back a few more times before finally establishing that there's nothing there, and we haven't returned since.
If the biggest thing China, India and Japan are doing with their space programs is something that we did 40 years ago and then decided was fruitless, we don't have to worry about falling behind technologically.
In WW2 you got hit by the Japanese and invaded Germany. In 2001 you got hit by a multinational group of thugs and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not seeing a big difference there. Anyone who can argue that Iraq was unjustified can just as easily argue that American involvement in Germany was unjustified. Of course, they don't, because their views are inconsistent, but I was simply pointing out that both positions are equally "logical".
Actually, we declared war on Japan following their unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, and then the Germans and Italians (their allies) declared war on us, thus dragging us into the war in Europe. In the War on Terror, we invaded Afghanistan because their government was providing a safe haven for a terrorist organization that slaughtered innocent people, and then invaded Iraq because Bush lied and said they were trying to gather up WMDs with which they planned to blow us to Kingdom Come.
There is a huge difference between our motives for invading Iraq and our motives for invading Germany.
That's only because there are areas outside of Africa capable of supporting life. Believe me, if Africa was the only place on Earth with air and water, nobody would've left.
What else do you expect us to use to fend off the inevitable alien invasion?
What do you suppose is going to create a post-apocolyptic USA?
I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be Khan's job, but he sort of dropped the ball back in the nineties by not existing.
Here we have a program that would provide real long term benefits to not only the United States, but the world in general. Those benefits would not only come in the form of new technologies but in humanity's expansion into space.
This is the end of our plans to return to the moon, not the end of NASA. Sending people to the moon has no real benefits, and neither does sending them to Mars or any other planet in our solar system. The only technology that can benefit humanity's expansion into space right now is faster-than-light travel, and even that doesn't seem possible. Even if it is possible, there's no logical reason why we have to go to the moon first.
We went to the moon to make us look better than the Soviets, we got some rocks and then we went home. We came back a few more times, then we realized it was a massive waste of money, and we never returned.
At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon.
I'm pretty sure we beat them to that over 40 years ago.
Putting more men on the moon isn't going to get us any closer to spreading into space unless we start a moon colony or something (although IMO that doesn't really count as "spreading"). The human race isn't going anywhere unless it can figure out a way to travel faster than the speed of light, which isn't looking very possible at the moment, and no crowd-pleasing trips to the moon or Mars are going to change that.
Also, i seriously doubt the Human race isn't going to survive the next millenium. Issues like overcrowding and global warming could kill a great many people, but I don't see them causing extinction. The only thing I can think of (other than a massive asteroid unlike any seen in millions of years) destroying the entire human race is a nuclear war.