Interesting, when I see somebody reject another's argument on the basis they reject a third party's argument solely for using wikipedia, I pretend to be clever by making a meta joke to hide the fact I got lost tracking the level of nested counter claims.
Just because x can lead to benefit y does not imply x is over all beneficial. Yes, there are a few benefits to climate change. That does not take away from the fact there are a whole legion of those-things-that-are-the-opposite-of-benefits. Seems like this needs to be explained anybody does research indicating the former - not that I'm blaming or finding the said scientists at fault for it. Same goes for other disciplines too.
You can google debt gdp, and it will usually be in the top results. But put together, here you go: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703789104576272891515344726.html . As you can easily see, we *are* not #1. Up there, yes, but still close to much of the western world. We have a very big economy compared to the average country. Obviously our raw national debt is going to be higher. Basic math. It's like complaining that your friend takes out a bigger loan than you, but you neglect to mention that he also has a bigger salary. Now if said friend takes on a bigger loan relative to his salary than you, then that's another story.
I'm going to take a wild guess that just visiting bitcoin-related sites automatically bumps you up a couple notches on the NSA's 'things to watch list'.
You are right. I am completely unaware of other examples around the world, like Europe's debt crisis, China gargantuan housing bubble, or Dubai's great model economy of sitting on flare without matching substance. I am also completely ignorant to the fact that the US does *not* have the highest debt to gdp ratio. Good thing too, because in this simple black and white world we live in, if I knew these facts then I must not care about or acknowledge our debt or economy issues. Either I must think everything is fine or dandy, or that our economy is the worst and we're evil for it. Some how.
Usually it's more much annoying when the submitters don't use links, particularly when using jargon and acronyms that aren't common knowledge to slashdotters. It's really not much harm to overdo it. So I'll say pass.
GP was wrong, but the game theory concept still holds. Sure, it is financially beneficial for the supplier to develop long term treatments, but the consequences of a competitor sweeping the market out from underneath them with a cure (or something close to it) is very great. And vice verse, if they are the ones to develop it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I don't need to say any more: http://xkcd.com/610/
[/sheeple argument]
A commonly used program has a long running vulnerability. I would definitely say that's right up /.'s alley.
Interesting, when I see somebody reject another's argument on the basis they reject a third party's argument solely for using wikipedia, I pretend to be clever by making a meta joke to hide the fact I got lost tracking the level of nested counter claims.
Just because x can lead to benefit y does not imply x is over all beneficial. Yes, there are a few benefits to climate change. That does not take away from the fact there are a whole legion of those-things-that-are-the-opposite-of-benefits. Seems like this needs to be explained anybody does research indicating the former - not that I'm blaming or finding the said scientists at fault for it. Same goes for other disciplines too.
I'm not going to be distracted by derailing trolls anymore. Don't like my word usage? Tough.
It was just an analogy. Calm down.
Looks like somebody's upset about failing that basic math class . . .
Not a flu
I checked the bloody dictionary, it's even used similarly in one of the bloody examples. Stop being pedantic when you're factually wrong.
Also, I used flare correctly.
You can google debt gdp, and it will usually be in the top results. But put together, here you go: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703789104576272891515344726.html . As you can easily see, we *are* not #1. Up there, yes, but still close to much of the western world. We have a very big economy compared to the average country. Obviously our raw national debt is going to be higher. Basic math. It's like complaining that your friend takes out a bigger loan than you, but you neglect to mention that he also has a bigger salary. Now if said friend takes on a bigger loan relative to his salary than you, then that's another story.
You replied to the wrong person.
I'm going to take a wild guess that just visiting bitcoin-related sites automatically bumps you up a couple notches on the NSA's 'things to watch list'.
You are right. I am completely unaware of other examples around the world, like Europe's debt crisis, China gargantuan housing bubble, or Dubai's great model economy of sitting on flare without matching substance. I am also completely ignorant to the fact that the US does *not* have the highest debt to gdp ratio. Good thing too, because in this simple black and white world we live in, if I knew these facts then I must not care about or acknowledge our debt or economy issues. Either I must think everything is fine or dandy, or that our economy is the worst and we're evil for it. Some how.
Large country with large economy has large national debt. News at 11.
Yes, girl scout cookies are much easier to deliver by gunfire. :P
Usually it's more much annoying when the submitters don't use links, particularly when using jargon and acronyms that aren't common knowledge to slashdotters. It's really not much harm to overdo it. So I'll say pass.
[citations needed]
"Today in class, we are going to learn how to English! Please pull out your copy books."
It's gonna take a mighty big shark to carry around that kind of firepower . . .
I think you mean first hello world problems.
Sadly, it's a real thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism
GP was wrong, but the game theory concept still holds. Sure, it is financially beneficial for the supplier to develop long term treatments, but the consequences of a competitor sweeping the market out from underneath them with a cure (or something close to it) is very great. And vice verse, if they are the ones to develop it.
Nah, those kinds of folks are still stuck on the whole "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" bs. :P