Should we also teach Phrenology and every other discredited theory that ever existed?
The problem with "teaching both sides" (besides the fact that there aren't really "two sides") is that there is limited classroom time. Teachers shouldn't have to waste time on "theories" (using that word loosely) that have no evidence supporting them.
Alternatively, if you want to teach Christian-based creationism as a "theory on equal footing" as Evolution then you should teach every other creation myth that ever existed. Wiccan creation myths, ancient Norse creation myths, etc. After all, what if one of those is the right one? Of course, with so many myths to teach and so little class time, teachers will only be able to spend about 10 seconds per myth.
You don't need to violate the laws of thermodynamics to get futuristic energy advancements. Off the top of my head: Suppose that there was a way to convert matter directly into energy (ala e = mc^2). We'll assume that Future Tech makes this feasible in the way that nuclear fission power plants are feasible today. So you take a lump of rock, convert it into energy (likely at under 100% efficiency), and use that energy to power your civilization (somehow... via more Future Tech). No violations of thermodynamics have occurred and your energy source is using technology that we don't possess.
I'm not that bad, but I have my clothes (mentally, not physically) divided into "Brown Pants Clothing" and "Black Pants Clothing"*. I can combine any of the Black Pants Clothing items with a pair of black or grey pants and look presentable. The same is true with the Brown Pants Clothing and brown/tan pants. If I combine Black Pants Clothing and brown/tan pants (or vice versa) though, I risk looking like I don't know what clothing matches. Which I don't. I'm Clothing-Matches-Challenged. Thank goodness my wife isn't and can tell me when my shirt/pants/shoes clash.
* The only exceptions are my belts which are the reversible kind so they can switch between Black Mode and Brown Mode.
This (piracy beating movie theaters on convenience) is why services like Netflix are so important. Netflix is easier than piracy which tips the scales back into the studios favor. Except the studios see Netflix as a pseudo-pirate robbing them of DVD sales (instead of an ally turning would-be pirates into paying customers). Therefore, they restrict what content Netflix has access to and wind up cutting off their own nose to spite their face. Other services, like Amazon VOD, are good, but more expensive. (The Avengers is $3.99 for a 48 hour rental. For just the price of 2 Amazon VOD movie rentals, you can get a month of Netflix streaming.)
Wow. It's not often that you come across a post on Slashdot that was made in the 1950's. Looks like someone took off with Doc Brown's DeLorean and hopped on over to 2012.
Actually, I think that the best response to this would be: "I take password security very seriously. If I were to give you my password right now, it would give the impression - rightly so - that I'm the sort of person who would give up confidential information. I'm not that sort of person. When I'm given confidential information, I only give it out to authorized personnel. You are not authorized personnel when it comes to my social media passwords, therefore I cannot give those to you. If my employment is to be terminated should I refuse, then it is clear that you are only looking to employ people who are unable to hold onto confidential information and - as I am not one of those people - it would be best if we part ways."
Also consider that this image shows 5,500 or so galaxies in a tiny fraction of the sky. There are something like 100 billion galaxies in the known Universe and trillions upon trillions of stars (cue Carl Sagan). I'd say life on another planet isn't just a possibility, but a statistical certainty. Of course, finding/reaching/communicating with that life might be another matter entirely.
Not to mention their statements about Judaism. I'd love to see how active the Muslim governments would be in cracking down on antisemitism. Tell you what, Muslim World: First clean up all traces of antisemitism and anti-Christian rhetoric and then we'll pass a "Don't Insult Muhammad" law. We'll check back with you in a decade or three.
No, I don't think insulting another person's religion is usually appropriate. Nor do I think it is productive in most cases. However, people have the right to express themselves and don't have the right to be immune from being insulted. Moreover, if Person A wants Person B's rights limited (i.e. keep Person B from insulting Person A's religion), Person A better not be using and want to retain that freedom (i.e. Person A wants to keep insulting Person B's religion).
Given some of the drivers licence photos I've had, I think human facial recognition doesn't need glasses to be thrown off.
One time, I renewed my driver's license and they reused the old photograph. For some reason, though, they darkened my skin in the picture. I commented at the time (pre-9-11) that I looked like I was from the Middle East. (My ancestry is Russia so the photo was very darkened.)
I should have probably clarified it as "decentralized P2P sharing". Napster was P2P, but it had a central server which made it easy to take down - but also could have made it easy for the recording industry to manage. I can't see them having an official "LimeWire" client, though. (Especially not after they made their "sue everyone" strategy clear.)
Back in the days of Napster, I thought that the recording industry's best course of action would have been to purchase Napster. My idea would have been for them to limit the bitrates of freely shared music (say, to 128kbps) while selling higher bitrate versions of these songs. Listening to a 128kbps copy would have been the equivalent of hearing it on the radio and would have guided people to buy the full-quality version.
Remember, this was before P2P sharing and before Apple/Amazon/etc opened online music shops. The recording industry would have turned piracy into a source of revenue. More than that, though, they would have gotten ahead of Apple/Amazon/etc and would have been the main source for legal digital music purchases.
Yes, some people would have complained and found other ways to freely share MP3s greater than 128kbps, but if they did it right, I think most people would have remained. Instead, they shut down Napster and from its corpse sprang the P2P programs that the recording industry played Whack-A-Mole against for the next decade.
At first, I thought this was part of a plea deal. Shut down your Facebook account and do some other things and get your sentence reduced. However, it actually sounds like she went before the judge and he just said "Shut down your Facebook account." Now, ordering her not to post on Facebook for the duration of the trial, I could see. Given her posting a "lol" comment about her car crash, I'd say banning her from social media until the trial was over would be appropriate. Once the sentence came in, she might even face a more permanent (or at least longer) ban. But telling her right off the bat to delete her Facebook account seems like it goes a bit too far.
That said, it's stupid to just ignore a judge's orders. This person is going to decide your fate and has the power to make your life miserable. You can have your lawyer protest the order. Perhaps he might even find some way to change the judge's mind. However, you don't just ignore it outright and then act surprised when the judge comes down hard on you.
Actually, it makes sure that your future offspring won't be terrorists.
Of course, it does that by making you unable to have offspring, but don't worry. This bug will be fixed in the 3rd generation of scanners which will only cost the TSA $350 million in a few years.
Three planes, actually. (Don't forget the Pentagon one.) Would have been four but the passengers of that plane got news of what was happening and fought back, sacrificing themselves to stop the hijackers.
No, just people who prioritize. If you open the door, you've "saved" the lives of those 200 people for a few minutes until the hijacker flies the plane into a building. Then, not only are the 200 people on board dead, but perhaps thousands more on the ground/in the building are dead as well.
If, however, you keep the door locked, radio the ground, and perform an emergency landing, you 1) limit the death toll to 200, 2) perhaps save some of those 200 people, and 3) send a clear signal to future would-be hijackers that this method doesn't work anymore (thus saving preventing passenger deaths via this method in the future). No, #3 doesn't mean the would-be hijackers would give up and yes they could kill people via other methods, but they won't be doing it via the "I have a knife and will kill everyone unless I'm given control of the cockpit" method.
QR codes can't even launch a browser themselves even if they contain a URL. That action depends on the QR code reader. If a QR code says "http://www.slashdot.com/", then it is up to the QR code reader to say "Hey, this is a URL, I should open a web browser." The QR code reader on my phone presents the URL for me and gives me the option of opening a web browser. I'm sure a hypothetical QR reader for currency wouldn't even do that. It would say "Hey, this QR code reads 'http://www.badsite.com/infect_with_a_virus.php'. That's not the correct hash so this must be counterfeit."
Slashdot Mirror
Considering what comes out of some politicians mouths, that last bit might be true.
Exhibit A: Rep. Paul Broun.
Should we also teach Phrenology and every other discredited theory that ever existed?
The problem with "teaching both sides" (besides the fact that there aren't really "two sides") is that there is limited classroom time. Teachers shouldn't have to waste time on "theories" (using that word loosely) that have no evidence supporting them.
Alternatively, if you want to teach Christian-based creationism as a "theory on equal footing" as Evolution then you should teach every other creation myth that ever existed. Wiccan creation myths, ancient Norse creation myths, etc. After all, what if one of those is the right one? Of course, with so many myths to teach and so little class time, teachers will only be able to spend about 10 seconds per myth.
I thought it was in New Jersey... Oh wait. That's just Robot Hell.
You don't need to violate the laws of thermodynamics to get futuristic energy advancements. Off the top of my head: Suppose that there was a way to convert matter directly into energy (ala e = mc^2). We'll assume that Future Tech makes this feasible in the way that nuclear fission power plants are feasible today. So you take a lump of rock, convert it into energy (likely at under 100% efficiency), and use that energy to power your civilization (somehow... via more Future Tech). No violations of thermodynamics have occurred and your energy source is using technology that we don't possess.
Easy: Santa is a Time Lord and has a TARDIS. That also explains how he can live for so long.
Now the tricky question is why he likes milk and cookies and not fish fingers and custard or jelly babies.
I'm not that bad, but I have my clothes (mentally, not physically) divided into "Brown Pants Clothing" and "Black Pants Clothing"*. I can combine any of the Black Pants Clothing items with a pair of black or grey pants and look presentable. The same is true with the Brown Pants Clothing and brown/tan pants. If I combine Black Pants Clothing and brown/tan pants (or vice versa) though, I risk looking like I don't know what clothing matches. Which I don't. I'm Clothing-Matches-Challenged. Thank goodness my wife isn't and can tell me when my shirt/pants/shoes clash.
* The only exceptions are my belts which are the reversible kind so they can switch between Black Mode and Brown Mode.
This (piracy beating movie theaters on convenience) is why services like Netflix are so important. Netflix is easier than piracy which tips the scales back into the studios favor. Except the studios see Netflix as a pseudo-pirate robbing them of DVD sales (instead of an ally turning would-be pirates into paying customers). Therefore, they restrict what content Netflix has access to and wind up cutting off their own nose to spite their face. Other services, like Amazon VOD, are good, but more expensive. (The Avengers is $3.99 for a 48 hour rental. For just the price of 2 Amazon VOD movie rentals, you can get a month of Netflix streaming.)
Wow. It's not often that you come across a post on Slashdot that was made in the 1950's. Looks like someone took off with Doc Brown's DeLorean and hopped on over to 2012.
Actually, I think that the best response to this would be: "I take password security very seriously. If I were to give you my password right now, it would give the impression - rightly so - that I'm the sort of person who would give up confidential information. I'm not that sort of person. When I'm given confidential information, I only give it out to authorized personnel. You are not authorized personnel when it comes to my social media passwords, therefore I cannot give those to you. If my employment is to be terminated should I refuse, then it is clear that you are only looking to employ people who are unable to hold onto confidential information and - as I am not one of those people - it would be best if we part ways."
Also consider that this image shows 5,500 or so galaxies in a tiny fraction of the sky. There are something like 100 billion galaxies in the known Universe and trillions upon trillions of stars (cue Carl Sagan). I'd say life on another planet isn't just a possibility, but a statistical certainty. Of course, finding/reaching/communicating with that life might be another matter entirely.
Actually, considering this image: My God.... It's full of galaxies! (Which themselves are full of stars.)
Then again, that doesn't flow as nicely.
Not to mention their statements about Judaism. I'd love to see how active the Muslim governments would be in cracking down on antisemitism. Tell you what, Muslim World: First clean up all traces of antisemitism and anti-Christian rhetoric and then we'll pass a "Don't Insult Muhammad" law. We'll check back with you in a decade or three.
No, I don't think insulting another person's religion is usually appropriate. Nor do I think it is productive in most cases. However, people have the right to express themselves and don't have the right to be immune from being insulted. Moreover, if Person A wants Person B's rights limited (i.e. keep Person B from insulting Person A's religion), Person A better not be using and want to retain that freedom (i.e. Person A wants to keep insulting Person B's religion).
This whole thing is a plot hatched by the Joker.
To the batmobile! (Thankfully, Batman still has his licence because Batman never smiles.)
Given some of the drivers licence photos I've had, I think human facial recognition doesn't need glasses to be thrown off.
One time, I renewed my driver's license and they reused the old photograph. For some reason, though, they darkened my skin in the picture. I commented at the time (pre-9-11) that I looked like I was from the Middle East. (My ancestry is Russia so the photo was very darkened.)
I should have probably clarified it as "decentralized P2P sharing". Napster was P2P, but it had a central server which made it easy to take down - but also could have made it easy for the recording industry to manage. I can't see them having an official "LimeWire" client, though. (Especially not after they made their "sue everyone" strategy clear.)
Back in the days of Napster, I thought that the recording industry's best course of action would have been to purchase Napster. My idea would have been for them to limit the bitrates of freely shared music (say, to 128kbps) while selling higher bitrate versions of these songs. Listening to a 128kbps copy would have been the equivalent of hearing it on the radio and would have guided people to buy the full-quality version.
Remember, this was before P2P sharing and before Apple/Amazon/etc opened online music shops. The recording industry would have turned piracy into a source of revenue. More than that, though, they would have gotten ahead of Apple/Amazon/etc and would have been the main source for legal digital music purchases.
Yes, some people would have complained and found other ways to freely share MP3s greater than 128kbps, but if they did it right, I think most people would have remained. Instead, they shut down Napster and from its corpse sprang the P2P programs that the recording industry played Whack-A-Mole against for the next decade.
At first, I thought this was part of a plea deal. Shut down your Facebook account and do some other things and get your sentence reduced. However, it actually sounds like she went before the judge and he just said "Shut down your Facebook account." Now, ordering her not to post on Facebook for the duration of the trial, I could see. Given her posting a "lol" comment about her car crash, I'd say banning her from social media until the trial was over would be appropriate. Once the sentence came in, she might even face a more permanent (or at least longer) ban. But telling her right off the bat to delete her Facebook account seems like it goes a bit too far.
That said, it's stupid to just ignore a judge's orders. This person is going to decide your fate and has the power to make your life miserable. You can have your lawyer protest the order. Perhaps he might even find some way to change the judge's mind. However, you don't just ignore it outright and then act surprised when the judge comes down hard on you.
Actually, it makes sure that your future offspring won't be terrorists.
Of course, it does that by making you unable to have offspring, but don't worry. This bug will be fixed in the 3rd generation of scanners which will only cost the TSA $350 million in a few years.
Three planes, actually. (Don't forget the Pentagon one.) Would have been four but the passengers of that plane got news of what was happening and fought back, sacrificing themselves to stop the hijackers.
No, just people who prioritize. If you open the door, you've "saved" the lives of those 200 people for a few minutes until the hijacker flies the plane into a building. Then, not only are the 200 people on board dead, but perhaps thousands more on the ground/in the building are dead as well.
If, however, you keep the door locked, radio the ground, and perform an emergency landing, you 1) limit the death toll to 200, 2) perhaps save some of those 200 people, and 3) send a clear signal to future would-be hijackers that this method doesn't work anymore (thus saving preventing passenger deaths via this method in the future). No, #3 doesn't mean the would-be hijackers would give up and yes they could kill people via other methods, but they won't be doing it via the "I have a knife and will kill everyone unless I'm given control of the cockpit" method.
And eyes and ears and mouth and nose....
Why do I think this shirt will suddenly disappear from ThinkGeek's listings: http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/9d0b/
Also, this: http://www.dorktower.com/2012/08/14/your-dice-dork-tower-14-08-12/
So what you're saying is that Slashdot will be burned down for insurance money, but it'll be made to look like an electrical thing?
Or rounded down to 137,438,953,472 meters - 2^37 meters.
QR codes can't even launch a browser themselves even if they contain a URL. That action depends on the QR code reader. If a QR code says "http://www.slashdot.com/", then it is up to the QR code reader to say "Hey, this is a URL, I should open a web browser." The QR code reader on my phone presents the URL for me and gives me the option of opening a web browser. I'm sure a hypothetical QR reader for currency wouldn't even do that. It would say "Hey, this QR code reads 'http://www.badsite.com/infect_with_a_virus.php'. That's not the correct hash so this must be counterfeit."