So, can someone explain to me why whaling is such a very bad thing the whole Western world has to get in an uproar - yet destroying huge portions of the rain forest and endangering species living in it to breed cattle or grow soy is ok?
Nobody is saying the former is bad and the latter is OK. It's not an either/or situation: both are bad and people are trying to do something about both. In theory, however, it should be easier to do something about the whales than something about the rainforests.
Yep, I'm being optimistic--I admit it. I don't think they'd be dumb enough to cripple the product by requiring FB integration. By my reading they haven't even done this with Instagram, so why would they do it with a gaming headset? That would be daft. Of course I could well be wrong, but given the absence of any real information as to what's going on it seems premature to write off the whole thing and just assume FB will fuck it all up. Let's see the product first.
Look, I don't like FB either but you're looking at this in a very one-sided way. As the article points out, Instagram and WhatsApp haven't been subsumed into FB in any obvious way following their acquisition. Go to the websites for those services and you won't see evidence of FB. With Instagram, for instance, it appears from the site that FB sharing is optional (I haven't used the App, but the website indicates this). So from past behaviour, FB haven't done an all-out assimilation of everything they've purchased. In addition, FB have contributed plenty to the opensource community. So there are good things there in addition to the crap they've pulled. Finally, they haven't done hardware before and so this very new territory. We know very little about what FB want to do with OR and, frankly, it doesn't look like they know either. It's quite plausible that they will be hands off. No 180 turns needed to envisage such a scenario.
What FB crap? There is no final product: you don't know what it'll be like yet. Probably it'll just have a FB logo and FB will have some pointless (to you or me) services that utilise VR. If you don't have a FB account and aren't interested in that stuff then likely you just skip it, plug the OR into your PC and game away. We don't know that OR will be used to "push" FB. We don't know anything yet.
FB are now so established and enmeshed into other services that they are unlikely to suffer the fate of previous social networks. Nonetheless, it's hard to shake off the thought that users are fickle and FB's popularity may suddenly wane. Perhaps FB see it that way and they want to branch out into something more "solid", like hardware, or perhaps they've just decided that they have the cash and want to do something cool with it. Either way, it seems likely that this will mean a better Oculus arriving sooner. It might have a FB logo on it, and FB might have services for it. But so what? I don't have a FB account and if I bought an Occulus to play games then why would I worry about FB? I get why there's backlash but in reality, when you strip the emotion from it, it's likely a good thing for VR.
There are precious few markets in which "anybody" can open a store and compete successfully against the big established players. Go out on the high street and you mostly see franchises and big-name stores. E-books are little different, but I do agree that there seems to be too much collusion between distributors like Amazon and the publishers. Diesel has just gone out of business and Sony are pulling out of e-readers: it's a tough market. Nonetheless, there are e-book distributors out there who aren't Amazon, Apple, or Google. e.g. BAM, ebooks.com, and Kobo. Of course there's also B&N. Plus there's a bunch of smaller outfits, such as Lulu, Smashwords, and Baen, which deal with indie or non-DRM books. So it's not quite true that the little guy is out of e-books. Of course the big 3 or 4 on-line companies are squeezing the little guys, but they're doing this in a range of markets, not just books. We have a general problem in this regard.
The calculations show the southern flight path and consequently a water landing. But...how can they be so certain that no one survived? Isn't it possible that the airplane made a controlled glide into a non-powered water landing and that the life rafts deployed and allowed some of the passengers to survive? That has happened before. Admittedly this is very unlikely but can anyone at this point say it is impossible as the Malaysian government is doing?
You can look through this list, but I do not believe there is a single incident of a large aircraft performing a survivable mid-ocean water landing. It looks like they've always gone in with no survivors.
Here we go again. I thought this ended when I was a kid and that when my father and his generation passed away,
Two things. It seems unlikely that we'll ever reach the stage that where we can be confident that a large-scale war will never happen again. Countries constantly jostle for power and economies rise and fall, creating instability, power vacuums, and changes in dominance. These are potential triggers for war. Secondly, we don't know that this is "here we go again." Russia may well quit with Crimea. Perhaps it'll push into Eastern Ukraine then quit at that. Perhaps it'll push into all of Ukraine, then quit at that. We don't know what'll happen yet. Right now, nothing too much has happened. Given that most people in Crimea do consider themselves Russian and that Crimea has changed hands constantly over the last few hundred years, it seems quite plausible that that things will end here and the whole exercise just serves to increase Putin's stature back home.
They've narrowed it down a fair bit, but there's a still a huge area of ocean to search and time is ticking. They only have another 15 to 45 days (IIRC) until the black boxes stop transmitting their sonar signal. When the Air France plane crashed into the Atlantic the location of the black boxes was eventually (it took about a year) pinned down to a 3 mile by 3 mile area, but it took yet another year before they were found. So even in that tiny 3x3 mile area it can be very hard to locate something. The current search area must still be thousands of square miles, since it was 2.25 million sq miles before these new satellite results. It's even conceivable the black boxes will never be found.
I read up about this a while ago and I recall that the sort of voltage and current provided by a 9V batter would be sufficient for the technique. I just searched again and found this. They're using about 14V to 18V and 1.5mA. So it looks pretty safe to me.
Indeed. I'm British and living in the UK right now. Next I'm moving to the middle of Europe. If it's nice I'll stay there. No need to go back to the UK.
There's little to be gained by getting rid of the Queen. For starters it won't solve inequality, which is somehow what the idiot below (who doesn't even deserve a direct reply) seems to think. Most of the sovereign grant (which does not come from tax payer's money) goes towards paying the salaries of the people in the Queen's employ. Furthermore, the royals make very good ambassadors for the UK, as they're generally well thought of abroad, and they genuinely work hard at that role. They know they have to because it's the one thing they do well. So if you get rid of them, you lose all that. Yes, they have no direct power now but that doesn't mean they may not again in the future and we may even be grateful for it.
Yes, we don't choose the monarch or the house of lords but so what? You also don't choose who's in the vast civil service and that persists across elections and is involved in policy making. You don't choose what goes on in GCHQ. There's a lot of stuff we have no say in at all. The form our democracy takes means that the people get little or no direct say even in what the elected government does. The vast protests that took place when Blair decided to follow Bush into Iraq meant nothing at all to his government. They ploughed on regardless and that, of course, is natural because we chose them to make decisions for us. That's how it works: you choose the people who are the least dickish and hope they don't fuck up. If they did, you try not to re-elect them (and even there you don't always succeed). So with that crap going on in the background, why get rid of the Queen? What will actually become better? How will Joe Bloggs benefit? Or is the reason for getting rid of her simply to satisfy a short-sighted republican wet-dream?
Hopefully not quite yet, but this is one reason why we need a constitutional monarchy. It constitues a potential concentration of power that's outside the government and may help provide balance in the event of the country's democracy being undermined by elected officials. The way any country is governed is never static, but changes over time. Even in the recent past the UK saw a change, as Blair's government concentrated power in the cabinet to a greater degree than did previous governments. For these reasons I see the monarchy as having a useful latent power that is worth preserving. They're also pretty good value for money as the so-called sovereign grant that is paid to them comes from the Crown estate, that is independently managed. Plus, the tourists love them.
You word you post as though it's the fault of the NIH. I isn't. The NIH don't have the budget to fund all the good research proposals they get. After they've thrown out the chaff applications, they have a bunch of excellent stuff remaining and not enough money to fund it all.
Slashdot Mirror
Try Copy. It's cheap and you get a lot of free storage for referring people.
You forgot to say "Tell em umafuckit sent you!".
Oh, fuck, you're right. Yes, tell them that in this manner and you get 5 gigs extra space. As a pleasing side-effect, so do I.
The Wii is a console. I wouldn't call it a fad.
Try Copy. It's cheap and you get a lot of free storage for referring people.
It's April 1st. You're not fooling anyone.
So, can someone explain to me why whaling is such a very bad thing the whole Western world has to get in an uproar - yet destroying huge portions of the rain forest and endangering species living in it to breed cattle or grow soy is ok?
Nobody is saying the former is bad and the latter is OK. It's not an either/or situation: both are bad and people are trying to do something about both. In theory, however, it should be easier to do something about the whales than something about the rainforests.
Yes, of course, it's always been an obvious sham.
Yep, I'm being optimistic--I admit it. I don't think they'd be dumb enough to cripple the product by requiring FB integration. By my reading they haven't even done this with Instagram, so why would they do it with a gaming headset? That would be daft. Of course I could well be wrong, but given the absence of any real information as to what's going on it seems premature to write off the whole thing and just assume FB will fuck it all up. Let's see the product first.
Look, I don't like FB either but you're looking at this in a very one-sided way. As the article points out, Instagram and WhatsApp haven't been subsumed into FB in any obvious way following their acquisition. Go to the websites for those services and you won't see evidence of FB. With Instagram, for instance, it appears from the site that FB sharing is optional (I haven't used the App, but the website indicates this). So from past behaviour, FB haven't done an all-out assimilation of everything they've purchased. In addition, FB have contributed plenty to the opensource community. So there are good things there in addition to the crap they've pulled. Finally, they haven't done hardware before and so this very new territory. We know very little about what FB want to do with OR and, frankly, it doesn't look like they know either. It's quite plausible that they will be hands off. No 180 turns needed to envisage such a scenario.
What FB crap? There is no final product: you don't know what it'll be like yet. Probably it'll just have a FB logo and FB will have some pointless (to you or me) services that utilise VR. If you don't have a FB account and aren't interested in that stuff then likely you just skip it, plug the OR into your PC and game away. We don't know that OR will be used to "push" FB. We don't know anything yet.
FB are now so established and enmeshed into other services that they are unlikely to suffer the fate of previous social networks. Nonetheless, it's hard to shake off the thought that users are fickle and FB's popularity may suddenly wane. Perhaps FB see it that way and they want to branch out into something more "solid", like hardware, or perhaps they've just decided that they have the cash and want to do something cool with it. Either way, it seems likely that this will mean a better Oculus arriving sooner. It might have a FB logo on it, and FB might have services for it. But so what? I don't have a FB account and if I bought an Occulus to play games then why would I worry about FB? I get why there's backlash but in reality, when you strip the emotion from it, it's likely a good thing for VR.
However, it will remain illegal to circumvent DRM. So whilst this law is progress, it's not progressing very far.
There are precious few markets in which "anybody" can open a store and compete successfully against the big established players. Go out on the high street and you mostly see franchises and big-name stores. E-books are little different, but I do agree that there seems to be too much collusion between distributors like Amazon and the publishers. Diesel has just gone out of business and Sony are pulling out of e-readers: it's a tough market. Nonetheless, there are e-book distributors out there who aren't Amazon, Apple, or Google. e.g. BAM, ebooks.com, and Kobo. Of course there's also B&N. Plus there's a bunch of smaller outfits, such as Lulu, Smashwords, and Baen, which deal with indie or non-DRM books. So it's not quite true that the little guy is out of e-books. Of course the big 3 or 4 on-line companies are squeezing the little guys, but they're doing this in a range of markets, not just books. We have a general problem in this regard.
Umm... lulu?
The calculations show the southern flight path and consequently a water landing. But...how can they be so certain that no one survived? Isn't it possible that the airplane made a controlled glide into a non-powered water landing and that the life rafts deployed and allowed some of the passengers to survive? That has happened before. Admittedly this is very unlikely but can anyone at this point say it is impossible as the Malaysian government is doing?
You can look through this list, but I do not believe there is a single incident of a large aircraft performing a survivable mid-ocean water landing. It looks like they've always gone in with no survivors.
Here we go again. I thought this ended when I was a kid and that when my father and his generation passed away,
Two things. It seems unlikely that we'll ever reach the stage that where we can be confident that a large-scale war will never happen again. Countries constantly jostle for power and economies rise and fall, creating instability, power vacuums, and changes in dominance. These are potential triggers for war. Secondly, we don't know that this is "here we go again." Russia may well quit with Crimea. Perhaps it'll push into Eastern Ukraine then quit at that. Perhaps it'll push into all of Ukraine, then quit at that. We don't know what'll happen yet. Right now, nothing too much has happened. Given that most people in Crimea do consider themselves Russian and that Crimea has changed hands constantly over the last few hundred years, it seems quite plausible that that things will end here and the whole exercise just serves to increase Putin's stature back home.
They've narrowed it down a fair bit, but there's a still a huge area of ocean to search and time is ticking. They only have another 15 to 45 days (IIRC) until the black boxes stop transmitting their sonar signal. When the Air France plane crashed into the Atlantic the location of the black boxes was eventually (it took about a year) pinned down to a 3 mile by 3 mile area, but it took yet another year before they were found. So even in that tiny 3x3 mile area it can be very hard to locate something. The current search area must still be thousands of square miles, since it was 2.25 million sq miles before these new satellite results. It's even conceivable the black boxes will never be found.
What's the point in complaining that a product doesn't match your specific use-case. It's up to you to choose one that does.
Perhaps you're right, but there are a LOT of DMMs out there with a yellow case. It's not just Sparkfun who're copying Fluke's look.
I read up about this a while ago and I recall that the sort of voltage and current provided by a 9V batter would be sufficient for the technique. I just searched again and found this. They're using about 14V to 18V and 1.5mA. So it looks pretty safe to me.
Indeed. I'm British and living in the UK right now. Next I'm moving to the middle of Europe. If it's nice I'll stay there. No need to go back to the UK.
Yes, we don't choose the monarch or the house of lords but so what? You also don't choose who's in the vast civil service and that persists across elections and is involved in policy making. You don't choose what goes on in GCHQ. There's a lot of stuff we have no say in at all. The form our democracy takes means that the people get little or no direct say even in what the elected government does. The vast protests that took place when Blair decided to follow Bush into Iraq meant nothing at all to his government. They ploughed on regardless and that, of course, is natural because we chose them to make decisions for us. That's how it works: you choose the people who are the least dickish and hope they don't fuck up. If they did, you try not to re-elect them (and even there you don't always succeed). So with that crap going on in the background, why get rid of the Queen? What will actually become better? How will Joe Bloggs benefit? Or is the reason for getting rid of her simply to satisfy a short-sighted republican wet-dream?
A troll like this isn't even necessarily a racist, just a sadist who feels empowered by offending other people / evoking bad feelings.
That's pretty much the definition of a Troll.
There are reasons that "1984" and "V for Vigilante" were set there, and that London has the highest percentage of government mandated CCTV/capita.
1984 was published in 1949. Orwell was a forward thinking kinda guy but he didn't know about 21st century CCTV cameras.
Hopefully not quite yet, but this is one reason why we need a constitutional monarchy. It constitues a potential concentration of power that's outside the government and may help provide balance in the event of the country's democracy being undermined by elected officials. The way any country is governed is never static, but changes over time. Even in the recent past the UK saw a change, as Blair's government concentrated power in the cabinet to a greater degree than did previous governments. For these reasons I see the monarchy as having a useful latent power that is worth preserving. They're also pretty good value for money as the so-called sovereign grant that is paid to them comes from the Crown estate, that is independently managed. Plus, the tourists love them.
You word you post as though it's the fault of the NIH. I isn't. The NIH don't have the budget to fund all the good research proposals they get. After they've thrown out the chaff applications, they have a bunch of excellent stuff remaining and not enough money to fund it all.