Looking at myspace I doubt if their programmers COULD write a 1000 line perl script. Just because you're average slashdot user has this technology, does not mean that the programming geniuses at myspace do.
Yeah, except in this case, I think the flagging unnecessary. "A tad conservative" is a tad sarcastic. Anyone with any critical thinking skills would be able to tell from the article that this is just a nutjob spewing. It really has nothing to do with which bias his site has. The article is of such poor quality that it shouldn't be featured on slashdot. Especially when it goes on to detail Google's political bias because of some blogs it hosts on blogger, and the results that search results return. There is a serious lack of any but the most circumstantial evidence of what is going on, and anybody with even a passible knowledge of technology could point out that all of his arguments are fundementally flawed.
I feel that Google is unfairly biased against ants. I mean look at the first search result if you type in "ant"!
I'm betting it's San Antonio's University of the Incarnate Word. The same insightful people whose head librarian cancelled their copy of the New York Times out of protest.
Every statement we make could be twisted to make us have something to hide. Trust me, there is something in your life that could be misconstrued by someone to cause you harm. Are you religious? Are you not religious? Do you spank your children? Do you smoke? Do you eat fast food more than once a week? Have you ever looked at pornography? Have you ever cheated on your spouse? Have you ever mentioned cheating on your spouse in a joking manner? Have you ever missed a payment for a credit card? Would you be comfortable with all of this information being available to your boss, your government, you student's teachers, CPS? Because remember, they don't have to tell you what the information is or where it came from or where it's being used. This just says they can use it after a terrorist attack. To what ends we don't know.
And we are hardly in a dangerous position here. Your daily commute is far more dangerous to you than terrorists. It's still probably more dangerous statistically even than living in Iraq. But I don't see anyone calling for automated driving systems to keep us from killing each other on the roads.
Actually there are a lot of people proposing that this is exactly what has been happening. That the White House has been spying on their own party (or at least pretending they have been) with the threat of destruction at the hands of their own party if they don't comply with the presidents wishes. That would make on hell of a party whip if true. I know for a fact that many of the Republicans in the house and the senate are actually intelligent people, and this would make their voting records on nonsense like this make a whole lot more sense.
You are just flamebait. And indulge the apes with your calculus, because I can't find these "sources" of yours. Everything I find appears to be pointing to the fact that pretty much every scientific agency in the US government agrees on this fact. Every scientific journal I can find appears to concur. I have no clue where you're getting your data. This isn't a taunt. This is a serious question. Where do you find this data concluding that most scientists don't believe we are currently experiencing man-made global climate change? I've found an article that concludes this by pointing out some math holes in other articles, but I haven't found a scientific paper explaining why the current global climate change is not man made.
Yes, unless they don't really want to use this on their "enemies". Perhaps they want to be able to knock out an entire country at once round up the bad guys and then apologize for the migranes later. It sounds like they want to use these weapons broadly without having to worry about civilians vs. enemy fighters. Which is probably fine, but they should state that up front. If your justification is that we may knock out innocent civilians, but we can ensure 99% less collateral damage in the long run, I think it would be easier to convince the American People. I mean think about a war where you could essentially knock out the enemy army and disarm them without blowing up a single building or killing anyone (which would mean no civilian deaths). That might be worth a few accidental deaths due to heart attack, falling, etc. If you start talking about using it on US citizens, you've probably lost them. Of course this technology is a non-starter, since bombs and planes employ far more people than highly effective stun guns. I wouldn't expect to see this actually changing much of anything (other than civilian law enforcement).
Uh... I do believe that "a bit of a shock" is essentially what growing up is. It's a series of shocks. As parents we try to pad the shocks so that the child can deal with them. As for your thoughts about policing. I think actually our technology culture has created a more paranoid populace that wants more police and protection. I think the fact that we don't know our neighbors is creating a situation where we trust no one (not even the police, you know I saw this thing on 20/20 once...). Crime is still ridiculously low in our country and yet we live in fear of it, cowering in our houses, demanding more from our politicians.
I personally think this is a direct result of becoming more and more isolated. We drive everywhere and are outside only long enough to move from our car to our house. The world is much safer than it was when we were kids, and yet we are less and less likely to let our kids experience it.
Not every disabled person is blind. And not every person who is visually impaired is completely blind. Boomers are hitting the later part of their lives and the majority of them know how to use the internet. As their vision fails more and more you are going to start seeing many smaller accessibility issues becoming bigger problems. We are going to start hearing many screams from people wanting the font scaling technology to work on all sites. But I digress.
Your point is not particularly valid. The blind do not want every picture on the web described for them (well maybe they do, but I haven't met any who seriously believe that's possible with current technology). What they want is to be able to navigate your website. Let's say that they are buying new furniture. They've had an interior designer come in and tell them that fabric number #125496 will look really nice on their couches, because unlike people with sight blind people often realize that there are people who CAN see in the world. So they go to your parents website and look for this fabric number. As long as the website is navigatable you've done your job. Just use some label tags and an alt tag like the following:
Is that unreasonable? A blind person could navigate your site and even purchase fabric. And to the person who mentioned a glasses frame manufacturer not needing to be accessible. How ridiculous. If you make glasses you are almost certainly dealing with the visually impaired, so I would think you might want to have an accessible website. Are the frames makers able to dictate the prescriptions that go in their glasses? Those with severe visual impairments often buy sports frames because they're harder to break.
Wow, I really hope you never become disabled. We absolutely have to protect those with disabilities, otherwise they would probably end up starving to death because stores decided side walks cost too much money, or that handicapped spaces cost too much money, or that having ailes wider than two feet cost too much money, or that retrofitting cars costs too much, or that ramps cost too much.
There are not enough disabled people to create a large enough class to put a Wal*Mart or a Target out of business, and Wal*Mart and Target are a big enough class to put the stores that accomidate the disabled out of business. So your "free market" doesn't really work in this case. Sometimes we have to make accomidations for others. The free market works brilliantly for providing the most average service to the majority of users, but it doesn't work well for providing affordable speciality services to a minority.
Have you ever tried to setup a microphone on a PC? I mean it's hardly a piece of equipment that can be "hijacked". It's nearly impossible just to get it working. There seem to always be at least four differnet sound inputs, and it seems like a combination of them have to be enabled for a microphone to work. Not to mention volume levels... And if Google is good enough to get all those different jacked up sound cards working and transmitting without any use interaction I will bow to their QA an development departments.
Yeah Robin Hood's the problem. Not the damn state that can't be bothered to actually tax its residents for the money it needs. I mean aren't we talking about the legislature that just increased funding to the schools by decreasing their tax base? That's a real solution. How does trickle-down work with property taxes exactly? Poor people who can't buy homes will have more money to buy cigarettes and spend time at strip clubs thanks to the lowering of property taxes they don't have to pay? Let's be honest, without the courts constantly making them do things like Robin Hood, the legislature would have stopped funding public schools years ago, and Texas would manage to fall that remaining 3 or so odd slots in state educational ranking (and start working on having worse schools than 3rd world countries).
Did the cable companies send out a press release of how good they're being to customers? Because I'm still not seeing any real change and the competition is only barely there. It's like having three providers of rancid food and trying to pick which one makes you sick the leasst.
Chemical tests later Thursday turned up no explosives in the bottles, said Capt. Jack Chambers, head of the State Police Special Operations unit. The airport was reopened after nearly 10 hours.
This being the real reality. Not the neocon whackjob type.
Comparing my days in chemistry to my days in drivers ed, I'd say the airplane route is much more likely. I don't know many pointy haired types who are amateur chemists, so I'm going to assume that flying a plane isn't brain surgery. Especially since from what I understand the flying part of planes is the easy part. But this does bring up a point. 9/11 was done by people who were not very practical. I mean talk about taking the hardest means of getting a job done...
It's almost as though you can't stop terrorists with technology! What a crazy idea! It's as though the terrorists will always look for a weak point and exploit it. Thank god we're spending billions workin on ways to inconvenience ourselves. Perhaps we should spend those billions towards being nice to people. See if perhaps they stop trying to kill us. I'm just saying... We've exploited "making the terrorists hate as more" as a plan for defeating them. It can't hurt to try the opposite.
The dual-discs currently on the market. Those are great. I wouldn't buy DVD music alone, however. Especially since many of the dual-discs aren't that impressive in 5+1 surround.
I live in Austin. There are hundreds of businesses here with free WiFi. The city has free WiFi blanketing downtown. This isn't really a trespass issue. How exactly do you know which networks are free to use without using encryption as a clue? If anything the issue of trespass is only an issue because WiFi is public in much the same way as a large green space and includes no way to provide a "No Trespassing" sign.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, almost all of the people who are claiming there is no way this study are true either:
1) Have autistic children
2) Are in love with their TV sets
I haven't seen a single post of someone who never watches TV debunking this study.
Looking at myspace I doubt if their programmers COULD write a 1000 line perl script. Just because you're average slashdot user has this technology, does not mean that the programming geniuses at myspace do.
Yeah, except in this case, I think the flagging unnecessary. "A tad conservative" is a tad sarcastic. Anyone with any critical thinking skills would be able to tell from the article that this is just a nutjob spewing. It really has nothing to do with which bias his site has. The article is of such poor quality that it shouldn't be featured on slashdot. Especially when it goes on to detail Google's political bias because of some blogs it hosts on blogger, and the results that search results return. There is a serious lack of any but the most circumstantial evidence of what is going on, and anybody with even a passible knowledge of technology could point out that all of his arguments are fundementally flawed.
I feel that Google is unfairly biased against ants. I mean look at the first search result if you type in "ant"!
I'm betting it's San Antonio's University of the Incarnate Word. The same insightful people whose head librarian cancelled their copy of the New York Times out of protest.
1-click checkout patent
Every statement we make could be twisted to make us have something to hide. Trust me, there is something in your life that could be misconstrued by someone to cause you harm. Are you religious? Are you not religious? Do you spank your children? Do you smoke? Do you eat fast food more than once a week? Have you ever looked at pornography? Have you ever cheated on your spouse? Have you ever mentioned cheating on your spouse in a joking manner? Have you ever missed a payment for a credit card? Would you be comfortable with all of this information being available to your boss, your government, you student's teachers, CPS? Because remember, they don't have to tell you what the information is or where it came from or where it's being used. This just says they can use it after a terrorist attack. To what ends we don't know.
And we are hardly in a dangerous position here. Your daily commute is far more dangerous to you than terrorists. It's still probably more dangerous statistically even than living in Iraq. But I don't see anyone calling for automated driving systems to keep us from killing each other on the roads.
Yes.
Actually there are a lot of people proposing that this is exactly what has been happening. That the White House has been spying on their own party (or at least pretending they have been) with the threat of destruction at the hands of their own party if they don't comply with the presidents wishes. That would make on hell of a party whip if true. I know for a fact that many of the Republicans in the house and the senate are actually intelligent people, and this would make their voting records on nonsense like this make a whole lot more sense.
You are just flamebait. And indulge the apes with your calculus, because I can't find these "sources" of yours. Everything I find appears to be pointing to the fact that pretty much every scientific agency in the US government agrees on this fact. Every scientific journal I can find appears to concur. I have no clue where you're getting your data. This isn't a taunt. This is a serious question. Where do you find this data concluding that most scientists don't believe we are currently experiencing man-made global climate change? I've found an article that concludes this by pointing out some math holes in other articles, but I haven't found a scientific paper explaining why the current global climate change is not man made.
Which ones? It's common for people to say, "There are facts that show doubt", but where are they?
Yes, unless they don't really want to use this on their "enemies". Perhaps they want to be able to knock out an entire country at once round up the bad guys and then apologize for the migranes later.
It sounds like they want to use these weapons broadly without having to worry about civilians vs. enemy fighters. Which is probably fine, but they should state that up front. If your justification is that we may knock out innocent civilians, but we can ensure 99% less collateral damage in the long run, I think it would be easier to convince the American People. I mean think about a war where you could essentially knock out the enemy army and disarm them without blowing up a single building or killing anyone (which would mean no civilian deaths). That might be worth a few accidental deaths due to heart attack, falling, etc.
If you start talking about using it on US citizens, you've probably lost them.
Of course this technology is a non-starter, since bombs and planes employ far more people than highly effective stun guns. I wouldn't expect to see this actually changing much of anything (other than civilian law enforcement).
Uh... I do believe that "a bit of a shock" is essentially what growing up is. It's a series of shocks. As parents we try to pad the shocks so that the child can deal with them. As for your thoughts about policing. I think actually our technology culture has created a more paranoid populace that wants more police and protection. I think the fact that we don't know our neighbors is creating a situation where we trust no one (not even the police, you know I saw this thing on 20/20 once...). Crime is still ridiculously low in our country and yet we live in fear of it, cowering in our houses, demanding more from our politicians.
I personally think this is a direct result of becoming more and more isolated. We drive everywhere and are outside only long enough to move from our car to our house. The world is much safer than it was when we were kids, and yet we are less and less likely to let our kids experience it.
Ha! Dell's one of the "new" companies. What is this retirement plan you speak of?
Not every disabled person is blind. And not every person who is visually impaired is completely blind. Boomers are hitting the later part of their lives and the majority of them know how to use the internet. As their vision fails more and more you are going to start seeing many smaller accessibility issues becoming bigger problems. We are going to start hearing many screams from people wanting the font scaling technology to work on all sites. But I digress.
/> />
Your point is not particularly valid. The blind do not want every picture on the web described for them (well maybe they do, but I haven't met any who seriously believe that's possible with current technology). What they want is to be able to navigate your website. Let's say that they are buying new furniture. They've had an interior designer come in and tell them that fabric number #125496 will look really nice on their couches, because unlike people with sight blind people often realize that there are people who CAN see in the world. So they go to your parents website and look for this fabric number. As long as the website is navigatable you've done your job. Just use some label tags and an alt tag like the following:
<div>
<input type="checkbox" name="125496" id="125496"
<label for="125496">Cotton Print $10/yard</label>
<img src="125496.jpg" alt="Swatch for Pattern #125496"
</div>
Is that unreasonable? A blind person could navigate your site and even purchase fabric. And to the person who mentioned a glasses frame manufacturer not needing to be accessible. How ridiculous. If you make glasses you are almost certainly dealing with the visually impaired, so I would think you might want to have an accessible website. Are the frames makers able to dictate the prescriptions that go in their glasses? Those with severe visual impairments often buy sports frames because they're harder to break.
Wow, I really hope you never become disabled. We absolutely have to protect those with disabilities, otherwise they would probably end up starving to death because stores decided side walks cost too much money, or that handicapped spaces cost too much money, or that having ailes wider than two feet cost too much money, or that retrofitting cars costs too much, or that ramps cost too much.
There are not enough disabled people to create a large enough class to put a Wal*Mart or a Target out of business, and Wal*Mart and Target are a big enough class to put the stores that accomidate the disabled out of business. So your "free market" doesn't really work in this case. Sometimes we have to make accomidations for others. The free market works brilliantly for providing the most average service to the majority of users, but it doesn't work well for providing affordable speciality services to a minority.
Have you ever tried to setup a microphone on a PC? I mean it's hardly a piece of equipment that can be "hijacked". It's nearly impossible just to get it working. There seem to always be at least four differnet sound inputs, and it seems like a combination of them have to be enabled for a microphone to work. Not to mention volume levels...
And if Google is good enough to get all those different jacked up sound cards working and transmitting without any use interaction I will bow to their QA an development departments.
Yeah Robin Hood's the problem. Not the damn state that can't be bothered to actually tax its residents for the money it needs. I mean aren't we talking about the legislature that just increased funding to the schools by decreasing their tax base? That's a real solution. How does trickle-down work with property taxes exactly? Poor people who can't buy homes will have more money to buy cigarettes and spend time at strip clubs thanks to the lowering of property taxes they don't have to pay? Let's be honest, without the courts constantly making them do things like Robin Hood, the legislature would have stopped funding public schools years ago, and Texas would manage to fall that remaining 3 or so odd slots in state educational ranking (and start working on having worse schools than 3rd world countries).
Did the cable companies send out a press release of how good they're being to customers? Because I'm still not seeing any real change and the competition is only barely there. It's like having three providers of rancid food and trying to pick which one makes you sick the leasst.
"Still, more tests need to be done before this natural drug can replace morphine."
Morphine is a natural drug. "Natural" appears to be the new way to sell ice to eskimos.
Whoops reality has intervened again:
Chemical tests later Thursday turned up no explosives in the bottles, said Capt. Jack Chambers, head of the State Police Special Operations unit. The airport was reopened after nearly 10 hours.
This being the real reality. Not the neocon whackjob type.
Comparing my days in chemistry to my days in drivers ed, I'd say the airplane route is much more likely. I don't know many pointy haired types who are amateur chemists, so I'm going to assume that flying a plane isn't brain surgery. Especially since from what I understand the flying part of planes is the easy part. But this does bring up a point. 9/11 was done by people who were not very practical. I mean talk about taking the hardest means of getting a job done...
He wasn't jumping to a conclusion. He was speculating. There's a big difference. A distinction the new media also no longer seems to understand.
It's almost as though you can't stop terrorists with technology! What a crazy idea! It's as though the terrorists will always look for a weak point and exploit it. Thank god we're spending billions workin on ways to inconvenience ourselves. Perhaps we should spend those billions towards being nice to people. See if perhaps they stop trying to kill us. I'm just saying... We've exploited "making the terrorists hate as more" as a plan for defeating them. It can't hurt to try the opposite.
The dual-discs currently on the market. Those are great. I wouldn't buy DVD music alone, however. Especially since many of the dual-discs aren't that impressive in 5+1 surround.
I live in Austin. There are hundreds of businesses here with free WiFi. The city has free WiFi blanketing downtown. This isn't really a trespass issue. How exactly do you know which networks are free to use without using encryption as a clue? If anything the issue of trespass is only an issue because WiFi is public in much the same way as a large green space and includes no way to provide a "No Trespassing" sign.