I immediately thought of this too. Plus, there's the collision factor: an elderly person who isn't too steady and who has slower reaction times than the norm is more likely to hit an obstacle that suddenly appears in his path and/or fall off as a result of the resulting sudden stop.
On top of all that, the Segway requires that the operator be standing whilst in use. The endurance that this requires might not be a problem for the average individual but it becomes a factor for elderly users. Remember, we're talking about who already have mobility issues, so these are legitimate concerns.
Frankly, if it was my relative I'd encourage them to use a powered chair, the kind that are more like one-man golf-carts than the kind that look like wheelchairs. They'd be more comfortable and easier to operate in the long run, capable of carrying things more easily and probably more reliable too.
No, I'm not OK with it: read my journal if you want proof of that. But it seems to me that the moral right seem to be OK with killing real people but have a real stigma about anything to do with embryonic or foetal life.
It seems that, to these people, being responsible for killing Iraqi women and children is OK but experimenting on embryos is playing God. If you ask me, they've got a really screwed up sense of ethics but, hey, that's just my opinion.
No, saying that someone comes across as "arrogant, hypocritical and plain old dumb" isn't the same as calling them "arrogant, hypocritical and plain old dumb".
There's a big difference between the two, perhaps not a difference that you care to acknowledge, but a difference nevertheless.
In this case, mon ami, it's you that needs to "move along"...
Firstly, perhaps you didn't deserve to be called a prick but crying about it after you've done such an effective job denegrating so many others doesn't get you much sympathy. And, whatever you may think, your comment definitely had an element of elitism in it.
Secondly, it's interesting that you have no faith in the moderators (by the way, neither do I, when push comes to shove) but you feel comfortable practically telling them what to do. Here's a thought: don't cry about it (to the moderators or anyone else) because you threw the first punch.
Lastly, as other people have pointed out, 20 percent isn't a monopoly. It isn't even close to being a monopoly. If Wal-Mart really had a monopoly then those independent stores that you think are gouging you on price by making $4 a CD (and I'm not even sure it's that much), when they have higher costs and overheads to think about, as well as the online retailers that you do buy from, wouldn't exist.
And indie stores shouldn't deal with the RIAA? Gee, don't you think they have a hard time keeping their heads above water without turning away every other customer who wants to buy something from a RIAA-backed artist? Do you have any concept of how quickly all but a few very specialised indie stores would fold if they took that approach?
Taste has nothing to do with this discussion, huh? That's rich coming from someone who described the music that Wal-Mart does stock as "the typical teenybopper crap".
I'm not sure how you could come across worse, because right now, you come across as arrogant, hypocritical and plain old dumb. Your arguments hold little or no water because you fail to see that the world doesn't work the way that you want it to. I hate to disappoint you, but that isn't going to change any time soon.
Hello Mr Pot, I'm Mr Kettle. By the way, I couldn't help noticing that you're black...
Telling people that anyone who disagrees with you and attacks you is a troll after you post a comment full of attacks - attacks on the record industry, attacks on Wal-Mart, attacks on its staff, attacks on people who buy the music that it stocks, attacks on independent music stores - is a bit rich.
Let moderators decide for themselves how the comment should be moderated. If I've noticed anything in six plus years of reading Slashdot it's that people with mod points aren't shy of moderating down even the slightest personal insult.
In the meantime though, I suggest you learn to appreciate a few things, including the fact that Wal-Mart does just fine selling CDs you don't want to buy, that other people have different tastes to you and that's not a crime, and that independent stores sell CDs for $16 because that's what they need to do to survive.
So where does that leave us in the real world? I assume that you're American (as most people on Slashdot are) so that means that you live in a society that's quite happy to take life from an individual (ie, the death penalty), and kill thousands of civilians half way around the world in the name of fighting a war on terror (Iraq).
Where's your "destruction of life to save life is an oxymoron" now? Or aren't convicted criminals and Iraqi women and children worthy of the description?
Well, the way the people who want to start witchhunts over embryonic research react you would think that we're talking about something that could look into your eyes and breathe on your face.
Viewed under a microscope most people wouldn't consider an embryo of several dozen cells to be a life, any more than they would a similar number of cells from you, me, a dog, a tree or a virus to be a life. But that's not the picture that radical pro-lifers would like to portray when they talk about embryonic research: then they want to paint a picture of fully-formed foetuses that look like newborns being dissected in dangerous experiments that are performed by men with no morality.
You may be aware that when we say embryo here that we're talking about 70-odd cells but most people don't.
Studies have shown that the public - even many doctors - believe that the research is carried out on foetuses that are at least partially developed. When asked to draw what they think an embryo looks like most people draw something that has a head, a torso and four limbs.
It's mistaken beliefs like that, fuelled by the scaremongering of extremists in the pro-life camp, that unfairly label the scientists working in this field as Frankenstein-type threats to society.
Bags of several dozen cells (which is what the embryos we're talking about are) aren't life. At best, they are the potential to become life, under the right conditions.
And, before people start shooting from their various moral highgrounds, please realise that none of the embryos that we're talking about have been ripped from anyone's womb without their consent. The few hundred embryos available for research use are the excess produce of IVF programmes, and if they weren't being used to further medical science then they'd be lying frozen in a tube somewhere or destroyed.
So, talk of "killing millions upon millions before they are anything more than a mass of cells" should be saved for the likes of National Enquirer. There aren't millions of millions, and they aren't being killed. But I guess "baby killer" is an easy argument to make for those too afraid to examine the facts properly.
The BBC distorts facts? Well then, care to give us some examples?
The BBC is pandering to a growing, oil-rich, worldwide Islamic market? The BBC is funded by the licence fee and doesn't need to raise to raise revenue through advertising or other means, so why would that be the case?
Ever consider the reason that the BBC appears biased to you is because they present both sides of the story and that includes the side that you're not comfortable accepting?
What's better journalism to you: reporting that a US air strike took place against and killed militia in Fallujah or that the same air strike took place against and killed militia in Fallujah but also killed civilians in the process?
You may prefer the former, in which case I suggest you stick to Fox "News", the channel that's famous for inaccurately reporting that WMDs were found in Iraq on countless occasions. I prefer the latter, and I'll stick to the BBC, that delivers the facts and not invented lies.
Funny that you should mention the BBC and Fox News in the same breath. Fox's parent company (News Corporation) and the BBC British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB) both own half of the BSkyB (British Sky Broadcasting) satellite TV network. I wonder what their news reports look like.
Are you dumb? Or do you just like spouting bullshit? The BBC has nothing to do with Sky or BSB.
When satellite TV was in its infancy in the UK, there were two rival providers, British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB) and Sky. In a short time, the two merged (in effect, Sky bought out BSB) and the name of the company became British Sky Broadcasting (BSB still), or Sky for short. Sky is now the only satellite broadcaster in the UK.
At no stage did the BBC own a share of either original company and at no stage has it owned a share of the merged company. So, you're entire post is total crap.
The BBC's channels are broadcast on Sky, and it pays Sky for this service, just as its channels are broadcast by NTL and Telewest (UK cable TV providers) and pays for that service too.
There's a Google ads-supported free version of Opera and a paid for ad-free version. Either way, you've got a damn good browser, arguably the best one around.
A great deal of the features that FireFox users rave about came from Opera, and every version brings even more innovation. It's even smaller and faster than FireFox too (IIRC.)
And, before someone starts saying that its UI takes up too much screen space, let me just say that the default interface in the latest version is tiny (and, of course, Opera can be skinned and customised to your taste). While I'm on the subject of dispelling myths and inaccuracies, Opera renders virtually every web page out there as well as MSIE or FireFox: there were problems with some JavaScript-heavy pages in the past, but that's been fixed for a long time too.
About the only website that the current version Opera has a problem with is Gmail, because of all its weird code, and even then there are simple workarounds for that. The issue is fixed in the latest beta, which means that even that problem is only temporary.
So, to recap, Opera is a smaller, faster, more feature-packed browser that's on the cutting edge. And there's a free version and a paid-for version. What more did you want from a commercially-developed application?
You can find child prostitutes in any country in the world, including the US, UK, France, Germany, Austrailia, etc. It's not a problem that's unique to Asia, so don't try to paint it that way, please.
Apple had its own gaming system once, called Pippin.
Re:Does it work properly/completely with Opera yet
on
Gmail Adds Features
·
· Score: 1
I'm using 7.54 and the workarounds aren't working for me: I just keep getting the blank page, and refreshing doesn't achieve anything. I'm reluctant to install replace 7.54 with a beta release of 7.6x so I guess I'll just wait until 7.61 is final before I start trying to get Gmail to work in Opera again.
Re:Does it work properly/completely with Opera yet
on
Gmail Adds Features
·
· Score: 1
Uh, I'm using Opera 7.54 and I can't get it to work. Care to share how you've managed it?
FYI, the message I get after I login is as follows:
Browser Requirement: ActiveX
Gmail requires ActiveX controls to be enabled
Your browser seems to be Internet Explorer, and ActiveX seems to be disabled. Gmail requires ActiveX to be enabled in order to operate.
To use Gmail, enable ActiveX controls in Internet Explorer. You can do this by going to the Tools menu, selecting Internet Options, Security tab, Internet zone, and either select the Default Level, or selecting Custom Level and scrolling down to "Run ActiveX controls and plug-ins" and selecting Enable.
After enabling ActiveX controls, try again.
I do have Opera set to identify as MSIE 6.0 but that shouldn't be a barrier.
Firstly, as you've discovered yourself, your first point is wrong.
Secondly, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc are all individual nations with individual forms of government, and what's constitutional law in one of them isn't necessarily constitutional law in any of the others.
A nation being a member of the Commonwealth has nothing to do with its parliamentary democracy: the two aren't related at all. India, for example, has a president rather than the Queen as its Head of State, as does Pakistan, and they are both Commonwealth nations with totally disimilar forms of government.
The Queen is just a constitutional figurehead, and plays just a symbolic role in British government. Heck, she's the only person in the country that's not entitled to vote - that's how "powerful" a role she plays in British politics.
Slashdot Mirror
I immediately thought of this too. Plus, there's the collision factor: an elderly person who isn't too steady and who has slower reaction times than the norm is more likely to hit an obstacle that suddenly appears in his path and/or fall off as a result of the resulting sudden stop.
On top of all that, the Segway requires that the operator be standing whilst in use. The endurance that this requires might not be a problem for the average individual but it becomes a factor for elderly users. Remember, we're talking about who already have mobility issues, so these are legitimate concerns.
Frankly, if it was my relative I'd encourage them to use a powered chair, the kind that are more like one-man golf-carts than the kind that look like wheelchairs. They'd be more comfortable and easier to operate in the long run, capable of carrying things more easily and probably more reliable too.
No, I'm not OK with it: read my journal if you want proof of that. But it seems to me that the moral right seem to be OK with killing real people but have a real stigma about anything to do with embryonic or foetal life.
It seems that, to these people, being responsible for killing Iraqi women and children is OK but experimenting on embryos is playing God. If you ask me, they've got a really screwed up sense of ethics but, hey, that's just my opinion.
No, saying that someone comes across as "arrogant, hypocritical and plain old dumb" isn't the same as calling them "arrogant, hypocritical and plain old dumb".
There's a big difference between the two, perhaps not a difference that you care to acknowledge, but a difference nevertheless.
In this case, mon ami, it's you that needs to "move along"...
Firstly, perhaps you didn't deserve to be called a prick but crying about it after you've done such an effective job denegrating so many others doesn't get you much sympathy. And, whatever you may think, your comment definitely had an element of elitism in it.
Secondly, it's interesting that you have no faith in the moderators (by the way, neither do I, when push comes to shove) but you feel comfortable practically telling them what to do. Here's a thought: don't cry about it (to the moderators or anyone else) because you threw the first punch.
Lastly, as other people have pointed out, 20 percent isn't a monopoly. It isn't even close to being a monopoly. If Wal-Mart really had a monopoly then those independent stores that you think are gouging you on price by making $4 a CD (and I'm not even sure it's that much), when they have higher costs and overheads to think about, as well as the online retailers that you do buy from, wouldn't exist.
And indie stores shouldn't deal with the RIAA? Gee, don't you think they have a hard time keeping their heads above water without turning away every other customer who wants to buy something from a RIAA-backed artist? Do you have any concept of how quickly all but a few very specialised indie stores would fold if they took that approach?
Taste has nothing to do with this discussion, huh? That's rich coming from someone who described the music that Wal-Mart does stock as "the typical teenybopper crap".
I'm not sure how you could come across worse, because right now, you come across as arrogant, hypocritical and plain old dumb. Your arguments hold little or no water because you fail to see that the world doesn't work the way that you want it to. I hate to disappoint you, but that isn't going to change any time soon.
Hello Mr Pot, I'm Mr Kettle. By the way, I couldn't help noticing that you're black...
Telling people that anyone who disagrees with you and attacks you is a troll after you post a comment full of attacks - attacks on the record industry, attacks on Wal-Mart, attacks on its staff, attacks on people who buy the music that it stocks, attacks on independent music stores - is a bit rich.
Let moderators decide for themselves how the comment should be moderated. If I've noticed anything in six plus years of reading Slashdot it's that people with mod points aren't shy of moderating down even the slightest personal insult.
In the meantime though, I suggest you learn to appreciate a few things, including the fact that Wal-Mart does just fine selling CDs you don't want to buy, that other people have different tastes to you and that's not a crime, and that independent stores sell CDs for $16 because that's what they need to do to survive.
Destruction of life to save life is an oxymoron.
So where does that leave us in the real world? I assume that you're American (as most people on Slashdot are) so that means that you live in a society that's quite happy to take life from an individual (ie, the death penalty), and kill thousands of civilians half way around the world in the name of fighting a war on terror (Iraq).
Where's your "destruction of life to save life is an oxymoron" now? Or aren't convicted criminals and Iraqi women and children worthy of the description?
Well, the way the people who want to start witchhunts over embryonic research react you would think that we're talking about something that could look into your eyes and breathe on your face.
Viewed under a microscope most people wouldn't consider an embryo of several dozen cells to be a life, any more than they would a similar number of cells from you, me, a dog, a tree or a virus to be a life. But that's not the picture that radical pro-lifers would like to portray when they talk about embryonic research: then they want to paint a picture of fully-formed foetuses that look like newborns being dissected in dangerous experiments that are performed by men with no morality.
Put an embryo in a petri dish at room temperature and see how long it lives.
Now, could we stop arguing semantics?
You may be aware that when we say embryo here that we're talking about 70-odd cells but most people don't.
Studies have shown that the public - even many doctors - believe that the research is carried out on foetuses that are at least partially developed. When asked to draw what they think an embryo looks like most people draw something that has a head, a torso and four limbs.
It's mistaken beliefs like that, fuelled by the scaremongering of extremists in the pro-life camp, that unfairly label the scientists working in this field as Frankenstein-type threats to society.
Bags of several dozen cells (which is what the embryos we're talking about are) aren't life. At best, they are the potential to become life, under the right conditions.
And, before people start shooting from their various moral highgrounds, please realise that none of the embryos that we're talking about have been ripped from anyone's womb without their consent. The few hundred embryos available for research use are the excess produce of IVF programmes, and if they weren't being used to further medical science then they'd be lying frozen in a tube somewhere or destroyed.
So, talk of "killing millions upon millions before they are anything more than a mass of cells" should be saved for the likes of National Enquirer. There aren't millions of millions, and they aren't being killed. But I guess "baby killer" is an easy argument to make for those too afraid to examine the facts properly.
You live in a dream world.
The BBC distorts facts? Well then, care to give us some examples?
The BBC is pandering to a growing, oil-rich, worldwide Islamic market? The BBC is funded by the licence fee and doesn't need to raise to raise revenue through advertising or other means, so why would that be the case?
Ever consider the reason that the BBC appears biased to you is because they present both sides of the story and that includes the side that you're not comfortable accepting?
What's better journalism to you: reporting that a US air strike took place against and killed militia in Fallujah or that the same air strike took place against and killed militia in Fallujah but also killed civilians in the process?
You may prefer the former, in which case I suggest you stick to Fox "News", the channel that's famous for inaccurately reporting that WMDs were found in Iraq on countless occasions. I prefer the latter, and I'll stick to the BBC, that delivers the facts and not invented lies.
Funny that you should mention the BBC and Fox News in the same breath. Fox's parent company (News Corporation) and the BBC British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB) both own half of the BSkyB (British Sky Broadcasting) satellite TV network. I wonder what their news reports look like.
Are you dumb? Or do you just like spouting bullshit? The BBC has nothing to do with Sky or BSB.
When satellite TV was in its infancy in the UK, there were two rival providers, British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB) and Sky. In a short time, the two merged (in effect, Sky bought out BSB) and the name of the company became British Sky Broadcasting (BSB still), or Sky for short. Sky is now the only satellite broadcaster in the UK.
At no stage did the BBC own a share of either original company and at no stage has it owned a share of the merged company. So, you're entire post is total crap.
The BBC's channels are broadcast on Sky, and it pays Sky for this service, just as its channels are broadcast by NTL and Telewest (UK cable TV providers) and pays for that service too.
Sheesh, if you're going to flame people then at least spell five-letter words correctly...
Again, more FUD. Opera's JavaScript hasn't been an issue for sometime now.
Inferior how? You must be smoking something that's rotting your brain, bud.
Compared to its rivals, Opera is a smaller, faster, more feature-packed browser that's on the cutting edge. So tell me again how it's inferior?
Just who do you think came up with mouse gestures? Opera did, that's who. Everyone else's mouse gestures are "me too" additions.
Yes it is.
There's a Google ads-supported free version of Opera and a paid for ad-free version. Either way, you've got a damn good browser, arguably the best one around.
A great deal of the features that FireFox users rave about came from Opera, and every version brings even more innovation. It's even smaller and faster than FireFox too (IIRC.)
And, before someone starts saying that its UI takes up too much screen space, let me just say that the default interface in the latest version is tiny (and, of course, Opera can be skinned and customised to your taste). While I'm on the subject of dispelling myths and inaccuracies, Opera renders virtually every web page out there as well as MSIE or FireFox: there were problems with some JavaScript-heavy pages in the past, but that's been fixed for a long time too.
About the only website that the current version Opera has a problem with is Gmail, because of all its weird code, and even then there are simple workarounds for that. The issue is fixed in the latest beta, which means that even that problem is only temporary.
So, to recap, Opera is a smaller, faster, more feature-packed browser that's on the cutting edge. And there's a free version and a paid-for version. What more did you want from a commercially-developed application?
There's got to be a red-eye joke in there somewhere...
How about the settlement consisted of 20 million copies of Photoshop Elements?
People have been googling from WAP phones for years now.
I guess you've never heard of liability shields then?
You can find child prostitutes in any country in the world, including the US, UK, France, Germany, Austrailia, etc. It's not a problem that's unique to Asia, so don't try to paint it that way, please.
Apple had its own gaming system once, called Pippin.
I'm using 7.54 and the workarounds aren't working for me: I just keep getting the blank page, and refreshing doesn't achieve anything. I'm reluctant to install replace 7.54 with a beta release of 7.6x so I guess I'll just wait until 7.61 is final before I start trying to get Gmail to work in Opera again.
FYI, the message I get after I login is as follows:I do have Opera set to identify as MSIE 6.0 but that shouldn't be a barrier.
Firstly, as you've discovered yourself, your first point is wrong.
Secondly, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc are all individual nations with individual forms of government, and what's constitutional law in one of them isn't necessarily constitutional law in any of the others.
A nation being a member of the Commonwealth has nothing to do with its parliamentary democracy: the two aren't related at all. India, for example, has a president rather than the Queen as its Head of State, as does Pakistan, and they are both Commonwealth nations with totally disimilar forms of government.
The Queen is just a constitutional figurehead, and plays just a symbolic role in British government. Heck, she's the only person in the country that's not entitled to vote - that's how "powerful" a role she plays in British politics.