The last one is the point, though... "if they don't have cars of their own." If you are not using other cars, you are taking cars off the road (not to mention the fact that parking one van is usually easier than parking 3 cars).
Can this ultimately continue though? There is an eventual limit, theoretically, to the amount of storage you can fit in a particular fixed volume. How dense can things get -- certainly not infinitely dense.
They build a better product than anyone else, yes -- at first at least. Then they earn those profits. Then they use those profits to lobby in the government, so that they aren't taxed at the rate they should be. They buy off politicians that exempt them in situations where ordinarily they'd be accountable -- to the people, and sometimes to their shareholders (chapter 11). They forge monopolies, and use the money to protect themselves from this.
People who vote for conservatives are just fucking themselves. Why does no one sit down and say "shit, maybe I can't actually USE $15M; maybe if all of us had a couple million in the bank, that would do it." What is this need to accumulate millions of dollars at everyone else's expense? And frankly, why do so many "little guys" fight for this "right"?
I love the anti-enviro folks who keep tossing shit like "see, global warming didn't kill us all like those tree-huggers said it will, so why should I give a shit?"
Maybe it's because when explained without hyperbole, everyone completely ignores it. Even if the environmentalists are wrong... the harm done is... what? Fewer chemicals in the air? Oooh, shit, we're going to regret that someday, aren't we?
Bonehead: If these people all lived independently in rural areas, they'd be using much more energy, or they'd have to become Amish or similar. The most energy-efficient modern place to use is in a city. I personally do own two cars, but since I moved into a city, I drive maybe 1/10th the amount that I used to. To some, the idea of using public transportation isn't even on the radar.
But what a stupid idea. Why have millions of copies of everything when theoretically networks will allow there to be a few replicated copies? Seems a pointless waste of disk space to me.
Besides, there will be many more videos ever produced by that time than there are now... I doubt technology will keep pace with the rolling-themselves-off-a-cliff-in-a-shopping-car-v ideo crowd.
But the problem is, and I'm sure it's very hard to argue with this: the role of the free market is to make money, environment be damned. True there won't BE a free market without the environment, but guess what, most of the people running the thing now will be dead by then.
Of course any change has an economic impact, but big deal... at any rate, the rich have they money, the poor don't... where are you going to get the money to do this?
There is no place for courtesy at a four way stop. In fact, there's no place for courtesy on the road aside from when someone can't make a left at an unmarked intersection and you know they'll be there all month if you don't stop the flow for them. I personally do this every time I see a bus, but sometimes for cars.
Courtesy in other situations means you breaking the rules and not accepting the right-of-way. Fuck that -- that's a good way to cause an accident. There are rules for a reason -- let us all take a moment to READ them and then drive like we've done so.
I can verify this. I love Ubuntu, but I upgraded my laptop to 6.06 and some things that just worked on a fresh install on a different laptop just act funny on the upgraded machine. Nothing wrong with kpilot on that machine, for example... this one freezes all the time. Katapult acted different on this laptop than the other one, even though I never made any config changes. I think it will eventually be fine to upgrade, but right now when so many of the software packages are so early in their lives, it seems like nothing ever works perfectly after upgrade.
Trouble is, most of your comment is bullshit. Microsoft did not go after the mainstream, Microsoft changed the mainstream, considering they already owned the operating system. Windows is on the vast majority of boxes out there, they installed the browser as part of their OS, and websites changed to keep up with this because they want to the mainstream consumer. Why should a browser try to emulate this when MS is free to change the rules at any time? Websites may have a reason to do so, but this is terribly time consuming for a rival browser to do.
I personally do not advocate the "let's make the browser suck as much shit as IE" idea. Why bother having two browsers in that case, if all you'd like Mozilla to be is a copycat of IE? Plenty of people DO want a secure browser that supports proper CSS and PNG.
Mozilla wants to write a good browser. I'm sure many of us out there thank them for that.
They pass the information over to other non-users, saying that people made it a point to them to not use IE. I'm surprised that almost everyone I know uses FF nearly exclusively, and I only told a couple of them.
The reason to use it is already there -- no idiotic little script can install something without your knowledge into your always-running web browser. This does change with IE7 to a certain extent, but it's still very much the way it was. That's why I have switched people to it, and they have noticed the difference. Most of the people who were using IE had their computers crapped up in weeks. Not so with FF.
People loved to add the button to the tab, for some reason. I can't stand it myself -- if I want to close the 5 tabs I most recently opened, I'll click 5 times in one spot.
Apple didn't snipe at their QA people, though, they sniped at an unrelated third party. This would be like making comments about a desk manufacturer because Sony's battery caught fire in Dell's PC and spread to the desk it was sitting on. The desk maker was not involved in the manufacturing -- their QA people definitely were, and saying "QA fucked up and put a virus on the iPod" would be honest, even if QA was a third party. I don't think anyone would blame Apple.
This whole thing is like selling diseased spinach, and turning around and criticizing the people who consume it for having shitty immune systems. True? Possibly, but classless: definitely.
Slashdot Mirror
Skiing is not a rare thing for some people.
The last one is the point, though... "if they don't have cars of their own." If you are not using other cars, you are taking cars off the road (not to mention the fact that parking one van is usually easier than parking 3 cars).
I think it's disgusting that price is the only thing that people seem to think about when deciding whether to burn fuel.
Incidentally, I wouldn't put minivans in the same category as SUV's. Many SUV's get less than 20 mpg -- most minivans get above 25 mpg.
Can this ultimately continue though? There is an eventual limit, theoretically, to the amount of storage you can fit in a particular fixed volume. How dense can things get -- certainly not infinitely dense.
They build a better product than anyone else, yes -- at first at least. Then they earn those profits. Then they use those profits to lobby in the government, so that they aren't taxed at the rate they should be. They buy off politicians that exempt them in situations where ordinarily they'd be accountable -- to the people, and sometimes to their shareholders (chapter 11). They forge monopolies, and use the money to protect themselves from this.
People who vote for conservatives are just fucking themselves. Why does no one sit down and say "shit, maybe I can't actually USE $15M; maybe if all of us had a couple million in the bank, that would do it." What is this need to accumulate millions of dollars at everyone else's expense? And frankly, why do so many "little guys" fight for this "right"?
You ever heard of better safe than sorry?
I love the anti-enviro folks who keep tossing shit like "see, global warming didn't kill us all like those tree-huggers said it will, so why should I give a shit?"
Maybe it's because when explained without hyperbole, everyone completely ignores it. Even if the environmentalists are wrong... the harm done is... what? Fewer chemicals in the air? Oooh, shit, we're going to regret that someday, aren't we?
They're not a troll necessarily, but the fact remains: stupid is as stupid does.
Bonehead: If these people all lived independently in rural areas, they'd be using much more energy, or they'd have to become Amish or similar. The most energy-efficient modern place to use is in a city. I personally do own two cars, but since I moved into a city, I drive maybe 1/10th the amount that I used to. To some, the idea of using public transportation isn't even on the radar.
Unfortunately, however, the corporations that manage to amass enough money manage to buy off the lawmakers, so there will never be any such laws.
But what a stupid idea. Why have millions of copies of everything when theoretically networks will allow there to be a few replicated copies? Seems a pointless waste of disk space to me.
v ideo crowd.
Besides, there will be many more videos ever produced by that time than there are now... I doubt technology will keep pace with the rolling-themselves-off-a-cliff-in-a-shopping-car-
I can't see having sex with anyone using that phone, so... guess it works?
But the problem is, and I'm sure it's very hard to argue with this: the role of the free market is to make money, environment be damned. True there won't BE a free market without the environment, but guess what, most of the people running the thing now will be dead by then.
Of course any change has an economic impact, but big deal... at any rate, the rich have they money, the poor don't... where are you going to get the money to do this?
I hope "grammer" was part of the joke.
Liberal left, eh? Well... here's one smartass... what part of being underwater in 100 years is a partisan issue?
And you're a moron.
http://sethf.com/gore/
There is no place for courtesy at a four way stop. In fact, there's no place for courtesy on the road aside from when someone can't make a left at an unmarked intersection and you know they'll be there all month if you don't stop the flow for them. I personally do this every time I see a bus, but sometimes for cars.
Courtesy in other situations means you breaking the rules and not accepting the right-of-way. Fuck that -- that's a good way to cause an accident. There are rules for a reason -- let us all take a moment to READ them and then drive like we've done so.
I can verify this. I love Ubuntu, but I upgraded my laptop to 6.06 and some things that just worked on a fresh install on a different laptop just act funny on the upgraded machine. Nothing wrong with kpilot on that machine, for example... this one freezes all the time. Katapult acted different on this laptop than the other one, even though I never made any config changes. I think it will eventually be fine to upgrade, but right now when so many of the software packages are so early in their lives, it seems like nothing ever works perfectly after upgrade.
Trouble is, most of your comment is bullshit. Microsoft did not go after the mainstream, Microsoft changed the mainstream, considering they already owned the operating system. Windows is on the vast majority of boxes out there, they installed the browser as part of their OS, and websites changed to keep up with this because they want to the mainstream consumer. Why should a browser try to emulate this when MS is free to change the rules at any time? Websites may have a reason to do so, but this is terribly time consuming for a rival browser to do.
I personally do not advocate the "let's make the browser suck as much shit as IE" idea. Why bother having two browsers in that case, if all you'd like Mozilla to be is a copycat of IE? Plenty of people DO want a secure browser that supports proper CSS and PNG.
Mozilla wants to write a good browser. I'm sure many of us out there thank them for that.
Whoosh again.
They pass the information over to other non-users, saying that people made it a point to them to not use IE. I'm surprised that almost everyone I know uses FF nearly exclusively, and I only told a couple of them.
The reason to use it is already there -- no idiotic little script can install something without your knowledge into your always-running web browser. This does change with IE7 to a certain extent, but it's still very much the way it was. That's why I have switched people to it, and they have noticed the difference. Most of the people who were using IE had their computers crapped up in weeks. Not so with FF.
People loved to add the button to the tab, for some reason. I can't stand it myself -- if I want to close the 5 tabs I most recently opened, I'll click 5 times in one spot.
Apple didn't snipe at their QA people, though, they sniped at an unrelated third party. This would be like making comments about a desk manufacturer because Sony's battery caught fire in Dell's PC and spread to the desk it was sitting on. The desk maker was not involved in the manufacturing -- their QA people definitely were, and saying "QA fucked up and put a virus on the iPod" would be honest, even if QA was a third party. I don't think anyone would blame Apple.
This whole thing is like selling diseased spinach, and turning around and criticizing the people who consume it for having shitty immune systems. True? Possibly, but classless: definitely.
Weren't their compilers really good though?
I suppose if they were optimized for MIPS it doesn't really matter.
Apparently this story wasn't interesting enough the day it happened (day I reported it), but 2 days later, it's news.