Let me burn my karma (non-existent as it is) in order to make a blatant sales pitch.
Buy one of our sexy, science-supporting magnets http://www.supportourscientists.com/ for your car (or anywhere) and help get the message out that there are, in fact, people in the United States who do support science and those who dedicate their lives to it.
And, because people always ask, right now the money goes just to keep the whole endeavor alive (envelopes, packaging, postage, etc.). We're not getting rich or anything.
I can confirm this from my trip to the Apple store tonight. I was checking out the white version when an store employee came up to the black model next to it - two customers in tow. The first thing he tells them is "Apple doesn't make 'laptops,' we make portable computers. These generate heat and aren't meant to be used on your lap." (I'm quoting as best I can from memory, but it's not verbatim). He even had them hold it and feel underneath where the heat was highest.
Curious, I picked up the white one (which I presume had been on all day) and felt around. It was slightly warm in one corner, but not at all what I'd consider hot. Go figure.
I'm sorry, but your post was a rational and sincere statement that actually addressed the parent's post directly. Please surrender your Slashdot ID immediately.
Right on, my brother! We seldom stray away from children's programming in our house these days because there are *commercials* we don't think are appropriate for younger children. When "Attack of the Clones" was on TV the other day, our concern was not Star Wars violence (although mommy is not a fan of Jango Fett's disembodied head rolling across the screen), it was commercials for Fox programming that we had to keep an eye on. I mean, it's Star Wars, and no self respecting nerd doesn't let his son watch Star Wars.
I would suggest RRP, because it could be pronounced "rip", and have that "rriot grrls" (or boys) attitude. The best part is, when you get ready to make a new site you can say, "Okay, I'm gonna' RRP it a new one."
I can't believe that we've exceeded 2,000 posts in this thread and all I hear are arguments that we should also teach our precious children Great Spaghetti Monsterism, Flat Earth Theory, or other such nonsense. You people have all been educated singularity stupid.
Our only hope to turn back China's eventual economic and political dominance (and their probable army of robots) is to ground all primary and secondary education in the absolute truth of the world: The Time Cube.
I don't mean to be unSlashdotly and stray from important topics like sexbots or anything, but why is it that Japanese scientists (presuming that this guy is an average example thereof) are so much cooler looking than our scientists? I mean, I get the impression that if you go to a robot club meeting here in the U.S. of A, you're not going to see any svelte, black clad anglo men with flowing hair like that. Maybe we need a special nerd episode of What Not To Wear so we can all get some fashion tips.
More seriously, can any Japanese Slashdotter (or anyone familiar with Japan) tell me if they have a nerdy professer stereotype in their mainstream culture? I know they dig robots and all, but what is the general attitude towards scientists?
There are no religious issues inherent to the debate over abortion rights.
I don't believe this is true. The struggle over abortion, reduced to simpler question, is "what will be the basis of the law?" It is another ripple on the water from the hurled stone that was the Enlightenment. While the actual act of abortion, the civil or human rights of those involved, and the role of government are all part of the swirling current (if I may brutally extend my water metaphor), the issue of abortion is essentialy a straw man for the larger struggle between religion and rational, secular science.
Just as the Middle East, and Islam in general, are in the throes of what is essentially a civil war between fundamentalists and moderates, the United States is involved in a heretofore more peaceful struggle between evangelical Christianity and those Enlightenment ideals. We haven't starting car-boming each other yet, but that day may come.
The issue is entirely one of religion.
Deadly corporeal punishment could be argued to be beneficial to society when the convicted has shown that they constitute a clear danger to others through their actions.
It could be argued, but not as convincingly, in my opinion, as the argument that an essential componenent of our liberty ought to be that the government does not have the right, or the power, to take our lives. It is this consistent thread that leads me to accept the potentially confusing stances of being pro-choice and anti-death penalty.
It may be well and good to rid ourselves of those who perpetrate heinous acts, but the power to kill, once conceded to the government, will almost certainly be used for less noble purposes. Life without parole is, practically speaking, less expensive, and allows for the possibilty, however slight, of redemption.
Marriage is not the business of the government...
I have some sympathy for the views you expressed, and I believe that the equal protection clause of the Constitution (that trampled and forgotten document) is all we need consider in the argument over gay marriage. However, it is practicality that leads us to adopt some arbitor of marriage. Marriages end, and when they do, there are real financial and logistical ramifications for those involved.
I live in Arizona, and in the northwestern most corner of my state are some fundamentalist Mormons who, quite without the government's approval, are repeatedly "marrying," and of course, having sex with, underage girls. If we leave it up to any individual to decide if they are married, we open ourselves up to this kind or problem.
In the prevalent religions existing in the United States today, a person surrenders their ability to evaluate experience to a nebulous power which is in actuality just another person in a uniform.
Right on, my brother. I personally have a distrust of any faith that attempts to put another human between you and the "truth."
Well said. I caught it on cable late one night, and had to stay up 'till the wee hours to see it through even though I knew the ending. While I think you may reaching a little by calling the trailer park scenes "brilliant," it's a solid little genre movie that rises above those confines by virtue of seeming to have been made by people who really cared about it. In that respect, it's a lot like Tremors.
The thing that's so frustrating about the new Star Wars movies is the utter lack of that magical feeling that the Last Starfighter still contains.
Not to mention you can't help but love Robert Preston in that movie - Earth's first eccentric gay man from space!
I think that's a poor analogy, as the interpretation of current events (like that of history) can be quite subjective. It would seem reasonable to me that most people who frequent political blogs are already aligned with the particular political view of the blogger (left, right or center) and aren't likely to challange the validity of any story that supports their own viewpoint.
To use conservatives as an example (since that was your reference), a bunch of bloggers across the country who support Bush all "sharing openly and reviewing" a story that supports Bush aren't really the same as a bunch of hackers poring over code. A null pointer is a null pointer no matter who you want to vote for, it's an objective fact. No matter how many conservative bloggers look at a story that casts their man in a positive light ("Those liberal media elites used forged documents to attack our saintly President!"), they're all going to be less inclined to question it.
Not to mention that the way they all feed off each other makes it easy for a story (true or not) to reach a "tipping point" so quickly that there's really no time to check facts, and far to easy for one phone call from Karl Rove to start an avalanche of doubt on a subject that might just hurt his candidate.
Reviewing code for an obvious, factual error and reviewing a politically charged news story composed of (currently) precious few facts, are not analagous.
Allright, I'll bite on this one and take the chance that you're not just baiting the grammar police. But when you're modded up this high, I can't resist.
"I've learnt the similar thing in school." It's either "I learned similar things..." or "I learned a similar thing"
"There were, of course, words I wasnt sure of" Should be "words I wasn't sure of.
"when I get to school in kindergarten, I blew everybody away" You've mixed two different verb tenses here. Choose either "when I got to school in kindergarten, I blew everybody away" or "when I get to school in kindergarten, I blow everybody away."
"And I was ancy." The word is "antsy."
"a teacher who wants all their kids to be is little blobs..." This one hurts my brain. Maybe this is some kind of advanced, four dimensional grammar that I don't understand. Perhaps you meant "...a teacher who wants nothing more than for all his/her kids to be blobs..." or "this is a teacher who wants all his/her kids to be blobs.."
"I learnt something else from that early age" As Dr. Zoidberg would say, "again with the learnt?"
I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy school. I have a son in the second grade, and I can see already that the standard school environment will not be the best thing for him. But you can't run around criticizing your school and its teachers for failing to challenge you when you don't seem to have mastered one of the basic areas they teach.
There was also something like brown or red plastic girders and green plastic sheets which could be used to make buildings, houses, etc. which were really cool, but I can't remember the name of. I'd buy them if they were still for sale.
That was the girder and panel construction set. I had one of those sometime in the mid or late 70's, I would guess, and I loved it! The link I provided was one of many from a quick Google search. I bet you could find one for sale somewhere.
Perfect example: the McDonalds coffee lady. She did not sue and win because she dumped hot coffee on her own damn self. She sued and one because McDonalds had gotten HUNDREDS of complains from both customers and health inspectors about the temperature of their coffee and ignored them, and because she got THIRD DEGREE BURNS REQUIRING 280 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN SURGERY. She. Was. Burned. To. The. Bone. Third degree burns. Skin grafts.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I am so tired of hearing this case cited by ignorant and/or dishonest people as an example of frivolous lawsuits. The lack of exposure to the facts of this case is a shame, considering that is has become a poster case for tort "reform."
I find this to be a rather interesting point. Is it only because he was raised in a society that values money as much (if not more) than power that prevents him from becoming an actual dictator? Is there something innate in American society and/or government that mitigates against such a scenario? Or are have we been (mostly) lucky so far?
Was becoming a billionare businessman an option for Saddam Hussein? If yes, then why not go that route?
And another consideration - what about the "ecosystem" which has cropped up around spamming? The filter writers, the sysadmins, the server upgraders, etc etc. One post said that "billions" are spent fighting spam. Simple logic says the majority of that money is going into the hands of lower-level workers rather than getting sucked into the corporate coffers. And that's good for the economy.
IANAE (economist), but there have been similar sentiments expressed on Slashdot before, and, in one argument, a poster included a link to a French economist's essay which, I think, quite neatly refuted this argument. Can any Slashdotter help me out with a link? It was, I believe, an 18th or 19th century economist?
The upshot of the argument was that while broken windows kept many a glazier in business, the money that had to be spent fixing broken windows was money not spent creating new markets and opportunities.
I would hazard a guess that a great majority of internet users actively dislike, if not hate, spam, and the idea that we should let it thrive so that a relative handful can make a living fighting it would not be well received. If it could be further shown that this capital/labor could have been applied in the creation of newer economic opportunities that might benefit a larger group of people than those employed in fighting spam, then that dislike would almost certainly grow.
The problem is not with the free market. It's human nature that's at fault.
In all sincerity I ask...is there a difference? It's not as if the free market is some seperate entity whose correct answers we can ascertain by kneeling at an Oracle. The free market is, in my non-economist opinion, nothing more than the collective decsions of human beings - irrational human nature and all.
you can't force me to donate to charity, and it's in my own best interest not to donate (more money for me!)
This is a rather narrow interpretation of what is good for you. While I certainly agree that no one should force you to donate anything to any charity, there's more to a charitable act than economics. Not to mention that the economic effects may, in the long run, be beneficial to you (as a hasty example, perhaps fewer turning to crime in order to satisfy basic needs). It's just that you might never see them. Difficult to make an educated decision on unforseeable effects, certainly, but there's that irrational human nature again.
I don't aim this last question at you, but when did the Free Market become such a religion, rather than just a way of allocating resources?
The Matrix was, as you say, only half good. After presenting an intriguing, Philip K. Dick inspired (Ubik, anyone?) premise, the film devolves into another massive shootout. I've always wondered why, once made aware of their awesome powers within the Matrix, the humans can't think of anything better to do than bring a big bag full of guns. I think what might be causing the disappointment among some fans looking for a deep, philosophical resolution is the dreadful realization that there was really nothing of any depth there to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me burn my karma (non-existent as it is) in order to make a blatant sales pitch. Buy one of our sexy, science-supporting magnets http://www.supportourscientists.com/ for your car (or anywhere) and help get the message out that there are, in fact, people in the United States who do support science and those who dedicate their lives to it. And, because people always ask, right now the money goes just to keep the whole endeavor alive (envelopes, packaging, postage, etc.). We're not getting rich or anything.
That's a great idea. I officially nominate: -o|
I can confirm this from my trip to the Apple store tonight. I was checking out the white version when an store employee came up to the black model next to it - two customers in tow. The first thing he tells them is "Apple doesn't make 'laptops,' we make portable computers. These generate heat and aren't meant to be used on your lap." (I'm quoting as best I can from memory, but it's not verbatim). He even had them hold it and feel underneath where the heat was highest.
Curious, I picked up the white one (which I presume had been on all day) and felt around. It was slightly warm in one corner, but not at all what I'd consider hot. Go figure.
And since most of our consumer goods seem to be made in China, we buy it from communists. Oh the delicious irony.
I live in Phoenix, Arizona, you insensitive clod!
You, sir, are my hero.
I'm sorry, but your post was a rational and sincere statement that actually addressed the parent's post directly. Please surrender your Slashdot ID immediately.
Right on, my brother! We seldom stray away from children's programming in our house these days because there are *commercials* we don't think are appropriate for younger children. When "Attack of the Clones" was on TV the other day, our concern was not Star Wars violence (although mommy is not a fan of Jango Fett's disembodied head rolling across the screen), it was commercials for Fox programming that we had to keep an eye on. I mean, it's Star Wars, and no self respecting nerd doesn't let his son watch Star Wars.
I would suggest RRP, because it could be pronounced "rip", and have that "rriot grrls" (or boys) attitude. The best part is, when you get ready to make a new site you can say, "Okay, I'm gonna' RRP it a new one."
I can't believe that we've exceeded 2,000 posts in this thread and all I hear are arguments that we should also teach our precious children Great Spaghetti Monsterism, Flat Earth Theory, or other such nonsense. You people have all been educated singularity stupid.
Our only hope to turn back China's eventual economic and political dominance (and their probable army of robots) is to ground all primary and secondary education in the absolute truth of the world: The Time Cube.
I don't mean to be unSlashdotly and stray from important topics like sexbots or anything, but why is it that Japanese scientists (presuming that this guy is an average example thereof) are so much cooler looking than our scientists? I mean, I get the impression that if you go to a robot club meeting here in the U.S. of A, you're not going to see any svelte, black clad anglo men with flowing hair like that. Maybe we need a special nerd episode of What Not To Wear so we can all get some fashion tips.
More seriously, can any Japanese Slashdotter (or anyone familiar with Japan) tell me if they have a nerdy professer stereotype in their mainstream culture? I know they dig robots and all, but what is the general attitude towards scientists?
Hey, I'm partially employed. Sort of.
I don't believe this is true. The struggle over abortion, reduced to simpler question, is "what will be the basis of the law?" It is another ripple on the water from the hurled stone that was the Enlightenment. While the actual act of abortion, the civil or human rights of those involved, and the role of government are all part of the swirling current (if I may brutally extend my water metaphor), the issue of abortion is essentialy a straw man for the larger struggle between religion and rational, secular science.
Just as the Middle East, and Islam in general, are in the throes of what is essentially a civil war between fundamentalists and moderates, the United States is involved in a heretofore more peaceful struggle between evangelical Christianity and those Enlightenment ideals. We haven't starting car-boming each other yet, but that day may come.
The issue is entirely one of religion.
It could be argued, but not as convincingly, in my opinion, as the argument that an essential componenent of our liberty ought to be that the government does not have the right, or the power, to take our lives. It is this consistent thread that leads me to accept the potentially confusing stances of being pro-choice and anti-death penalty.
It may be well and good to rid ourselves of those who perpetrate heinous acts, but the power to kill, once conceded to the government, will almost certainly be used for less noble purposes. Life without parole is, practically speaking, less expensive, and allows for the possibilty, however slight, of redemption.
I have some sympathy for the views you expressed, and I believe that the equal protection clause of the Constitution (that trampled and forgotten document) is all we need consider in the argument over gay marriage. However, it is practicality that leads us to adopt some arbitor of marriage. Marriages end, and when they do, there are real financial and logistical ramifications for those involved.
I live in Arizona, and in the northwestern most corner of my state are some fundamentalist Mormons who, quite without the government's approval, are repeatedly "marrying," and of course, having sex with, underage girls. If we leave it up to any individual to decide if they are married, we open ourselves up to this kind or problem.
Right on, my brother. I personally have a distrust of any faith that attempts to put another human between you and the "truth."
Well said. I caught it on cable late one night, and had to stay up 'till the wee hours to see it through even though I knew the ending. While I think you may reaching a little by calling the trailer park scenes "brilliant," it's a solid little genre movie that rises above those confines by virtue of seeming to have been made by people who really cared about it. In that respect, it's a lot like Tremors.
The thing that's so frustrating about the new Star Wars movies is the utter lack of that magical feeling that the Last Starfighter still contains.
Not to mention you can't help but love Robert Preston in that movie - Earth's first eccentric gay man from space!
I think that's a poor analogy, as the interpretation of current events (like that of history) can be quite subjective. It would seem reasonable to me that most people who frequent political blogs are already aligned with the particular political view of the blogger (left, right or center) and aren't likely to challange the validity of any story that supports their own viewpoint.
To use conservatives as an example (since that was your reference), a bunch of bloggers across the country who support Bush all "sharing openly and reviewing" a story that supports Bush aren't really the same as a bunch of hackers poring over code. A null pointer is a null pointer no matter who you want to vote for, it's an objective fact. No matter how many conservative bloggers look at a story that casts their man in a positive light ("Those liberal media elites used forged documents to attack our saintly President!"), they're all going to be less inclined to question it.
Not to mention that the way they all feed off each other makes it easy for a story (true or not) to reach a "tipping point" so quickly that there's really no time to check facts, and far to easy for one phone call from Karl Rove to start an avalanche of doubt on a subject that might just hurt his candidate.
Reviewing code for an obvious, factual error and reviewing a politically charged news story composed of (currently) precious few facts, are not analagous.
Once they'be abolished the time interval I can finally get my business plan to work:
1. Profit!
2. Abolish the time interval.
3 ???
I can just see this scenario...
Screener: Sir, are you going to hijack this plane?
Terrorist: (hesitates, then speaks in a panicked voice)Yes, I am!
Screener: My glasses indicate that you are lying. Please get on the plane.
Allright, I'll bite on this one and take the chance that you're not just baiting the grammar police. But when you're modded up this high, I can't resist.
"I've learnt the similar thing in school."
It's either "I learned similar things..." or "I learned a similar thing"
"There were, of course, words I wasnt sure of"
Should be "words I wasn't sure of.
"when I get to school in kindergarten, I blew everybody away"
You've mixed two different verb tenses here. Choose either "when I got to school in kindergarten, I blew everybody away" or "when I get to school in kindergarten, I blow everybody away."
"And I was ancy."
The word is "antsy."
"a teacher who wants all their kids to be is little blobs..."
This one hurts my brain. Maybe this is some kind of advanced, four dimensional grammar that I don't understand. Perhaps you meant "...a teacher who wants nothing more than for all his/her kids to be blobs..." or "this is a teacher who wants all his/her kids to be blobs.."
"I learnt something else from that early age"
As Dr. Zoidberg would say, "again with the learnt?"
I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy school. I have a son in the second grade, and I can see already that the standard school environment will not be the best thing for him. But you can't run around criticizing your school and its teachers for failing to challenge you when you don't seem to have mastered one of the basic areas they teach.
That was the girder and panel construction set. I had one of those sometime in the mid or late 70's, I would guess, and I loved it! The link I provided was one of many from a quick Google search. I bet you could find one for sale somewhere.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I am so tired of hearing this case cited by ignorant and/or dishonest people as an example of frivolous lawsuits. The lack of exposure to the facts of this case is a shame, considering that is has become a poster case for tort "reform."
I find this to be a rather interesting point. Is it only because he was raised in a society that values money as much (if not more) than power that prevents him from becoming an actual dictator? Is there something innate in American society and/or government that mitigates against such a scenario? Or are have we been (mostly) lucky so far?
Was becoming a billionare businessman an option for Saddam Hussein? If yes, then why not go that route?
Just wondering.
IANAE (economist), but there have been similar sentiments expressed on Slashdot before, and, in one argument, a poster included a link to a French economist's essay which, I think, quite neatly refuted this argument. Can any Slashdotter help me out with a link? It was, I believe, an 18th or 19th century economist?
The upshot of the argument was that while broken windows kept many a glazier in business, the money that had to be spent fixing broken windows was money not spent creating new markets and opportunities.
I would hazard a guess that a great majority of internet users actively dislike, if not hate, spam, and the idea that we should let it thrive so that a relative handful can make a living fighting it would not be well received. If it could be further shown that this capital/labor could have been applied in the creation of newer economic opportunities that might benefit a larger group of people than those employed in fighting spam, then that dislike would almost certainly grow.
This villification of 'frack' is utter felgercarb!
In all sincerity I ask...is there a difference? It's not as if the free market is some seperate entity whose correct answers we can ascertain by kneeling at an Oracle. The free market is, in my non-economist opinion, nothing more than the collective decsions of human beings - irrational human nature and all.
This is a rather narrow interpretation of what is good for you. While I certainly agree that no one should force you to donate anything to any charity, there's more to a charitable act than economics. Not to mention that the economic effects may, in the long run, be beneficial to you (as a hasty example, perhaps fewer turning to crime in order to satisfy basic needs). It's just that you might never see them. Difficult to make an educated decision on unforseeable effects, certainly, but there's that irrational human nature again.
I don't aim this last question at you, but when did the Free Market become such a religion, rather than just a way of allocating resources?
Well put.
The Matrix was, as you say, only half good. After presenting an intriguing, Philip K. Dick inspired (Ubik, anyone?) premise, the film devolves into another massive shootout. I've always wondered why, once made aware of their awesome powers within the Matrix, the humans can't think of anything better to do than bring a big bag full of guns. I think what might be causing the disappointment among some fans looking for a deep, philosophical resolution is the dreadful realization that there was really nothing of any depth there to begin with.
After all, sometimes a spoon is just a spoon.