I have seen, with my very own eyes, people who were suffering from long-term depression. And I'm talking *real* "I want to fucking kill myself" depression, not just a general sentiment of unhappiness. These people would take your "electric chair" and literally get jolted out of it. Unfortunately in some cases they went straight from depression to mania and then back again a few days later, but there were definitely results.
Yes, it's a harsh treatment, and not always effective. Then again, if it helps the patient, who are *you* to question it?
Ehmm, I get 50/5 over cable(soon to be upgraded to the point where I need a new router if i want to actually use it all), and I'm getting less than 20% cpu usage on those video's...
the norm being that government cannot do wrong by setting policies, as long as the policies are about spending.
Are you reading the same Slashdot I am? Because on the one I've been on all these years governments can't do *anything* right, whether they're spending or cutting budgets.;-)
I would think the government would agree to distributing information purely about health issues.
Indeed. Only a total idiot would think it's a good idea to deliberately withhold information about health issues for political reasons. Speaking of which, how's that whole "abstinence only" thing working out?
Because NY is in the US of A, and everyone knows that if you want to make it you'll just have to pull yourself up by your own shoelaces. Anyone willing to work hard can make it big and afford a car that can handle manhole covers pounding into the bottom. And the rest of them...well, who gives a shit?
I mean... Sure, genocide is bad and all... And stopping or at least reducing it would be good... But how the hell do you think technology is going to assist here?
These days everyone and their dog in the western world has a mobile phone with a camera function...and as an inevitable result pretty much every incident of police/military crossing the line(or being perceived as doing so) makes it straight from the phone to youtube where everyone can see it.
So think about it...how do we empower people in those parts of the world where genocide might occur to alert the world? Miniature camera tech is readily available, as is the wireless tech needed to get signals from A to B.
Not saying this is the best way of going about it, or even that it would have a lot of effect, but people in the streets being able to transmit to a wide audience what is going on does have an impact, witness the latest elections in Iran.
We know the power densities required to move cargo and people through the air at acceptable speeds and solar just cannot realistically supply it.
However, as supplies of really dense energy start to become lower, some folks are looking ahead at a future that may just have a different definition of what is "acceptable". There may come a day where the only place we will still see chemically powered aircraft is in a museum.
It's a shot across the bow...in a "comply or else" sense.
You start off with 10k, and in case of non-compliance you make it 100k, and then 1M. At some point someone will figure out the formula and reckon that the next one might actually hurt.
Transparent government and democracy do not make a superpower, no matter what we enlightened westerners may think.
A dictatorship that controls the flow of information, doesn't skim too much off the top and cracks down on corruption in the lower ranks is a quite efficient way of governing a nation. We may not like it, and it goes against everything we in the west believe in, but that doesn't mean it can't work. No electoral circuses or free press that get in your hair.
As to what extent china will be able to maintain an iron fist when economic prosperity grows is another question, but then he has the guns makes the rules. Heck, a pretty big chunk of the planet isn't quite enamored with the US either and we're still doing business with them.
As for getting where they are because resources are cheap...isn't that pretty much how all current and past superpowers came to be? They either had resources on their own turf to exploit or went elsewhere to do so.
What the fuck? Governments regularly spend millions on various minorities. How can you possibly not justify spending mere thousands?
Matter of principle...case in point, imagine the shitstorm if a government proudly announced webservices that only work with IE...and that is a *majority* that can use it.
Assuming they can even align the rim to the rotor and not leave it BARELY off-angle so the thing wobbles like mad, and eventually falls off.
Eventually? Isn't changing a tire in case of a flat supposed to be something you do to get to your destination, after which you have the flat fixed, put back on and aligned by a professional?
Bringing the toilet to you on the other hand...recepticle opens, business is done, robot moves off to central waste processing unit, empties and then cleans itself.
What is proposed from the article is "presumption of guilt". Ignoring for the moment the awesomely infuriating and wholly unethical statement of "presumption of guilt", there will be some serious problems for such a system once live if these new policies are put into effect.
Ehmm, "presumption of guilt" is a concept in criminal law, not civil. Besides that, Google is a private enterprise and not a government.
While hyperbole is sometimes useful to make a point, most of the time it just detracts from it...
Now if they really do move to this policy where our only options are to swap music or delete the video we might just have to close up shop.
Dare I ask what kind of business you run where the availability of youtube as a free content/bandwidth provider is the make or break part?
The problem with this is that in 10 years time it will be cheaper to get a LAMP administrator than it will to get a IIS/MSSQL administrator.
Perhaps. For now I'd settle for actually talking to an IT "architect" who actually knows what the acronym LAMP fucking means...or at least has a dim clue of what it might represent, right before he goes back to evangelizing sharepoint again.
There's an entire generation of IT guys in their 40's and 50's out there who, quite frankly, cannot even envision what it means to use something besides Microsoft.
I used to often work evenings and folks would call and complain that their cable connection(and thus internet as well) would be out. Policy was that for a singular problem we'd drop by within 2 working days but in the case of an outage where multiple homes were affected we'd drag some poor mechanic from behind his 'taters and be on site within 2 hours.
Obviously every customer would loudly proclaim that the entire street was having issues, so at one point I devised a devious plot consisting of calling 1 or 2 random neighbours to inquire about the state of their cable signal:)
Overall, I'd say the climate-change deniers are winning the game. If everyone is so convinced that these deniers are not rational, why is nothing happening?
There's lots of stuff happening. Just because we got the numbers wrong doesn't mean we're not going to be doing some massive reconstruction on the dykes. As a nation the Dutch simply cannot afford to take the risk of being caught with our pants down, we're a little short on boys with fat fingers to plug the holes lately.
It seems that the pockets of resistance to the global warming theory are mainly located in the right wings of the UK and the USA. The better part of the rest of the civilized world has long since moved on to "ok, this looks bad, what are we gonna do about it"
As far as I'm concerned the opponents can feel free to keep believing it's all a massive liberal conspiracy though, we'll be sure to lend our expertise once New Orleans turns back into a swamp...for a hefty price.
Sending their names to the government woudn't help; they've already refused the help.
Well, obviously they did. Those ships are owned by the government. How could a government possibly be capable of doing something in a more efficient manner than the free market? Let alone the government of a country with less people than the state of New York?
Doesn't sound very healthy to be honest. Would not drinking more water and hence flushing the internal systems a bit more be better for both the health of your skin and guitar strings?;-)
No, it actually sounds a lot tinfoil-hattish. The government has repeatedly demonstrated it's lack of ability to keep secrets. If there were truly some deep-set conspiracy, the first place you'd hear about it wouldn't be crack-pot, unreliable internet sites. If you are really having trouble understanding the government's behavior for the last decade, you need to look into history books, not conspiracy websites. Visit a library and learn to understand politics.
No tinfoil hat required. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars to have a shot at getting elected president. Therefore by definition whoever gets elected has a couple hundred million favors that need repaying, and there's only 4 years to repay them in. Capiche?
So what you are saying is that you don't think the US is as civilized as a good chunk of western europe? We've had opt-out donorship for quite a while now, and yet somehow our authoritation pinko commie cradle to grave goverments have yet to implement their "harvesting organs for fun and profit" programs.
Fact of the matter is that most people can't be bothered to give it thought until the time when either they or one of their loved ones needs a donor organ. By making it opt-out the sheep/lazy folks(I fall into the latter category) don't have to give it any thought, and for those who consider it an issue there's the option to opt-out.
Now it isn't just about religious objections. What about those people who think that if they are an organ donor that they won't save their life if they can harvest the organs? I mean it's not unheard of and the threat is even more real when you have death panels set up by the government to decide who is worthy of a life saving procedure or not. Especially when the president of the United States of America tells a person that her mom should have taken a pain pill instead of getting a life saving medical treatment that had extended her life by 5 years as of the time the question was asked.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see the Americanus Ignoramus in its natural habitat. And the best part? He too gets to vote.
Who needs conspiracy theories about imaginary bad guys when there's folks like you out and about?
I am not surprised, but severely depressed that there is such a soulless and unethical disregard for the well being of this country by all of congress.
Between the moment that a candidate says "I'm running for congress" and the moment he or she is elected, how much money typically gets spent? Tens of millions per candidate? That kind of money doesn't come with a few strings attached...
Slashdot Mirror
I have seen, with my very own eyes, people who were suffering from long-term depression. And I'm talking *real* "I want to fucking kill myself" depression, not just a general sentiment of unhappiness. These people would take your "electric chair" and literally get jolted out of it. Unfortunately in some cases they went straight from depression to mania and then back again a few days later, but there were definitely results.
Yes, it's a harsh treatment, and not always effective. Then again, if it helps the patient, who are *you* to question it?
Ehmm, I get 50/5 over cable(soon to be upgraded to the point where I need a new router if i want to actually use it all), and I'm getting less than 20% cpu usage on those video's...
With a Core i7, GTX260 and 50/5Mb I could watch with no issues. 1 of the cores clocked in at about 60% use, didn't check use on the videocard.
the norm being that government cannot do wrong by setting policies, as long as the policies are about spending.
Are you reading the same Slashdot I am? Because on the one I've been on all these years governments can't do *anything* right, whether they're spending or cutting budgets. ;-)
I would think the government would agree to distributing information purely about health issues.
Indeed. Only a total idiot would think it's a good idea to deliberately withhold information about health issues for political reasons. Speaking of which, how's that whole "abstinence only" thing working out?
Because NY is in the US of A, and everyone knows that if you want to make it you'll just have to pull yourself up by your own shoelaces. Anyone willing to work hard can make it big and afford a car that can handle manhole covers pounding into the bottom. And the rest of them...well, who gives a shit?
I mean... Sure, genocide is bad and all... And stopping or at least reducing it would be good... But how the hell do you think technology is going to assist here?
These days everyone and their dog in the western world has a mobile phone with a camera function...and as an inevitable result pretty much every incident of police/military crossing the line(or being perceived as doing so) makes it straight from the phone to youtube where everyone can see it.
So think about it...how do we empower people in those parts of the world where genocide might occur to alert the world? Miniature camera tech is readily available, as is the wireless tech needed to get signals from A to B.
Not saying this is the best way of going about it, or even that it would have a lot of effect, but people in the streets being able to transmit to a wide audience what is going on does have an impact, witness the latest elections in Iran.
We know the power densities required to move cargo and people through the air at acceptable speeds and solar just cannot realistically supply it.
However, as supplies of really dense energy start to become lower, some folks are looking ahead at a future that may just have a different definition of what is "acceptable". There may come a day where the only place we will still see chemically powered aircraft is in a museum.
Next it will be "Hand over Fort Knox or I'll float New Jersey off into outer space".
Ehmm, wouldn't that be a bit like Angelina Jolie coming over to you and saying "give me your wallet or I will give you a blowjob"?
It's a shot across the bow...in a "comply or else" sense.
You start off with 10k, and in case of non-compliance you make it 100k, and then 1M. At some point someone will figure out the formula and reckon that the next one might actually hurt.
Transparent government and democracy do not make a superpower, no matter what we enlightened westerners may think.
A dictatorship that controls the flow of information, doesn't skim too much off the top and cracks down on corruption in the lower ranks is a quite efficient way of governing a nation. We may not like it, and it goes against everything we in the west believe in, but that doesn't mean it can't work. No electoral circuses or free press that get in your hair.
As to what extent china will be able to maintain an iron fist when economic prosperity grows is another question, but then he has the guns makes the rules. Heck, a pretty big chunk of the planet isn't quite enamored with the US either and we're still doing business with them.
As for getting where they are because resources are cheap...isn't that pretty much how all current and past superpowers came to be? They either had resources on their own turf to exploit or went elsewhere to do so.
What the fuck? Governments regularly spend millions on various minorities. How can you possibly not justify spending mere thousands?
Matter of principle...case in point, imagine the shitstorm if a government proudly announced webservices that only work with IE...and that is a *majority* that can use it.
Assuming they can even align the rim to the rotor and not leave it BARELY off-angle so the thing wobbles like mad, and eventually falls off.
Eventually? Isn't changing a tire in case of a flat supposed to be something you do to get to your destination, after which you have the flat fixed, put back on and aligned by a professional?
Nah, that wouldn't make sense...
Bringing the toilet to you on the other hand...recepticle opens, business is done, robot moves off to central waste processing unit, empties and then cleans itself.
What is proposed from the article is "presumption of guilt". Ignoring for the moment the awesomely infuriating and wholly unethical statement of "presumption of guilt", there will be some serious problems for such a system once live if these new policies are put into effect.
Ehmm, "presumption of guilt" is a concept in criminal law, not civil. Besides that, Google is a private enterprise and not a government.
While hyperbole is sometimes useful to make a point, most of the time it just detracts from it...
Now if they really do move to this policy where our only options are to swap music or delete the video we might just have to close up shop.
Dare I ask what kind of business you run where the availability of youtube as a free content/bandwidth provider is the make or break part?
The problem with this is that in 10 years time it will be cheaper to get a LAMP administrator than it will to get a IIS/MSSQL administrator.
Perhaps. For now I'd settle for actually talking to an IT "architect" who actually knows what the acronym LAMP fucking means...or at least has a dim clue of what it might represent, right before he goes back to evangelizing sharepoint again.
There's an entire generation of IT guys in their 40's and 50's out there who, quite frankly, cannot even envision what it means to use something besides Microsoft.
Taking responsibility for the fuckups of one's government is not the same as liking or even supporting those fuckups.
Please also note the slight disparity between fuckups that only screw over one's own citizenry and fuckups that go beyond the border.
- They only call out as call backs to customers
Note that this isn't *entirely* true ;-)
I used to often work evenings and folks would call and complain that their cable connection(and thus internet as well) would be out. Policy was that for a singular problem we'd drop by within 2 working days but in the case of an outage where multiple homes were affected we'd drag some poor mechanic from behind his 'taters and be on site within 2 hours.
Obviously every customer would loudly proclaim that the entire street was having issues, so at one point I devised a devious plot consisting of calling 1 or 2 random neighbours to inquire about the state of their cable signal :)
Overall, I'd say the climate-change deniers are winning the game. If everyone is so convinced that these deniers are not rational, why is nothing happening?
There's lots of stuff happening. Just because we got the numbers wrong doesn't mean we're not going to be doing some massive reconstruction on the dykes. As a nation the Dutch simply cannot afford to take the risk of being caught with our pants down, we're a little short on boys with fat fingers to plug the holes lately.
It seems that the pockets of resistance to the global warming theory are mainly located in the right wings of the UK and the USA. The better part of the rest of the civilized world has long since moved on to "ok, this looks bad, what are we gonna do about it"
As far as I'm concerned the opponents can feel free to keep believing it's all a massive liberal conspiracy though, we'll be sure to lend our expertise once New Orleans turns back into a swamp...for a hefty price.
Sending their names to the government woudn't help; they've already refused the help.
Well, obviously they did. Those ships are owned by the government. How could a government possibly be capable of doing something in a more efficient manner than the free market? Let alone the government of a country with less people than the state of New York?
Doesn't sound very healthy to be honest. Would not drinking more water and hence flushing the internal systems a bit more be better for both the health of your skin and guitar strings? ;-)
No, it actually sounds a lot tinfoil-hattish. The government has repeatedly demonstrated it's lack of ability to keep secrets. If there were truly some deep-set conspiracy, the first place you'd hear about it wouldn't be crack-pot, unreliable internet sites. If you are really having trouble understanding the government's behavior for the last decade, you need to look into history books, not conspiracy websites. Visit a library and learn to understand politics.
No tinfoil hat required. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars to have a shot at getting elected president. Therefore by definition whoever gets elected has a couple hundred million favors that need repaying, and there's only 4 years to repay them in. Capiche?
So what you are saying is that you don't think the US is as civilized as a good chunk of western europe? We've had opt-out donorship for quite a while now, and yet somehow our authoritation pinko commie cradle to grave goverments have yet to implement their "harvesting organs for fun and profit" programs.
Fact of the matter is that most people can't be bothered to give it thought until the time when either they or one of their loved ones needs a donor organ. By making it opt-out the sheep/lazy folks(I fall into the latter category) don't have to give it any thought, and for those who consider it an issue there's the option to opt-out.
Now it isn't just about religious objections. What about those people who think that if they are an organ donor that they won't save their life if they can harvest the organs? I mean it's not unheard of and the threat is even more real when you have death panels set up by the government to decide who is worthy of a life saving procedure or not. Especially when the president of the United States of America tells a person that her mom should have taken a pain pill instead of getting a life saving medical treatment that had extended her life by 5 years as of the time the question was asked.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see the Americanus Ignoramus in its natural habitat. And the best part? He too gets to vote.
Who needs conspiracy theories about imaginary bad guys when there's folks like you out and about?
I am not surprised, but severely depressed that there is such a soulless and unethical disregard for the well being of this country by all of congress.
Between the moment that a candidate says "I'm running for congress" and the moment he or she is elected, how much money typically gets spent? Tens of millions per candidate? That kind of money doesn't come with a few strings attached...