It's like some bizarro world where the obvious answer is starting everybody in the face but nobody wants to reach for it, so they try to find ways around it.
How is that different from the 'real' world. Politicians always pull this kind of shit.
Yeah. Real interesting hacking into the CIA website. (I am assuming they are not cretinous enough to store anything of national security on their webserver, of course).
Sony makes a heck of a lot more than PS3s, that's what TFA is about, Sony's entire range of software products need to step up. Ever booted a factory fresh Vaio lately? Using Sony's preloaded software is like simulating brain damage (and that's SONY'S software, not the rest of the third party bloatware crap they put on there).
Not to mention that their software is universally shite, relative to competitors. They've seen Apple's successful walled garden model and want in, difference is that Apple are a software company and Sony, most certainly, are not.
True, but they do rip off an inordinate amount of IP too.
As much as I like my woodblock printing set, there's only so much goodwill such inventions get before I get pissy about my Ray Ban Wayfarers being Chinese fakes.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 2
Yeah, tax churning is a dumb idea. We'll take the tax revenue now, spend it and then refund it to you.
In Britain we have tax credits, which essentially take tax from the poor and then give it back to them. The cost of doing this, let alone the errors, mistaken payments etc make it a total waste of time and money; it would be much simpler to lower tax rates for the lowest earners.
Conversely, instead of arsing around taking tax which may need to be refunded at a later date (side note, are you even vaguely aware of just how volatile stock markets are? The public revenue has enough problems without having to monitor stock prices) just hike up tax rates and be done. More tax revenue, less waste.
Definitely the latter. Whilst I can agree with some of their arguments, I can't help but worry that a collective risen up from the cesspool that is 4chan wields such power.
Excellent. Did you have your daily fibre before squeezing out that pearl of wisdom or just a stool softener?
If Ubuntu is to succeed then it needs a focused approach, a common starting point for new users. Start giving newbies a barrage of choices before they've even burned a LiveCD and you're just opening can after can of worms that will, in all likelihood, drive them to just pirate an MS license and be done with it.
*sigh*. Yes, I was aware of the parallels with religious types. I said so at the end of the post. Once again, you have proven that you can make anything look/sound ridiculous when you take it out of context. Have a cookie.
The point, which so majestically flew over your head (cue 'woosh' noises as you seem to like simple sound effects), was that comparing homosexuals that were unfairly persecuted to the point of suicide to atheists feeling uncomfortable about their lack of faith in places like Buttfuck, AL does not compute, even if the persecution comes from the same source.
For example, Atheists do not help their cause by deliberately inflaming religious types by forcing pseudo empirical debates on why they are right and believers are wrong - something they can actively avoid doing, whereas people cannot decide to stop being homosexual (nor should they) to save the feelings of a few God botherers.
I can see the link you're making here, but I don't think we see it the same way.
Intolerance stemming from the echelons of the religious societies was what defined homosexuality as illegal, in much the same way as Atheism is reviled in the way described in the article you linked. Sure, I can agree with that.
However, homosexuality was hated on for nothing other than what it was and that was what ultimately led Turing to take his own life. Atheism, by contrast (and imho), is reviled not because a lack of faith is seen as inherently wrong by modern religious types, but because a disproportionate amount of outspoken Atheists are inflammatory jerk-offs with some misguided superiority complex (see Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, et al).
As an Agnostic (in more senses of the word than the religious context), I have an inherent mistrust of people who declare themselves Atheists not because of any religious sensibilities, but because of the high profile people associated with them and the attitudes that a great many of them have to those who don't share their (lack of) beliefs. The Internet is full of the pious atheist types, for example. I can't think of any reason that the same logic would have applied to homosexuals, other than scripture declared it to be morally bankrupt.
And yes, I am painfully aware of the parallels drawn between religion and atheism here.
What's with/.'ers claiming anybody who disagrees with them is an idiot? Some kind of superiority complex?
So you're argument is drop $37k on this overpirced Scalextric and have a second car for when it doesn't do what you want it to. Alternatively, spend $20k on a car and it does everything you need it to.
No, you're right. I'm an idiot. Just like the 99% of the developed world not buying into this expensive beta phase.
Per capita? Sure. In total? I doubt it. The people doing their daily 30 mile commute each way outnumber the road warriors by a huge amount. Get them all into electric cars, and you can easily switch the energy source to nuclear, solar, or whatever.
But just how many sources of electricity for these cars is renewable/clean/carbon neutral/whatever? Because if you're still burning coal to generate the electricity required to get the car moving then the whole exercise is both expensive and pointless. Maybe speaking as a Brit my vision is skewed; it's not sunny enough to generate any meaningful amounts of solar power, the old guard still think nuclear power will result in Chernobyl II, we can't build wind turbines because there's not enough space available and tidal power arrays are deemed to interfere with precious nature.
You can make any argument seem ridiculous when you push it to idiotic extremes. Some of these criticisms, when reined in to more sensible levels, are valid and until they are addressed by EV manufacturers they will continue to diminish the relevance of them to the mass market.
So yeah, same old arguments, the question is why are they not being addressed?
I have asserted that without scientific evidence either way you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God. You have said that there are no Gods, epiricism be damned without having the testicular fortitude to do so under a username. Either you're a troll (which I doubt you have the mental capacity for) or a garden variety moron - though the two are not mutually exclusive.
$37k for a car that can travel *up to* 150 miles on a full charge? My diesel fiat cost less than half that, can go *up to* 400 miles on a tank of the dirty stuff and when I put my foot down it goes like a scalded cat (gotta love turbos). Still not seeing the market viability for full electric cars amongst the real road warriors (30k+ miles p.a.) who, let's face it, are the group of drivers that pollute most.
I'll be ready to listen to a coherent argument for electric cars when they cease to be the vanity articles of the rich doing >1,000 miles p.a.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like some bizarro world where the obvious answer is starting everybody in the face but nobody wants to reach for it, so they try to find ways around it.
How is that different from the 'real' world. Politicians always pull this kind of shit.
Yeah. Real interesting hacking into the CIA website. (I am assuming they are not cretinous enough to store anything of national security on their webserver, of course).
Please tell me you didn't think it was a serious comment.
Unless, of course, you work for TSA in which case I shouldn't be surprised.
Hmm, I think a circle somewhere is becoming vicious now that speed metal is added into the mix...
Because that worked flawlessly...
Unless Vegas was actually where you wanted to go. In which case, I retract my sarcasm.
But maybe it is in fact just driving the youth away and not just criminal types
Fine by me, children are obnoxious.
Now if they could play something to get rid of all the slow walkers too, that would be perfect!
Sony makes a heck of a lot more than PS3s, that's what TFA is about, Sony's entire range of software products need to step up. Ever booted a factory fresh Vaio lately? Using Sony's preloaded software is like simulating brain damage (and that's SONY'S software, not the rest of the third party bloatware crap they put on there).
Not to mention that their software is universally shite, relative to competitors. They've seen Apple's successful walled garden model and want in, difference is that Apple are a software company and Sony, most certainly, are not.
True, but they do rip off an inordinate amount of IP too.
As much as I like my woodblock printing set, there's only so much goodwill such inventions get before I get pissy about my Ray Ban Wayfarers being Chinese fakes.
Yeah, tax churning is a dumb idea. We'll take the tax revenue now, spend it and then refund it to you.
In Britain we have tax credits, which essentially take tax from the poor and then give it back to them. The cost of doing this, let alone the errors, mistaken payments etc make it a total waste of time and money; it would be much simpler to lower tax rates for the lowest earners.
Conversely, instead of arsing around taking tax which may need to be refunded at a later date (side note, are you even vaguely aware of just how volatile stock markets are? The public revenue has enough problems without having to monitor stock prices) just hike up tax rates and be done. More tax revenue, less waste.
Allow me to rephrase, that they can do it is not nearly as concerning to me as the fact that they do do it.
At the risk of sounding like your mother, two wrongs do not make a right.
Definitely the latter. Whilst I can agree with some of their arguments, I can't help but worry that a collective risen up from the cesspool that is 4chan wields such power.
You say fun, I say frightening.
Excellent. Did you have your daily fibre before squeezing out that pearl of wisdom or just a stool softener?
If Ubuntu is to succeed then it needs a focused approach, a common starting point for new users. Start giving newbies a barrage of choices before they've even burned a LiveCD and you're just opening can after can of worms that will, in all likelihood, drive them to just pirate an MS license and be done with it.
*sigh*. Yes, I was aware of the parallels with religious types. I said so at the end of the post. Once again, you have proven that you can make anything look/sound ridiculous when you take it out of context. Have a cookie.
The point, which so majestically flew over your head (cue 'woosh' noises as you seem to like simple sound effects), was that comparing homosexuals that were unfairly persecuted to the point of suicide to atheists feeling uncomfortable about their lack of faith in places like Buttfuck, AL does not compute, even if the persecution comes from the same source.
For example, Atheists do not help their cause by deliberately inflaming religious types by forcing pseudo empirical debates on why they are right and believers are wrong - something they can actively avoid doing, whereas people cannot decide to stop being homosexual (nor should they) to save the feelings of a few God botherers.
I can see the link you're making here, but I don't think we see it the same way.
Intolerance stemming from the echelons of the religious societies was what defined homosexuality as illegal, in much the same way as Atheism is reviled in the way described in the article you linked. Sure, I can agree with that.
However, homosexuality was hated on for nothing other than what it was and that was what ultimately led Turing to take his own life. Atheism, by contrast (and imho), is reviled not because a lack of faith is seen as inherently wrong by modern religious types, but because a disproportionate amount of outspoken Atheists are inflammatory jerk-offs with some misguided superiority complex (see Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, et al).
As an Agnostic (in more senses of the word than the religious context), I have an inherent mistrust of people who declare themselves Atheists not because of any religious sensibilities, but because of the high profile people associated with them and the attitudes that a great many of them have to those who don't share their (lack of) beliefs. The Internet is full of the pious atheist types, for example. I can't think of any reason that the same logic would have applied to homosexuals, other than scripture declared it to be morally bankrupt.
And yes, I am painfully aware of the parallels drawn between religion and atheism here.
How can a factually inaccurate comment made by somebody who clearly doesn't understand the issue here get modded up to 3?
Six proxies aren't enough!
At least the US bailout returned the company to the top spot. Can the same be said of other bailout recipients?
What's with /.'ers claiming anybody who disagrees with them is an idiot? Some kind of superiority complex?
So you're argument is drop $37k on this overpirced Scalextric and have a second car for when it doesn't do what you want it to. Alternatively, spend $20k on a car and it does everything you need it to.
No, you're right. I'm an idiot. Just like the 99% of the developed world not buying into this expensive beta phase.
Per capita? Sure. In total? I doubt it. The people doing their daily 30 mile commute each way outnumber the road warriors by a huge amount. Get them all into electric cars, and you can easily switch the energy source to nuclear, solar, or whatever.
But just how many sources of electricity for these cars is renewable/clean/carbon neutral/whatever? Because if you're still burning coal to generate the electricity required to get the car moving then the whole exercise is both expensive and pointless. Maybe speaking as a Brit my vision is skewed; it's not sunny enough to generate any meaningful amounts of solar power, the old guard still think nuclear power will result in Chernobyl II, we can't build wind turbines because there's not enough space available and tidal power arrays are deemed to interfere with precious nature.
You can make any argument seem ridiculous when you push it to idiotic extremes. Some of these criticisms, when reined in to more sensible levels, are valid and until they are addressed by EV manufacturers they will continue to diminish the relevance of them to the mass market.
So yeah, same old arguments, the question is why are they not being addressed?
I have asserted that without scientific evidence either way you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God. You have said that there are no Gods, epiricism be damned without having the testicular fortitude to do so under a username. Either you're a troll (which I doubt you have the mental capacity for) or a garden variety moron - though the two are not mutually exclusive.
$37k for a car that can travel *up to* 150 miles on a full charge? My diesel fiat cost less than half that, can go *up to* 400 miles on a tank of the dirty stuff and when I put my foot down it goes like a scalded cat (gotta love turbos). Still not seeing the market viability for full electric cars amongst the real road warriors (30k+ miles p.a.) who, let's face it, are the group of drivers that pollute most.
I'll be ready to listen to a coherent argument for electric cars when they cease to be the vanity articles of the rich doing >1,000 miles p.a.