No, I didn't, and you just made my point without realizing it. The posts here are not "anti-abuse-of-power", they are anti-RICH --- don't lie about what you said now. I understand if you want to backtrack (you should backtrack, because you were wrong), but at least own up to your mistake. This is what you wrote: "Every topic about any subject with potential for abuse is about the rich (though not solely so, of course.) The rich are the people in power.... I hope this helps you understand why "we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe"". Now will you stop blathering about "the rich", and talk instead about people who ACTUALLY 'abuse power'?
And I'd love to know what great powers Jim Carrey and Justin Bieber have. Can they hold people in indefinite detention without due process? Can they rob your house and legally get away with it? Can they amass private armies and invade other countries? Can they legally murder you? Can they legally rape women? Do tell what great powers they have that you are so afraid of them.
So why do people like Zero__Kelvin blather on about "the rich", instead of, specifically, megabank CxO's that are mucking everything up? Are they incapable of identifying correctly who is actually committing crimes and causing problems?
Really? Is Jim Carrey "in power"? Is Stephen King "in power"? Is Michael Jordan "in power"? Is Mariah Carey 'in power"? Is Justin Bieber "in power"? These are really the people that scare you?
Yeah, we can turn the question around: If someone has a baby without genetically engineering it, have they actually committed some sort of evil crime? Enough to, presumably I guess, arrest them and put them in jail? That's what the guy is arguing.
Is there a contest running somewhere called "Can we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe"?
This topic isn't even about the rich, it's specifically about a potential era where these technologies may become affordable enough to apply on a massive scale. So try again.
If the actual true history of Europe makes you so uncomfortable that you attack anyone who even so much as mentions it in a light off-the-cuff comment in an online discussion, then sorry, that is something you have to deal with and come to terms with.
Could you explain to me how a single light comment on the historical fact that European history is replete with massive amounts of Jewish persecution, constitutes an "agenda"? The only way this is possible, given the plain historical facts, is if it is you you, in fact, who have an agenda.
"Infinite space"? You think managing, developing and maintaining that massive infrastructure, the software, the data centers, the increased server loads, the sysadmins and programmers... you think that all costs nothing?
Twitter don't actually make money (revenue, yes) but they've been losing money for years... http://gawker.com/5891675/twitters-secret-history-as-the-worlds-worst-tech-or-media-business... obviously there eventually comes a time when you have to start trimming expenses while looking to raise revenue, you can't keep losing money forever. Being popular and having lots of users and "network effects" is actually a bad thing when your entire business model is based on simply losing more and more money for every new user you take on. Servicing the API requests raises expenses while cutting off potential ad revenue etc., so it makes sense that this would be an area to target... if your use of the Twitter API is valuable enough to you that you can and are willing to pay for it then Twitter can charge for that. If it's not, then you're just adding to their server load.
What is your bright idea to make Twitter actually profitable?
Sigh.. when will this retarded "the Founding Fathers weren't perfect, therefore we can change the Constitution however we want" meme die already? The only thing that has (or should have) bearing on whether or not the Constitution can be 'amended' is whether the change violates individual rights or protects individual rights (i.e. is immoral, or rationally morally sound). Strangely the people spreading this meme seem to be pretty much universally doing so in order to try build new rights violations into the Constitution.
Note the site you linked to doesn't directly say how big the fuel tank is.
I know, but it doesn't need to, because anyone with even an incredibly elementary math level can figure out an approximate comparison using the data given, like you just did. And it doesn't look that bad to me... I can easily imagine a lot of people wouldn't mind paying that much extra, given the other advantages, such as getting there much much faster and not having to contend with ground traffic - hell, I probably would, and I'm not even rich by any stretch of the imagination.
Imagine you have flying cars zipping around buildings - how are you to ensure that no one load up one (or more) flying car(s) with strong explosives and then slam it/them into an office building?
Not to try inject "reason" between your shrieks of hysteria, but the risks are exactly the same as the current, existing ability of a terrorist to just drive right up to an office building with the same fucking explosives loaded in a damn ground vehicle. (How the hell did you get +4 insightful for that utter inanity?)
The reason it isn't common is because there just aren't that many people trying to blow you up, not because it's somehow currently just too difficult to blow people up.
Flying -- with the notable exception of lighter-than-air such as gasbags -- is too energy intensive to be consumer-level practical at this point in time
From the article: "The machine [Pal-V], which had its first test in early 2012, is able to travel around 560km (350 miles) on one tank of fuel"... that doesn't sound that absurdly terrible to me, especially considering you'd be able to fly faster than you could drive on the road, and presumably wouldn't have to worry about the damn traffic.
Note the verb used was "feel" safe, which is different from "be" safe, so technically he's correct... "feeling" safe refers to the inaccurate subjective perception based on the flawed cognitive reasoning of the average human brain, which is why most people don't seem to realize that driving is one of the most dangerous things you can do but feel nervous about flying, which is absurdly safe.
You know what would really satisfy the demands of these 'feminists'? If Lena were clothed in a burqa. Maybe geeks should Photoshop a burqa onto her in future.
Only one other culture has such an obsession with trying to hide the female form - Muslim society.
The female form is a beautiful creation, and appreciating it is a positive thing. That Lena image is tasteful and artistic.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I didn't, and you just made my point without realizing it. The posts here are not "anti-abuse-of-power", they are anti-RICH --- don't lie about what you said now. I understand if you want to backtrack (you should backtrack, because you were wrong), but at least own up to your mistake. This is what you wrote: "Every topic about any subject with potential for abuse is about the rich (though not solely so, of course.) The rich are the people in power. ... I hope this helps you understand why "we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe"". Now will you stop blathering about "the rich", and talk instead about people who ACTUALLY 'abuse power'?
And I'd love to know what great powers Jim Carrey and Justin Bieber have. Can they hold people in indefinite detention without due process? Can they rob your house and legally get away with it? Can they amass private armies and invade other countries? Can they legally murder you? Can they legally rape women? Do tell what great powers they have that you are so afraid of them.
So why do people like Zero__Kelvin blather on about "the rich", instead of, specifically, megabank CxO's that are mucking everything up? Are they incapable of identifying correctly who is actually committing crimes and causing problems?
The rich are the people in power.
Really? Is Jim Carrey "in power"? Is Stephen King "in power"? Is Michael Jordan "in power"? Is Mariah Carey 'in power"? Is Justin Bieber "in power"? These are really the people that scare you?
But remember, it's only immoral when evil rich people do it.
Yeah, we can turn the question around: If someone has a baby without genetically engineering it, have they actually committed some sort of evil crime? Enough to, presumably I guess, arrest them and put them in jail? That's what the guy is arguing.
Is there a contest running somewhere called "Can we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe"?
This topic isn't even about the rich, it's specifically about a potential era where these technologies may become affordable enough to apply on a massive scale. So try again.
We deliver software solutions that work with various major DBMS's, and by our preference is PostgreSQL.
In fact, for most situations we encounter, we would prefer PostgreSQL to Oracle even if Oracle was free.
If the actual true history of Europe makes you so uncomfortable that you attack anyone who even so much as mentions it in a light off-the-cuff comment in an online discussion, then sorry, that is something you have to deal with and come to terms with.
To to moron moderators who are actually modding me troll just because some anti-semite Anonymous Coward says to, read this first.
Here, read this, asshole, and tell me, please, with a straight face, that it is I who have the "agenda" here and not you:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/HistoryJewishPersecution/
My comment is obviously NOT trolling to anyone who has ever cared to open a history book, without some agenda to cover something up.
Do you have some kind of agenda?
Could you explain to me how a single light comment on the historical fact that European history is replete with massive amounts of Jewish persecution, constitutes an "agenda"? The only way this is possible, given the plain historical facts, is if it is you you, in fact, who have an agenda.
"Infinite space"? You think managing, developing and maintaining that massive infrastructure, the software, the data centers, the increased server loads, the sysadmins and programmers ... you think that all costs nothing?
Twitter don't actually make money (revenue, yes) but they've been losing money for years ... http://gawker.com/5891675/twitters-secret-history-as-the-worlds-worst-tech-or-media-business ... obviously there eventually comes a time when you have to start trimming expenses while looking to raise revenue, you can't keep losing money forever. Being popular and having lots of users and "network effects" is actually a bad thing when your entire business model is based on simply losing more and more money for every new user you take on. Servicing the API requests raises expenses while cutting off potential ad revenue etc., so it makes sense that this would be an area to target ... if your use of the Twitter API is valuable enough to you that you can and are willing to pay for it then Twitter can charge for that. If it's not, then you're just adding to their server load.
What is your bright idea to make Twitter actually profitable?
wtf? Um, sure, AC, I wonder who's trolling.
If the history of Europe is anything to go by, he was probably hanged for being a Jew.
What good is this shiny pearl thing, snorted the pig ..
Are you honestly trying to push everyone to censor Jefferson quotes? Seriously? Talk about making your agenda obvious.
Sigh .. when will this retarded "the Founding Fathers weren't perfect, therefore we can change the Constitution however we want" meme die already? The only thing that has (or should have) bearing on whether or not the Constitution can be 'amended' is whether the change violates individual rights or protects individual rights (i.e. is immoral, or rationally morally sound). Strangely the people spreading this meme seem to be pretty much universally doing so in order to try build new rights violations into the Constitution.
Note the site you linked to doesn't directly say how big the fuel tank is.
I know, but it doesn't need to, because anyone with even an incredibly elementary math level can figure out an approximate comparison using the data given, like you just did. And it doesn't look that bad to me ... I can easily imagine a lot of people wouldn't mind paying that much extra, given the other advantages, such as getting there much much faster and not having to contend with ground traffic - hell, I probably would, and I'm not even rich by any stretch of the imagination.
Actually I think that's exactly it .. it takes a lot of energy to go uphill to get to the cable car in the first place.
Imagine you have flying cars zipping around buildings - how are you to ensure that no one load up one (or more) flying car(s) with strong explosives and then slam it/them into an office building?
Not to try inject "reason" between your shrieks of hysteria, but the risks are exactly the same as the current, existing ability of a terrorist to just drive right up to an office building with the same fucking explosives loaded in a damn ground vehicle. (How the hell did you get +4 insightful for that utter inanity?)
The reason it isn't common is because there just aren't that many people trying to blow you up, not because it's somehow currently just too difficult to blow people up.
Flying -- with the notable exception of lighter-than-air such as gasbags -- is too energy intensive to be consumer-level practical at this point in time
From the article: "The machine [Pal-V], which had its first test in early 2012, is able to travel around 560km (350 miles) on one tank of fuel" ... that doesn't sound that absurdly terrible to me, especially considering you'd be able to fly faster than you could drive on the road, and presumably wouldn't have to worry about the damn traffic.
http://pal-v.com/the-pal-v-one/specifications/
Note the verb used was "feel" safe, which is different from "be" safe, so technically he's correct ... "feeling" safe refers to the inaccurate subjective perception based on the flawed cognitive reasoning of the average human brain, which is why most people don't seem to realize that driving is one of the most dangerous things you can do but feel nervous about flying, which is absurdly safe.
You know what would really satisfy the demands of these 'feminists'? If Lena were clothed in a burqa. Maybe geeks should Photoshop a burqa onto her in future.
Only one other culture has such an obsession with trying to hide the female form - Muslim society.
The female form is a beautiful creation, and appreciating it is a positive thing. That Lena image is tasteful and artistic.
So do you suppose we should keep "due process", or are you suggesting we just get rid of it as if it was just some quaint outdated notion?