Not only is the system gamed, but voting is an immoral practice. It's fine if you want to choose who rules over you, but you have no right to choose who rules over everyone else, which is what you do when you vote.
People need to get off this idea that democracy is some nobel institution. There's nothing noble about trampling other people's rights simply because more people thought it was a good idea than not.
If you want products that will last forever, be prepared to pay out the nose for them. If you only buy one VCR in your life, it might cost you $1000 or more.
Not to mention that technology moves so fast nowadays that investing in anything that isn't "disposable" carries a boatload of risk.
No thanks. I'll take cheap, disposable items any day.
Suckers. We here in the beautiful state of Arizona don't bother to save any daylight.
Of course, this is mainly because the idea of saving another few more hours of 100+ degrees is none too appealing. But still...
Haw haw!!!!
Re:Water implies Life
on
Ice Lake on Mars
·
· Score: 5, Informative
It's pretty clear that life requires a solvent of some kind to form the complex molecules needed for life. Try and imagine amino acids forming in ice or some other solid. Water is regarded as the universal solvent since virtually everything will dissolve in it. Add to that that water is pH neutral and it provides a very hospitable environment for these molcules.
Also, water has the unique property of being less dense in solid form than liquid form, hence ice floats. Thus, when bodies of water freeze, the ice settles on top of it. In other words, water freezes from the surface down, unlike other liquids. This action provides an insulating layer which allows life to flourish under the surface instead of being driven to the surface by ice forming from the bottom up.
Water also has strong surface tension due to the hydrogen bonding between water molucules. This allows for capillary action in which plant can pull water up against gravity. This isn't necessary for the formation of primitive life, but it's difficult to imagine higher forms of life without it.
No, all science points to water being the one molecule which is able to nurture and sustain life. It's an amazing compound despite the fact that it's so prevalent that we tend to take it for granted.
As the free market continues to boom in China, the government becomes more powerless to retain their political hold on the people. With increased technology that only a profit motive in a free market can provide - and the access to more and better information - the government's hold over the people is substantially reduced. People will only be held under foot for so long.
Of course, customers will be squinting at streaming video while Amazon employees actually attend the concert at Seattle's Benaroya Hall, but isn't it the thought that counts?
Yeah, but Amazon employees still won't be able to understand Dylan any better than the poor schleps squinting at home.
Microsoft's new Antispyware program is beta, and it's a damn fine application. It works much better than all those "officially released" alternatives like Ad-Aware or Spybot.
Companies don't censor anything. Governments do. Companies choose to sell or not to sell a product or service based on the economic repercussions of doing so.
Windows Media Center Edition. Seriously, this might be the best thing Microsoft has ever done. It's incredibly intuitive and it just works. Virtually every review I've read says that it is by far the best PVR application out there (disclaimer: I have no experience with any other PVR applications).
I'm neither a Microsoft fanboy or hater, but I know a sweet application when I see it.
Corporations will buy this data and purchase very precise profiles of each of us, enabling them to efficiently shake even more money from our wallets using all sorts of psychological enticements that will be very hard to defend against.
So what? If companies want to target me for advertising things that I am genuinely interested in, I'm all for it. Heck, it's better than being inundated with ads for crap I don't have the least bit of interest in. Just because you can't hold on to your own wallet doesn't mean we all have that problem.
This so-called invasion of privacy is nothing compared to the ways the U.S. government is invading the privacy of its citizenry. Believe me, for-profit companies don't want to waste their time (i.e. money) targeting customers that have no interest in their products. Since the government is not a for-profit entity, it has no such qualms about robbing you and using those funds to spy on you.
Right, because nobody wants to make a profit selling a product to the customer that is easy-to-use and in high demand.
The reason this isn't settled is because the supporters of the opposing technologies have huge money invested in their baby and don't want to see the other guy succeed. If Blu-Ray wins out, the HD guys are way behind the curve with little hope of catching up.
Defenders of the USA Patriot Act love to defend it by asking its critics how the Patriot Act has personally affected them. Well, I love to turn this argument against them by asking how terrorism has personally affected them, because for the vast majority of the public, terrorism has not affected their lives in any way. The government's response to terrorism, OTOH, has made life much more difficult though for law-abiding citizens.
The reality is that the 9/11 attacks resulted in very few people being killed compared to the number of people that die in, say, auto accidents. The potential for abuse by government officials is simply too great, and even if no abuses have yet been found, the track record of the government is pretty poor in this regard.
Actually, you don't seem to understand the First Amendment very well.
The First Amendment says that the federal government cannot restrict your right to free speech, religion, assembly, petition, and cannot stifle the free press. It doesn't say anything about the government granting said rights as long as they don't violate someone else's rights.
The First Amendment states what the federal government cannot do, not what it allows.
So you believe that a person should show deference to his government regardless of what it does? If the government suddenly decides to raise the income tax rate across the board to 95% or decides to round up and imprison everybody under 6' tall, the only acceptable choices are to acquiesce or leave?
Better yet, why don't you go tell your Grandparents what you think of Social Security, and wait for them to team up with your parents to:
A) kick your ass B) specifically deny you any benefit in their wills.
You selfish, ignorant, little prick.
Perhaps the armchair libertarians care enought about their own grandparents to take care of them themselves instead of relying on the government to supply them the pittance that is SS.
You confuse dependency with compusion. Certainly, we are all dependent upon one another to build a society worth living in - each of us has talents that other do not; however, that dependency must be built upon free association, not force or violence. When we are free to associate with whomever we please and use our property in the way we deem best for us, that is honorable. When we use the government, the police, or the mafia to enforce or restrict with whom others associate and how others use their property, that is an affront to liberty and an appeal to violent force. Living in a free society means some people will associate with people you dislike or use their property in ways you disagree with, but as long as they do not agress against you, there is no other logical way to coexist with your fellow man.
I don't own an SUV and the biggest TV I have is a cheap 27". Regardless, you're still advocating theft when you support the looting of the property of one group and delivering it to another, particularly when the agent of such a transaction (the State) is taking a cut off the top for themselves.
Do you really think so little of your fellow man to assume that he won't help those in need unless he's threatened at gunpoint? Do you believe violence against men is acceptable if it's for a good cause? Why is your good cause good enough to take another man's property? Shouldn't the taxpayer have some say in how you get to spend his money? Are you God?
First of all, I'm NOT a conservative. Secondly, private property is not guaranteed by government, private property is at risk BECAUSE of government. Have you ever heard of taxation or emminent domain? How about licensing and regulation? All of these are affronts to my property and my individual liberty.
The responsibilty of protecting my own private property should lie with myself and no one else, except for those with whom I wish to freely associate in order to provide additional protection for my property (insurance, security, etc.)
The idea that the government is going to protect you from _________ is laughable. History has shown time and again that public services are inadequate and have no incentive to be anything but inadequate. When you are living off the backs of the producers of society, you don't really have any incentive to become a producer yourself.
You're right about one thing. I don't owe the government anything. I'd gladly refuse access to any and all government "services" if I could stop paying into those same services. Unfortunately, the government doesn't view such voluntary association quite so positively.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only is the system gamed, but voting is an immoral practice. It's fine if you want to choose who rules over you, but you have no right to choose who rules over everyone else, which is what you do when you vote.
People need to get off this idea that democracy is some nobel institution. There's nothing noble about trampling other people's rights simply because more people thought it was a good idea than not.
In all seriousness, every perl script should begin with the first three lines:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use diagnostics;
If you want products that will last forever, be prepared to pay out the nose for them. If you only buy one VCR in your life, it might cost you $1000 or more.
Not to mention that technology moves so fast nowadays that investing in anything that isn't "disposable" carries a boatload of risk.
No thanks. I'll take cheap, disposable items any day.
I only use GMT!
Suckers. We here in the beautiful state of Arizona don't bother to save any daylight.
Of course, this is mainly because the idea of saving another few more hours of 100+ degrees is none too appealing. But still...
Haw haw!!!!
It's pretty clear that life requires a solvent of some kind to form the complex molecules needed for life. Try and imagine amino acids forming in ice or some other solid. Water is regarded as the universal solvent since virtually everything will dissolve in it. Add to that that water is pH neutral and it provides a very hospitable environment for these molcules.
Also, water has the unique property of being less dense in solid form than liquid form, hence ice floats. Thus, when bodies of water freeze, the ice settles on top of it. In other words, water freezes from the surface down, unlike other liquids. This action provides an insulating layer which allows life to flourish under the surface instead of being driven to the surface by ice forming from the bottom up.
Water also has strong surface tension due to the hydrogen bonding between water molucules. This allows for capillary action in which plant can pull water up against gravity. This isn't necessary for the formation of primitive life, but it's difficult to imagine higher forms of life without it.
No, all science points to water being the one molecule which is able to nurture and sustain life. It's an amazing compound despite the fact that it's so prevalent that we tend to take it for granted.
Yeah, I love it when the government fleeces the taxpayer in order to subsidize big business!
Please. You act like this isn't happening enough as it is.
Absolutely right. Let AMD write their own compiler. Intel has no responsibility to help - or even not hinder - AMD.
Those companies own the computer, networks, etc. They have the right to determine how they are used. No one is forcing you to work there.
No one owns government property. Well, supposedly the everyone owns it, but that's just malarky.
As the free market continues to boom in China, the government becomes more powerless to retain their political hold on the people. With increased technology that only a profit motive in a free market can provide - and the access to more and better information - the government's hold over the people is substantially reduced. People will only be held under foot for so long.
Of course, customers will be squinting at streaming video while Amazon employees actually attend the concert at Seattle's Benaroya Hall, but isn't it the thought that counts?
Yeah, but Amazon employees still won't be able to understand Dylan any better than the poor schleps squinting at home.
Microsoft's new Antispyware program is beta, and it's a damn fine application. It works much better than all those "officially released" alternatives like Ad-Aware or Spybot.
Companies don't censor anything. Governments do. Companies choose to sell or not to sell a product or service based on the economic repercussions of doing so.
since when has microsoft innovated, ever ?
Windows Media Center Edition. Seriously, this might be the best thing Microsoft has ever done. It's incredibly intuitive and it just works. Virtually every review I've read says that it is by far the best PVR application out there (disclaimer: I have no experience with any other PVR applications).
I'm neither a Microsoft fanboy or hater, but I know a sweet application when I see it.
Corporations will buy this data and purchase very precise profiles of each of us, enabling them to efficiently shake even more money from our wallets using all sorts of psychological enticements that will be very hard to defend against.
So what? If companies want to target me for advertising things that I am genuinely interested in, I'm all for it. Heck, it's better than being inundated with ads for crap I don't have the least bit of interest in. Just because you can't hold on to your own wallet doesn't mean we all have that problem.
This so-called invasion of privacy is nothing compared to the ways the U.S. government is invading the privacy of its citizenry. Believe me, for-profit companies don't want to waste their time (i.e. money) targeting customers that have no interest in their products. Since the government is not a for-profit entity, it has no such qualms about robbing you and using those funds to spy on you.
Right, because nobody wants to make a profit selling a product to the customer that is easy-to-use and in high demand.
The reason this isn't settled is because the supporters of the opposing technologies have huge money invested in their baby and don't want to see the other guy succeed. If Blu-Ray wins out, the HD guys are way behind the curve with little hope of catching up.
Defenders of the USA Patriot Act love to defend it by asking its critics how the Patriot Act has personally affected them. Well, I love to turn this argument against them by asking how terrorism has personally affected them, because for the vast majority of the public, terrorism has not affected their lives in any way. The government's response to terrorism, OTOH, has made life much more difficult though for law-abiding citizens.
The reality is that the 9/11 attacks resulted in very few people being killed compared to the number of people that die in, say, auto accidents. The potential for abuse by government officials is simply too great, and even if no abuses have yet been found, the track record of the government is pretty poor in this regard.
Since when does the First Amendment apply to private businesses?
Hence, my all-time favorite quote:
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Actually, you don't seem to understand the First Amendment very well.
The First Amendment says that the federal government cannot restrict your right to free speech, religion, assembly, petition, and cannot stifle the free press. It doesn't say anything about the government granting said rights as long as they don't violate someone else's rights.
The First Amendment states what the federal government cannot do, not what it allows.
So you believe that a person should show deference to his government regardless of what it does? If the government suddenly decides to raise the income tax rate across the board to 95% or decides to round up and imprison everybody under 6' tall, the only acceptable choices are to acquiesce or leave?
You're a strange one.
Better yet, why don't you go tell your Grandparents what you think of Social Security, and wait for them to team up with your parents to:
A) kick your ass
B) specifically deny you any benefit in their wills.
You selfish, ignorant, little prick.
Perhaps the armchair libertarians care enought about their own grandparents to take care of them themselves instead of relying on the government to supply them the pittance that is SS.
You confuse dependency with compusion. Certainly, we are all dependent upon one another to build a society worth living in - each of us has talents that other do not; however, that dependency must be built upon free association, not force or violence. When we are free to associate with whomever we please and use our property in the way we deem best for us, that is honorable. When we use the government, the police, or the mafia to enforce or restrict with whom others associate and how others use their property, that is an affront to liberty and an appeal to violent force. Living in a free society means some people will associate with people you dislike or use their property in ways you disagree with, but as long as they do not agress against you, there is no other logical way to coexist with your fellow man.
I don't own an SUV and the biggest TV I have is a cheap 27". Regardless, you're still advocating theft when you support the looting of the property of one group and delivering it to another, particularly when the agent of such a transaction (the State) is taking a cut off the top for themselves.
Do you really think so little of your fellow man to assume that he won't help those in need unless he's threatened at gunpoint? Do you believe violence against men is acceptable if it's for a good cause? Why is your good cause good enough to take another man's property? Shouldn't the taxpayer have some say in how you get to spend his money? Are you God?
First of all, I'm NOT a conservative. Secondly, private property is not guaranteed by government, private property is at risk BECAUSE of government. Have you ever heard of taxation or emminent domain? How about licensing and regulation? All of these are affronts to my property and my individual liberty.
The responsibilty of protecting my own private property should lie with myself and no one else, except for those with whom I wish to freely associate in order to provide additional protection for my property (insurance, security, etc.)
The idea that the government is going to protect you from _________ is laughable. History has shown time and again that public services are inadequate and have no incentive to be anything but inadequate. When you are living off the backs of the producers of society, you don't really have any incentive to become a producer yourself.
You're right about one thing. I don't owe the government anything. I'd gladly refuse access to any and all government "services" if I could stop paying into those same services. Unfortunately, the government doesn't view such voluntary association quite so positively.