Net Neutrality means not allowing your provider to take cash from Microsoft to speed up MSN and slow down Google (for example, but using the typical white and black hats that slashdot so loves).
Except that's not what the telcos want to do. They want to charge more for MSN to go faster, and if Google doesn't pay extra, they don't get the extra service levels. Sure, to the unwashed masses, it appears that Google is being punished, but to technologically sophisticated types like you and me, it's obvious that MSN is just paying for better service, and getting it.
It would be even cooler if the synthetic materials developed were also biodegradable.
Except if it were, it would seriously impact the longevity of the product, rendering it useless for things like construction. Who wants a building that's going to fall apart in ten or twenty years because of bacteria eating it?
I'll see what I can do. My DVR is a cheapo one from Time-Warner cable, and I haven't yet figured out how to copy saved programs to a PC. If I can get something copied, I'll email it to you at the address you have listed for yourself.
Nope, there's no difference at all. The debate about a war comes before the war starts, once it's on, it's on, and all the whining and bitching in the world won't change that. In fact, if people had been truly patriotic and supportive of the war effort, I dare say we wouldn't have many of the troubles we have now. The military was forced to wear kid gloves in their efforts in Iraq so as not to offend the sensibilities of simpering cowards at home. We should've been nailing people to crosses and leveling entire cities in the Sunni Triangle from day one, then we wouldn't have this insurgency mess that's still killing our men and women today. So, yes, it's all the fault of the unpatriotic cowards who don't deserve to enjoy the rights that other men have died and killed to gain and protect.
Geez, you'd think Slashdotters would understand how to wage a war. Didn't you learn anything from dealing with all those school yard bullies? Half-measures don't cut it, you have to go all Ender on their ass.
(Mods, go ahead and mark this 'flamebait', but only because there isn't an option for 'drunken rant'.)
The first example appears more to be hyperbolic bashing during an interview, not news reporting. Arguably, it's unprofessional and uncalled for, but it's not an active deception (like the Reuters photo scandal or the National Guard memos).
The second one is opinion, not news. What's more, both you and the YouTube commentator are wrong, O'Reilly makes it clear that the ACLU is defending a religious group and religious speech. The repeated references to them being a church group and invoking God is proof enough of that. I wouldn't expect Bill O'Reilly to come riding to the defense of the ACLU anytime soon, and nor would I expect Keith Olberman (sp?) to say anything nice about the NRA. They're opinion journalists, not news journalists, so don't expect the full story from them. That said, I didn't see anything in there that seemed like an outright lie or fabrication.
The third one provides proof that the Hawaiian branch of the ACLU is more reasonable than their national organization, which is the group that O'Reilly targets in his opinion pieces. But again, there's no actual fabrication involved, which is what you claimed happens on a fairly regular basis.
The truth is, some Fox News commentators are a little loose with giving the full story when they're doing an opinion piece. But other commentators on other channels can be equally guilty of that crime. That's not really a big deal, the big deal is when news organizations flat out lie and make up news that doesn't exist (like the Reuters reports about Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon, many of which never happened, see the Qana building "attack" and Red Cross ambulance as examples).
Do you, however, want to use a tax-exempt religious organization to urge people to write their Congressional representation to take a specific action on a specific measure? Unfortunately for you, that's just lobbying and a blatantly inappropriate mix of religion and politics.
I hereby nominate this post for Most Frightening Comment in a Political Thread.
So you think that the Fox News reporters are perfect beings who never make mistakes, and that everything they do is purposeful and without error? You have a lot more respect for them than I do, and I'm one of their fans.
Besides which, you provided no evidence that there was anything deliberate. Please, bring up something that shows an obvious deliberate fabrication, or just admit you can't and move on with your life.
No doubt, it's a complicated issue. And I don't have all the answer for it. Hell, I'm not even convinced it's the best way to do things. I was just pointing out it was an additional option, one that is often overlooked (I think).
As someone else pointed out, this appears more to be leaving out some details, possibly on purpose, possibly not. Since they later corrected it on their Website, I would assume it was unintentional. No one is perfect, and beating someone up because they made an honest mistake is more than a little disingenuous, don't you think?
The official "mormon" church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, hasn't practiced polygamy for over 100 years, since the 1890's.
Yes, and they did that in order to gain statehood for Utah. So they willingly, and gladly, set aside an important doctrine of their faith in order to benefit in a very worldly way. Didn't exactly set the bar high for faith and morality, did they?
In any event, the first amendment should've allowed Utah to join regardless of polygamy. But the bill of rights wasn't nearly as respected in the 19th century as it is in the 21st. Not sure that is, but that's the impression I've always gotten from the usual history textbooks.
All Mormons are pretty decent, but all Muslims are moon-god-worshipping suicide bombers?
You're right, that's not accurate. I should've said "most Mormons are decent people." The rest was accurate.
As for moon-god-worshipping, you do know who Allah is in the Arabic pantheon, don't you? And who his three daughters are, and how they're mentioned in the Koran? Why do you think the crescent moon is so important in Islam that it's on every single mosque and most flags of Islamic nations (not all, but most).
the stock brokers could be better employed driving tractors in the field creating food, or driving trucks to the third world to deliver that food
What if that's not what they want to do? What if they genuinely enjoy being a stock broker? Are you saying people shouldn't have the freedom to pursue their dreams? Cause that's what it sounds like.
Yeah, I think Stalin tried that once. It didn't work out so well.
Seriously, communism has been tried, and it's failed. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it seems to work for most people. To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst economic system ever used by man. Except for all those others that have been tried from time to time.
Basically, you're limiting the choices to either a) government regulation of the airwaves, or b) complete chaos as people all broadcast on the same airwaves at once.
But what if there were a third choice? Convert the radio spectrum into private property and sell it off, then let the owners do what they want with it. They could use it themselves, lease its use to others, or let it lie fallow. Just like with land.
There's a lot of hand waving here, and there are lots of details that would have to be worked out, but this is definitely a viable third option.
I'm not sure if you're jesting or not, but what about Mormons and Muslims? I'm no fan of the moon-god-worshipping suicide bombers, but Mormons are pretty decent people. And both religions allow for multiple wives in a marriage. How do you outlaw that without trampling all over freedom of religion? What's more, certain sects of Mormons actually believe that a man HAS to have at least three wives in order to become a god. So their very salvation is at stake, in their minds, yet the government feels it's ok to prevent them from doing so.
I say, let consenting adults do what they want with each other, and keep the government out of our bedrooms and churches.
No, but when someone invests their money in a public corporation, either by buying stock in the company or by buying shares of a mutual fund that holds stock in the company, then either one of two things happen: one, someone else sells their corresponding shares for money (which can buy food, which you can eat), or two, the company sells shares in itself directly, which raises capital to expand the business, which means it can hire more employees, whom the company pays with money, with which the new employees can buy food (and then eat).
So while investing in the markets doesn't directly enable you to eat, it does set off a chain of events on which our entire economic system is based and which eventually lead to people buying food and eating it.
When everyone is poor, no one steals from each other.
Are you kidding? Greed and envy are primary human traits, just because everyone is dirt poor doesn't mean one person won't want more dirt than the next guy. And he'll be willing to take that dirt by force, if needed.
I never said they worked perfectly well as a treatment for anything.
Then what's the point? The whole issue seems to center on finding something so that Michael J. Fox can stop twitching and get back to work making us all laugh. If embryonic stem cells don't work as a treatment for that, then what's the point?
Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality means not allowing your provider to take cash from Microsoft to speed up MSN and slow down Google (for example, but using the typical white and black hats that slashdot so loves).
Except that's not what the telcos want to do. They want to charge more for MSN to go faster, and if Google doesn't pay extra, they don't get the extra service levels. Sure, to the unwashed masses, it appears that Google is being punished, but to technologically sophisticated types like you and me, it's obvious that MSN is just paying for better service, and getting it.
So, what's the problem, exactly?
It would be even cooler if the synthetic materials developed were also biodegradable.
Except if it were, it would seriously impact the longevity of the product, rendering it useless for things like construction. Who wants a building that's going to fall apart in ten or twenty years because of bacteria eating it?
If an alien race has had advanced technology for 100,000,000 Trillion years...
Holy shit, Tom Cruise posts on Slashdot!
I'll see what I can do. My DVR is a cheapo one from Time-Warner cable, and I haven't yet figured out how to copy saved programs to a PC. If I can get something copied, I'll email it to you at the address you have listed for yourself.
Nope, there's no difference at all. The debate about a war comes before the war starts, once it's on, it's on, and all the whining and bitching in the world won't change that. In fact, if people had been truly patriotic and supportive of the war effort, I dare say we wouldn't have many of the troubles we have now. The military was forced to wear kid gloves in their efforts in Iraq so as not to offend the sensibilities of simpering cowards at home. We should've been nailing people to crosses and leveling entire cities in the Sunni Triangle from day one, then we wouldn't have this insurgency mess that's still killing our men and women today. So, yes, it's all the fault of the unpatriotic cowards who don't deserve to enjoy the rights that other men have died and killed to gain and protect.
Geez, you'd think Slashdotters would understand how to wage a war. Didn't you learn anything from dealing with all those school yard bullies? Half-measures don't cut it, you have to go all Ender on their ass.
(Mods, go ahead and mark this 'flamebait', but only because there isn't an option for 'drunken rant'.)
Kudos for taking the time to look these up.
The first example appears more to be hyperbolic bashing during an interview, not news reporting. Arguably, it's unprofessional and uncalled for, but it's not an active deception (like the Reuters photo scandal or the National Guard memos).
The second one is opinion, not news. What's more, both you and the YouTube commentator are wrong, O'Reilly makes it clear that the ACLU is defending a religious group and religious speech. The repeated references to them being a church group and invoking God is proof enough of that. I wouldn't expect Bill O'Reilly to come riding to the defense of the ACLU anytime soon, and nor would I expect Keith Olberman (sp?) to say anything nice about the NRA. They're opinion journalists, not news journalists, so don't expect the full story from them. That said, I didn't see anything in there that seemed like an outright lie or fabrication.
The third one provides proof that the Hawaiian branch of the ACLU is more reasonable than their national organization, which is the group that O'Reilly targets in his opinion pieces. But again, there's no actual fabrication involved, which is what you claimed happens on a fairly regular basis.
The truth is, some Fox News commentators are a little loose with giving the full story when they're doing an opinion piece. But other commentators on other channels can be equally guilty of that crime. That's not really a big deal, the big deal is when news organizations flat out lie and make up news that doesn't exist (like the Reuters reports about Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon, many of which never happened, see the Qana building "attack" and Red Cross ambulance as examples).
Do you, however, want to use a tax-exempt religious organization to urge people to write their Congressional representation to take a specific action on a specific measure? Unfortunately for you, that's just lobbying and a blatantly inappropriate mix of religion and politics.
I hereby nominate this post for Most Frightening Comment in a Political Thread.
It's the same as re-branding people against the invasion of Iraq as unpatriotic.
Not to pick nits, but if you don't support your nation during time of war, then, yes, you are unpatriotic.
So you think that the Fox News reporters are perfect beings who never make mistakes, and that everything they do is purposeful and without error? You have a lot more respect for them than I do, and I'm one of their fans.
Besides which, you provided no evidence that there was anything deliberate. Please, bring up something that shows an obvious deliberate fabrication, or just admit you can't and move on with your life.
No doubt, it's a complicated issue. And I don't have all the answer for it. Hell, I'm not even convinced it's the best way to do things. I was just pointing out it was an additional option, one that is often overlooked (I think).
As someone else pointed out, this appears more to be leaving out some details, possibly on purpose, possibly not. Since they later corrected it on their Website, I would assume it was unintentional. No one is perfect, and beating someone up because they made an honest mistake is more than a little disingenuous, don't you think?
The official "mormon" church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, hasn't practiced polygamy for over 100 years, since the 1890's.
Yes, and they did that in order to gain statehood for Utah. So they willingly, and gladly, set aside an important doctrine of their faith in order to benefit in a very worldly way. Didn't exactly set the bar high for faith and morality, did they?
In any event, the first amendment should've allowed Utah to join regardless of polygamy. But the bill of rights wasn't nearly as respected in the 19th century as it is in the 21st. Not sure that is, but that's the impression I've always gotten from the usual history textbooks.
All Mormons are pretty decent, but all Muslims are moon-god-worshipping suicide bombers?
You're right, that's not accurate. I should've said "most Mormons are decent people." The rest was accurate.
As for moon-god-worshipping, you do know who Allah is in the Arabic pantheon, don't you? And who his three daughters are, and how they're mentioned in the Koran? Why do you think the crescent moon is so important in Islam that it's on every single mosque and most flags of Islamic nations (not all, but most).
the stock brokers could be better employed driving tractors in the field creating food, or driving trucks to the third world to deliver that food
What if that's not what they want to do? What if they genuinely enjoy being a stock broker? Are you saying people shouldn't have the freedom to pursue their dreams? Cause that's what it sounds like.
Just eliminate such people
Yeah, I think Stalin tried that once. It didn't work out so well.
Seriously, communism has been tried, and it's failed. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it seems to work for most people. To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst economic system ever used by man. Except for all those others that have been tried from time to time.
You mean like these: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/22/national /main530421.shtml
"Anti-Missile Test Called A Success
Fourth Success In Six Attempts; Most Complex Yet"
I would say 66% of the tests being successful counts as "any".
Hmmm, your post reminds me of something...
Basically, you're limiting the choices to either a) government regulation of the airwaves, or b) complete chaos as people all broadcast on the same airwaves at once.
But what if there were a third choice? Convert the radio spectrum into private property and sell it off, then let the owners do what they want with it. They could use it themselves, lease its use to others, or let it lie fallow. Just like with land.
There's a lot of hand waving here, and there are lots of details that would have to be worked out, but this is definitely a viable third option.
The reason there's no news about its mistakes is because they're not news - they're expected.
And yet you can list no examples, you simply resort to ad hominem attacks. Interesting.
I'm not sure if you're jesting or not, but what about Mormons and Muslims? I'm no fan of the moon-god-worshipping suicide bombers, but Mormons are pretty decent people. And both religions allow for multiple wives in a marriage. How do you outlaw that without trampling all over freedom of religion? What's more, certain sects of Mormons actually believe that a man HAS to have at least three wives in order to become a god. So their very salvation is at stake, in their minds, yet the government feels it's ok to prevent them from doing so.
I say, let consenting adults do what they want with each other, and keep the government out of our bedrooms and churches.
A half-hour? Better make a sanity roll, then.
You can't eat stock options you know.
No, but when someone invests their money in a public corporation, either by buying stock in the company or by buying shares of a mutual fund that holds stock in the company, then either one of two things happen: one, someone else sells their corresponding shares for money (which can buy food, which you can eat), or two, the company sells shares in itself directly, which raises capital to expand the business, which means it can hire more employees, whom the company pays with money, with which the new employees can buy food (and then eat).
So while investing in the markets doesn't directly enable you to eat, it does set off a chain of events on which our entire economic system is based and which eventually lead to people buying food and eating it.
When everyone is poor, no one steals from each other.
Are you kidding? Greed and envy are primary human traits, just because everyone is dirt poor doesn't mean one person won't want more dirt than the next guy. And he'll be willing to take that dirt by force, if needed.
I never said they worked perfectly well as a treatment for anything.
Then what's the point? The whole issue seems to center on finding something so that Michael J. Fox can stop twitching and get back to work making us all laugh. If embryonic stem cells don't work as a treatment for that, then what's the point?
please don't use any form of the bible as a moral compass, it advocates hate and intolerance.
And yet whatever you're using for your moral compass apparently is chock full of love and tolerance for the ideals and beliefs of your fellow men....
10,000 employees, on average, costing the corp ~$200k each
Whoa, no wonder people want to work there!