s/there/their... also, it only changes the background of the favicon by the URL bar. It doesn't affect the favicon displayed in tabs, which is the one most of us tend to notice.
That's why I use ING Direct... my account came with an automatic no-fee overdraft line of credit of $1,000 charged at (as of December 08) 7.25%. So when I screw up or a payment goes through earlier or later than I expected, I only pay interest on it for a day or two until my balance gets fixed. The way it should be for anyone who is financially responsible and has a good credit score.
I know other banks offer features such as this. You should definitely check them out. Or let me know if you want a referral link for ING... I think they still give us $10 for new customers or something;)
-- As a side note, I remember one day going in to Washington Mutual to cash a check for $200. I only had $80 in my account, and I deposited $100 and took the other $100 in cash. What they actually did was set $200 as pending deposit in my account, withdrew $100, and left me with a nice $35 overdraft fee. Apparently the check would take several business days to actually deposit in my account. When I complained, corporate refunded the overdraft fee but would not apologize for their broken system. I closed that account.
Perhaps you should just do you work when at... work?
Quit assuming stuff. Maybe his job consists of editing wikipedia articles for his organization to shine them in a positive light. Ever think about that?
From experience, Google and myspace are terrible about this. Chrome's built-in Google search would revert to Japanese every time I reopened the browser.
Hulu doesn't work for anything, and a lot of American NETWORK sites like NBC are blocked. I wish I could remember the list, but I couldn't even get to Showtime's site to find a list of Bullshit! episodes.
A lot of sites implement something like this. IIRC, Adorama (I don't recommend them!) automatically puts a "Verified Purchaser" logo or something similar on reviews by people who already purchased the product.
But what if I bought a camera at Best Buy and realized it had terrible low-light performance and was very noisy and hard to use? I should still be allowed to review it on Amazon, but Amazon should let it be known that they can't verify that I actually tried the product.
By that logic, every Apple user I know also works for Apple. Seriously, try saying something negative about Apple or Alienware in certain circles... I dare you.
Hell, watch what happens on slashdot when you make negative comments about Linux. Or go to Philadelphia and try telling people the Eagles suck. I have no idea why, but people are unreasonably fanatical about these things.
Christianity is doing wonders in Africa at changing the hearts of millions and bringing them to a point where they can build peaceful, stable societies.
You say "Christianity" I would say "Good people working together under the banner of Christanity."
The problem I have with such missionary work is the expectation (if not explicit requirement) that the recipients convert to Christianity.
Funny, my main concern is that they're teaching people NOT to use condoms.
Which is a completely bollocks idea, if you ask me. Ultimately, if we can send more people to college, our society as a whole will improve.
Bull. How will sending more people to college create a better job market for people with college educations? It won't change our economy. It will simply mean that truck drivers and forklift operators will need college degrees, forcing them to waste valuable money to maintain a competitive advantage. America's failure to produce proper tradesmen is going to become a glaring problem over the next several decades. Many college graduates simply end up working the same jobs that didn't require degrees 40 years ago. How does this benefit our society?
How many people end up in crime because they either didn't have the resources to, or weren't encouraged by peers, family, and so on? I think if you do the math, the "pockets of others" will be more taxed now than if we were to be able to send a lot more people to college.
How about we send people to schools that will teach them to do a job they're actually capable of doing. Not everyone is cut out to be a knowledge worker. How about "every student graduates high school with either a marketable trade/certification or completion of university entrance requirements"?
Not to mention we're h-u-m-a-n. Most of us have compassion and empathy with others. Live may not be fair and perhaps it never will be, but at the very least we can try to make it/more/ fair.
Being able to make a good career, get rich, and what not, is good.. But ultimately we're all impacted if only a small minority can achieve this goal.
Well said until you mentioned the get rich thing. You know what it's called when everyone gets rich? Inflation.
the world needs something like this. its sad but true. killing off life in large numbers hasn't happend in some time. the less people and other life on earth the less resouses used. humans probably wouldn't die off completely but the numbers would have a sharp decline something needed across the world.
No, it doesn't, you ass. The world needs nothing, it could give a damn how many of us are or are not living here. It will continue to do its thing. HUMANITY needs to reduce the resources it uses and start living in a more sustainable, eco-friendly manner for its own well being.
As far as environmental impacts go, this will be far worse than any war we've ever seen.
Has tapping this as an energy source ever been considered ? i am not a geologist but I am thinking if there is so much geothermal energy right beneath our feet (probably very deep) of such enormous magnitude there could be a way to tap into this.
Yes, it's actually going to be used to get things in orbit. If you want something to go high into the atmosphere, just put it around the caldera and wait.
I'm sure it's more energy than humanity has ever needed, but it's pretty hard to profit from an explosion that you can't control and that will destroy everything near it. At least until we have force fields that can absorb the thermal energy and store it in an extremely dense state.
What in the world do you mean by "no real net-energy gain"? Do you realize that by making such a claim you're sinking your own argument?
it's perfectly reasonable to say commercial Nuclear Power is unsafe, not-practical, expensive and a pointless waste of resources that is distracting us from real long term solutions that might actually work and not have the issues nuclear has.
No, it's not perfectly reasonable. Nuclear power is extremely safe, better for the environment than coal and, IMO, hydroelectric dams. It's proven practical in plenty of countries and is obviously profitable to them. The waste issue can be minimalized and solved with breeder reactors and other technologies. Given all of these, it's NOT pointless, but you're crazy to suggest that anyone is arguing that it's a long-term solution. It's obviously a medium-term solution that will fit into a broader energy plan for the US and other developed countries well into the future. I expect to see nuclear providing a boost to our base load power 10-20 years from now, and hopefully dwindling off by the end of the century.
I think it's reasonable to say that current nuclear reactor designs are safe, reliable, and efficient enough to help sustain our society until we develop even better sources of energy. I'd die happy if I saw cold fusion and entirely renewable energy being used throughout the world, but for now I'd just like to avoid brownouts.
Nuclear might have a place, one day, when our materials technology has advanced enough to resolve many of the issues that the first 50 years of nuclear operation has uncovered.
Let me fix that for you. Nuclear might NOT be needed one day, when our materials technology has advanced enough to make nuclear obsolete.
Explaining why something is obvious is a bit recursive.. if you can't see it is obvious, I really can't make you.
I see. You seem to be using a different definition of obvious. Obvious means that there is a clear overabundance of information supporting a particular conclusion. Your version seems to mean "I believe it but I can't provide a shred of evidence".
Say, hypothetically, that you're 23 years old. You go to a 18+ or even a 21+ club and you meet a girl who unambiguously wants to have sex with you. You ask her, "Are you over 18?" She tells you yes. You ask to see her I.D. and it shows her picture and it indicates that her age is over 18. You take her home and have sex with her...
In most jurisdictions you are legally covered as long as the fake ID reasonably looks legit and resembles her... Unless she's 12 or something and looks to be obviously underage.
In California, this is a clearly defined exception.
We can fix the whole software patent problem by handling software patents JUST LIKE mechanical ones. Require thoroughly documented code showing exactly how it works, with the other protections you provided. If someone manages to do the same thing with different code, it's not a patent violation. If it's impossible to do the same thing with different code, it's probably obvious.
So would the interstate commerce clause give the feds the power to have, say, built the railroads? Why not federalize all trucking? Or at least start a trucking company no one can compete with, since it's taxpayer funded?
Funny you should mention railroads... The federal government was pretty much the backbone of the American railroad. Please pay particular attention to the General Survey Act and land grants. From the link: "Federal land grants in the 1850s totalled 25,464,018 acres"
Would we be better off if the feds had build the national phone infrastructure?
Do you really want to get into that argument? Without a strong federal hand we'd certainly have a different telecommunication system than we have today.
Without a licence, or a statutory right, you have no right to install the software on a piece of hardware - that requires copying, which, in respect of a copyrighted work, is an act restricted by copyright.
If I already purchased a copy of the software (the disc), wouldn't I simply be converting that data between mediums, covered under fair use?
IIRC, this was why they needed the DMCA and other crap to give their click-thru licenses more bite.
There would be a big demand for the ability to run OS X and apple stuff on PC's. I understand there are ramifications like maybe an upgrade breaking things, but there still is opportunity here as well where Apple could gain from.
Sorry, but you're confused. Apple makes its money by charging more than double what you would pay for equivalent hardware from Dell, HP, etc. They do this because OS X is a better operating system (for their portion of the market) and gives them a competitive advantage over PCs.
The law has to be understandable to everybody, or it's not law, it's a secret code.
Biophysics has to be understandable to everybody or it's not biophysics. Computer science has to be understandable to everybody, or it's not computer science.
Hell, if being confused by a law was a good defense, I would've stopped filing my taxes a long time ago.
That right there sums up what you need to know. The GP is an ideologue who opposes government secrecy. Because of this, he will ignore evidence that contradicts his pre-established conclusion. Let's both just be glad this man will never have the power to harm any of our valuable intelligence organizations.
Slashdot Mirror
s/there/their... also, it only changes the background of the favicon by the URL bar. It doesn't affect the favicon displayed in tabs, which is the one most of us tend to notice.
That's why I use ING Direct... my account came with an automatic no-fee overdraft line of credit of $1,000 charged at (as of December 08) 7.25%. So when I screw up or a payment goes through earlier or later than I expected, I only pay interest on it for a day or two until my balance gets fixed. The way it should be for anyone who is financially responsible and has a good credit score.
I know other banks offer features such as this. You should definitely check them out. Or let me know if you want a referral link for ING... I think they still give us $10 for new customers or something ;)
-- As a side note, I remember one day going in to Washington Mutual to cash a check for $200. I only had $80 in my account, and I deposited $100 and took the other $100 in cash. What they actually did was set $200 as pending deposit in my account, withdrew $100, and left me with a nice $35 overdraft fee. Apparently the check would take several business days to actually deposit in my account. When I complained, corporate refunded the overdraft fee but would not apologize for their broken system. I closed that account.
That's actually what I was thinking as I wrote it ;) but I was too lazy to write it out... I'm obviously not a writer.
If anyone out there decides to do a movie like this, please use me as an extra. I make a great "Nerd In Doughnut Shop".
Perhaps you should just do you work when at... work?
Quit assuming stuff. Maybe his job consists of editing wikipedia articles for his organization to shine them in a positive light. Ever think about that?
From experience, Google and myspace are terrible about this. Chrome's built-in Google search would revert to Japanese every time I reopened the browser.
Hulu doesn't work for anything, and a lot of American NETWORK sites like NBC are blocked. I wish I could remember the list, but I couldn't even get to Showtime's site to find a list of Bullshit! episodes.
A lot of sites implement something like this. IIRC, Adorama (I don't recommend them!) automatically puts a "Verified Purchaser" logo or something similar on reviews by people who already purchased the product.
But what if I bought a camera at Best Buy and realized it had terrible low-light performance and was very noisy and hard to use? I should still be allowed to review it on Amazon, but Amazon should let it be known that they can't verify that I actually tried the product.
By that logic, every Apple user I know also works for Apple. Seriously, try saying something negative about Apple or Alienware in certain circles... I dare you.
Hell, watch what happens on slashdot when you make negative comments about Linux. Or go to Philadelphia and try telling people the Eagles suck. I have no idea why, but people are unreasonably fanatical about these things.
Thanks, it's always good to see public reminders that state governments still exist.
Christianity is doing wonders in Africa at changing the hearts of millions and bringing them to a point where they can build peaceful, stable societies.
You say "Christianity" I would say "Good people working together under the banner of Christanity."
The problem I have with such missionary work is the expectation (if not explicit requirement) that the recipients convert to Christianity.
Funny, my main concern is that they're teaching people NOT to use condoms.
Which is a completely bollocks idea, if you ask me. Ultimately, if we can send more people to college, our society as a whole will improve.
Bull. How will sending more people to college create a better job market for people with college educations? It won't change our economy. It will simply mean that truck drivers and forklift operators will need college degrees, forcing them to waste valuable money to maintain a competitive advantage. America's failure to produce proper tradesmen is going to become a glaring problem over the next several decades. Many college graduates simply end up working the same jobs that didn't require degrees 40 years ago. How does this benefit our society?
How many people end up in crime because they either didn't have the resources to, or weren't encouraged by peers, family, and so on? I think if you do the math, the "pockets of others" will be more taxed now than if we were to be able to send a lot more people to college.
How about we send people to schools that will teach them to do a job they're actually capable of doing. Not everyone is cut out to be a knowledge worker. How about "every student graduates high school with either a marketable trade/certification or completion of university entrance requirements"?
Not to mention we're h-u-m-a-n. Most of us have compassion and empathy with others. Live may not be fair and perhaps it never will be, but at the very least we can try to make it /more/ fair.
Being able to make a good career, get rich, and what not, is good.. But ultimately we're all impacted if only a small minority can achieve this goal.
Well said until you mentioned the get rich thing. You know what it's called when everyone gets rich? Inflation.
the world needs something like this. its sad but true. killing off life in large numbers hasn't happend in some time. the less people and other life on earth the less resouses used. humans probably wouldn't die off completely but the numbers would have a sharp decline something needed across the world.
No, it doesn't, you ass. The world needs nothing, it could give a damn how many of us are or are not living here. It will continue to do its thing. HUMANITY needs to reduce the resources it uses and start living in a more sustainable, eco-friendly manner for its own well being.
As far as environmental impacts go, this will be far worse than any war we've ever seen.
Has tapping this as an energy source ever been considered ? i am not a geologist but I am thinking if there is so much geothermal energy right beneath our feet (probably very deep) of such enormous magnitude there could be a way to tap into this.
Yes, it's actually going to be used to get things in orbit. If you want something to go high into the atmosphere, just put it around the caldera and wait.
I'm sure it's more energy than humanity has ever needed, but it's pretty hard to profit from an explosion that you can't control and that will destroy everything near it. At least until we have force fields that can absorb the thermal energy and store it in an extremely dense state.
And since there is no real net-energy gain
What in the world do you mean by "no real net-energy gain"? Do you realize that by making such a claim you're sinking your own argument?
it's perfectly reasonable to say commercial Nuclear Power is unsafe, not-practical, expensive and a pointless waste of resources that is distracting us from real long term solutions that might actually work and not have the issues nuclear has.
No, it's not perfectly reasonable. Nuclear power is extremely safe, better for the environment than coal and, IMO, hydroelectric dams. It's proven practical in plenty of countries and is obviously profitable to them. The waste issue can be minimalized and solved with breeder reactors and other technologies. Given all of these, it's NOT pointless, but you're crazy to suggest that anyone is arguing that it's a long-term solution. It's obviously a medium-term solution that will fit into a broader energy plan for the US and other developed countries well into the future. I expect to see nuclear providing a boost to our base load power 10-20 years from now, and hopefully dwindling off by the end of the century.
I think it's reasonable to say that current nuclear reactor designs are safe, reliable, and efficient enough to help sustain our society until we develop even better sources of energy. I'd die happy if I saw cold fusion and entirely renewable energy being used throughout the world, but for now I'd just like to avoid brownouts.
Nuclear might have a place, one day, when our materials technology has advanced enough to resolve many of the issues that the first 50 years of nuclear operation has uncovered.
Let me fix that for you. Nuclear might NOT be needed one day, when our materials technology has advanced enough to make nuclear obsolete.
Explaining why something is obvious is a bit recursive.. if you can't see it is obvious, I really can't make you.
I see. You seem to be using a different definition of obvious. Obvious means that there is a clear overabundance of information supporting a particular conclusion. Your version seems to mean "I believe it but I can't provide a shred of evidence".
Say, hypothetically, that you're 23 years old. You go to a 18+ or even a 21+ club and you meet a girl who unambiguously wants to have sex with you. You ask her, "Are you over 18?" She tells you yes. You ask to see her I.D. and it shows her picture and it indicates that her age is over 18. You take her home and have sex with her...
In most jurisdictions you are legally covered as long as the fake ID reasonably looks legit and resembles her... Unless she's 12 or something and looks to be obviously underage.
In California, this is a clearly defined exception.
The word is "revolt", and, yes, we can.
No, he's right, it's revolution. We're right back where we started. That was a fun trip!
We can fix the whole software patent problem by handling software patents JUST LIKE mechanical ones. Require thoroughly documented code showing exactly how it works, with the other protections you provided. If someone manages to do the same thing with different code, it's not a patent violation. If it's impossible to do the same thing with different code, it's probably obvious.
Thai cell phone companies charge for receiving texts? I thought they were like the rest of the Asian countries and only charged the sender.
And if you're a total whackjob, post on Slashdot, dude. Dude.
Fair enough. I'm glad the mods took notice.
So would the interstate commerce clause give the feds the power to have, say, built the railroads? Why not federalize all trucking? Or at least start a trucking company no one can compete with, since it's taxpayer funded?
Funny you should mention railroads... The federal government was pretty much the backbone of the American railroad. Please pay particular attention to the General Survey Act and land grants. From the link: "Federal land grants in the 1850s totalled 25,464,018 acres"
Would we be better off if the feds had build the national phone infrastructure?
Do you really want to get into that argument? Without a strong federal hand we'd certainly have a different telecommunication system than we have today.
Without a licence, or a statutory right, you have no right to install the software on a piece of hardware - that requires copying, which, in respect of a copyrighted work, is an act restricted by copyright.
If I already purchased a copy of the software (the disc), wouldn't I simply be converting that data between mediums, covered under fair use?
IIRC, this was why they needed the DMCA and other crap to give their click-thru licenses more bite.
There would be a big demand for the ability to run OS X and apple stuff on PC's. I understand there are ramifications like maybe an upgrade breaking things, but there still is opportunity here as well where Apple could gain from.
Sorry, but you're confused. Apple makes its money by charging more than double what you would pay for equivalent hardware from Dell, HP, etc. They do this because OS X is a better operating system (for their portion of the market) and gives them a competitive advantage over PCs.
The law has to be understandable to everybody, or it's not law, it's a secret code.
Biophysics has to be understandable to everybody or it's not biophysics. Computer science has to be understandable to everybody, or it's not computer science.
Hell, if being confused by a law was a good defense, I would've stopped filing my taxes a long time ago.
You missed the most important part of his post:
Also, I'm opposed to governmental secrecy.
That right there sums up what you need to know. The GP is an ideologue who opposes government secrecy. Because of this, he will ignore evidence that contradicts his pre-established conclusion. Let's both just be glad this man will never have the power to harm any of our valuable intelligence organizations.