the naive hippies and their allies who will not brook even the mildest criticism of their unrealistic dreams of a world where everything is powered by wind and solar alone
What about the naive businessmen and their allies who will not brook even the mildest criticism of their unrealistic dreams of a world where everything is powered by fossil fuels forever?
It's easier than that. Dust for fingerprints and have a 3d printer make a mold for fingers with those fingerprints. Grab a stray hair follicle, and amplify a bunch of DNA using standard protocols. Mix the DNA into some gelatin and pour it into the mold. Run some tubing through the mold hooked up to a perstaltic pump to simulate the pulse.
Nintendo hasn't made a good case that the Wii U was necessary. For the casual gamers that made the Wii a hit, the Wii is still good enough for anything they want to do. Super Mario Galaxy III would work just as well on the Wii as SMG-I did. For those of us who want games with depth, we're still better off with a 360, PS3, or PC than a Wii-U. Does the Wii-U have anything in the works that could compete with the recent X-com? The upcoming Wasteland 2?
Denying functionality because it might help your competitor creates confusion and frustration for users.
That's exactly what Microsoft is doing with "secure boot". They are denying us the functionality to boot any software we like with the hardware we own.
The problem is that no one really wants to have a shit job.
The problem is that these are seen as shit jobs. They are useful jobs and the people who work them deserve a living wage. Make minimum wage high enough to raise a family, own a home, and retire on, and you'll see the stigma disappear.
You really think we can relocate millions of people in a time when resources of all types, but especially arable land, will be dwindling without precipitating a major conflict? You're the one who needs to return to reality.
For the moment, let's put aside the argument of whether or not drone strikes create terrorists overall. They might, but I'm betting that we can build missiles faster than they can recruit people.
If people become terrorists because of your actions, and then you kill them because they are terrorist, that is straight up murder. You created the conditions that justified their death. You are responsible for that loss of life.
If it were otherwise, the enemy need only strap children to his tanks and roll forward to beat you.
If you expect to save more lives than you lose, then go ahead and shoot right through that child. The problem is no one has actually done that calculus, if they did they'd find out that we're killing far more innocent people than terrorists could ever hope to.
Their choices are to stop fighting us, to follow the laws of war, or to be responsible for the deaths of the civilians they shelter among. They have chosen the latter.
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter who is theoretically responsible. We could choose not to kill those civilians. We choose to kill them. That blood is on our hands.
Possibly so, but what is the alternative? To not fight?
Yes, that would be a very good alternative. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us more in lives and treasure than we lost in 9/11. Explain to me how it makes any sort of sense to keep throwing lives away like this.
Hell, we've effectively given the jihadis most of what they wanted over the past couple of years, most notably with the abandonment of the Musharraf regime, pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war against Libya
We gave the jihadi's what they wanted when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan. Goading the US into a war that would destabilize the middle east and give jihadis a cause to fight for was the reason OBL planned the 9/11 attacks. The right thing to do would have been to turn the other cheek. It's not too late.
No, what I'm saying is that the murder problem is so bad if we don't focus on it we're all going to be dead anyway. All the coal pollution in the world doesn't mean shit next to world wide war for arable land.
But, hey, Clean Coal stories have to be knocked down immediately. We can't have it prove even partially successful under any circumstance./rollseyes.
"Clean coal" has been a lie from the start. Every proposition for clean coal has so far ignored the most important pollutant from coal, CO2. Even this one doesn't actually have a plan for what to do with all that CO2. Is skepticism not justified?
Most people can "Doom away" 24x7 and have no problem separating fantasy from reality. A small portion cannot.
Fox news has proven that a very large proportion of people have a serious problem separating fantasy from reality. Empirically there is no relationship between violent games and violence, but it's not because people are able to separate fantasy from reality.
No, civil rights are natural rights that pertain to civil issues. Otherwise MLK wouldn't have been a civil rights leader, since his rights were not actually enshrined in law. I agree with everything else you said though.
it's a pathetic populist grab that ignores the fact that market forces exist
Nonsense. The whole reason to allow phone unlocking is to increase competition so that those market forces actually work. What it ignores is your religious belief that market forces cure everything.
oh, and before all of you pipe in saying how mobiles are cheap in europe because you can jump from operator to operator - yes, this is true. however, this shouldn't mean that in principle a company shouldn't be able to offer a "locked to them" plan at a choice that you are free to accept or not based on the value of their proposition and that furthermore you should be obligated to stick to it.
Yes, it does mean that. The government exists in part to protect its citizens from abusive business practices. There's no principled reason that e.g., a company shouldn't be free to offer a warranty that is void if you use third party parts, if you are free to accept or reject the agreement. But as it happens, The People are actually better off if that is prohibited, and that is why we have the Magnum Moss Warranty act.
The same should go for other business practices. You're free to engage in them until we determine that they are harmful on the whole. Even if they are entered into freely, the fact that the outcome is better when they are banned is sufficient to justify a ban.
A majority of Americans now favor legalizing Cannabis. A petition asking for Cannabis reform got 75,000 signatures(and was summarily dismissed by Obama). A signature that got 100,000 signatures is like to have even more support among the general public.
Something might happen. People have short attention spans and are easily distracted by something shiny but worthless. Look at how Obama fooled people into thinking he was strong on civil rights by ending Don't Ask Don't Tell. One tiny concession to a small fraction of a small fraction of society, and he's the greatest civil rights leader of our generation. Forget how his administration treated Bradley Manning, Thomas Drake, etc. Forget how he never even tried to close Guantanamo. Forget how he signed a bill suspending habeas corpus, etc, etc.
This cell phone business could work out the same way for him. Cell phones have been unlockable for a couple years already, and it hasn't terribly hurt the cell phone industry. Obama could easily give the people what they want here, the cell phone industry won't be hurt badly, and Obama gets to look like a populist instead of a corporatist. These petitions are nothing but a PR tool, and this is an easy PR win for Obama.
Just don't expect him to take any action on anything that actually matters. (e.g. Cannabis reform, prosecutorial reform, ending private prisons, getting the US out of the middle east, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
the naive hippies and their allies who will not brook even the mildest criticism of their unrealistic dreams of a world where everything is powered by wind and solar alone
What about the naive businessmen and their allies who will not brook even the mildest criticism of their unrealistic dreams of a world where everything is powered by fossil fuels forever?
It's easier than that. Dust for fingerprints and have a 3d printer make a mold for fingers with those fingerprints. Grab a stray hair follicle, and amplify a bunch of DNA using standard protocols. Mix the DNA into some gelatin and pour it into the mold. Run some tubing through the mold hooked up to a perstaltic pump to simulate the pulse.
This is all achievable with current technology.
What's so hard about "transitioning to HD"? PC games never had a problem transititioning from 640x480 to 1024x768.
Nintendo hasn't made a good case that the Wii U was necessary. For the casual gamers that made the Wii a hit, the Wii is still good enough for anything they want to do. Super Mario Galaxy III would work just as well on the Wii as SMG-I did. For those of us who want games with depth, we're still better off with a 360, PS3, or PC than a Wii-U. Does the Wii-U have anything in the works that could compete with the recent X-com? The upcoming Wasteland 2?
Denying functionality because it might help your competitor creates confusion and frustration for users.
That's exactly what Microsoft is doing with "secure boot". They are denying us the functionality to boot any software we like with the hardware we own.
The problem is that no one really wants to have a shit job.
The problem is that these are seen as shit jobs. They are useful jobs and the people who work them deserve a living wage. Make minimum wage high enough to raise a family, own a home, and retire on, and you'll see the stigma disappear.
You really think we can relocate millions of people in a time when resources of all types, but especially arable land, will be dwindling without precipitating a major conflict? You're the one who needs to return to reality.
For the moment, let's put aside the argument of whether or not drone strikes create terrorists overall. They might, but I'm betting that we can build missiles faster than they can recruit people.
If people become terrorists because of your actions, and then you kill them because they are terrorist, that is straight up murder. You created the conditions that justified their death. You are responsible for that loss of life.
If it were otherwise, the enemy need only strap children to his tanks and roll forward to beat you.
If you expect to save more lives than you lose, then go ahead and shoot right through that child. The problem is no one has actually done that calculus, if they did they'd find out that we're killing far more innocent people than terrorists could ever hope to.
Their choices are to stop fighting us, to follow the laws of war, or to be responsible for the deaths of the civilians they shelter among. They have chosen the latter.
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter who is theoretically responsible. We could choose not to kill those civilians. We choose to kill them. That blood is on our hands.
Possibly so, but what is the alternative? To not fight?
Yes, that would be a very good alternative. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us more in lives and treasure than we lost in 9/11. Explain to me how it makes any sort of sense to keep throwing lives away like this.
Hell, we've effectively given the jihadis most of what they wanted over the past couple of years, most notably with the abandonment of the Musharraf regime, pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war against Libya
We gave the jihadi's what they wanted when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan. Goading the US into a war that would destabilize the middle east and give jihadis a cause to fight for was the reason OBL planned the 9/11 attacks. The right thing to do would have been to turn the other cheek. It's not too late.
The government is not out to get you, the hapless individual.
The government is out to get anyone they can. Why would they care about you, the hapless individual?
Acting like an asshole isn't grounds to confiscate a boat, so if the customs agent posted such a blog it would only confirm that she's corrupt.
Why would you expect the ruling to make sense?
No, what I'm saying is that the murder problem is so bad if we don't focus on it we're all going to be dead anyway. All the coal pollution in the world doesn't mean shit next to world wide war for arable land.
I dont remember the last time we had a dept that was so pathetic, inefficient, useless, corrupt and annoying as the Dept. of Homeland Security.
The DEA.
Ask to have the paperwork re-done
Isn't that what got his boat confiscated?
Soot and mercury are irrelevant. If we don't control CO2 emissions nothing else matters.
But, hey, Clean Coal stories have to be knocked down immediately. We can't have it prove even partially successful under any circumstance. /rollseyes.
"Clean coal" has been a lie from the start. Every proposition for clean coal has so far ignored the most important pollutant from coal, CO2. Even this one doesn't actually have a plan for what to do with all that CO2. Is skepticism not justified?
Most people can "Doom away" 24x7 and have no problem separating fantasy from reality. A small portion cannot.
Fox news has proven that a very large proportion of people have a serious problem separating fantasy from reality. Empirically there is no relationship between violent games and violence, but it's not because people are able to separate fantasy from reality.
No thank you. I can see all the boobs I want whenever I want. I don't lose anything by not seeing them on TV.
No, civil rights are natural rights that pertain to civil issues. Otherwise MLK wouldn't have been a civil rights leader, since his rights were not actually enshrined in law. I agree with everything else you said though.
it's a pathetic populist grab that ignores the fact that market forces exist
Nonsense. The whole reason to allow phone unlocking is to increase competition so that those market forces actually work. What it ignores is your religious belief that market forces cure everything.
oh, and before all of you pipe in saying how mobiles are cheap in europe because you can jump from operator to operator - yes, this is true. however, this shouldn't mean that in principle a company shouldn't be able to offer a "locked to them" plan at a choice that you are free to accept or not based on the value of their proposition and that furthermore you should be obligated to stick to it.
Yes, it does mean that. The government exists in part to protect its citizens from abusive business practices. There's no principled reason that e.g., a company shouldn't be free to offer a warranty that is void if you use third party parts, if you are free to accept or reject the agreement. But as it happens, The People are actually better off if that is prohibited, and that is why we have the Magnum Moss Warranty act.
The same should go for other business practices. You're free to engage in them until we determine that they are harmful on the whole. Even if they are entered into freely, the fact that the outcome is better when they are banned is sufficient to justify a ban.
A majority of Americans now favor legalizing Cannabis. A petition asking for Cannabis reform got 75,000 signatures(and was summarily dismissed by Obama). A signature that got 100,000 signatures is like to have even more support among the general public.
He's posting to slashdot. Chances are he runs encrypted root.
The USA does not recognize, for example, equal protection under the law for homosexuals
And that's a violation of their civil rights. That the US doesn't recognize it doesn't mean it's not a right, it means that the US is unjust.
Equal protection under the law isn't a civil right?
Something might happen. People have short attention spans and are easily distracted by something shiny but worthless. Look at how Obama fooled people into thinking he was strong on civil rights by ending Don't Ask Don't Tell. One tiny concession to a small fraction of a small fraction of society, and he's the greatest civil rights leader of our generation. Forget how his administration treated Bradley Manning, Thomas Drake, etc. Forget how he never even tried to close Guantanamo. Forget how he signed a bill suspending habeas corpus, etc, etc.
This cell phone business could work out the same way for him. Cell phones have been unlockable for a couple years already, and it hasn't terribly hurt the cell phone industry. Obama could easily give the people what they want here, the cell phone industry won't be hurt badly, and Obama gets to look like a populist instead of a corporatist. These petitions are nothing but a PR tool, and this is an easy PR win for Obama.
Just don't expect him to take any action on anything that actually matters. (e.g. Cannabis reform, prosecutorial reform, ending private prisons, getting the US out of the middle east, etc).