So despite all this potential for generating more than enough energy for decades to come... why bother resorting to all kind of foreign policy antics to obtain the tradional heavily polluting energy sources ?
Money. There are heavily entrenched interests in the US in coal and oil, and they happen to be running the country (into the ground, I'll add.) Their freshman level understanding of Adam Smith leads them to believe that they are doing society a good by pursuing their selfish interests, namely advancing the wealth of the dirty industries with which they are so entwined.
It's not that they are pro- or anti-nuclear, it's just that nuclear doesn't fit in to their schemes, and go largely (though not wholly) ignored.
I agree in spirit, but in practice I don't think it works out quite that well. Many destructive zealots are well educated, from Bush to Zawahari -- a doctor -- to the 9/11 conspirators, many of whom were highly educated. Mohammed Atta, for example, was a full fledged architect.
Education is important, to be sure, and I am by no means suggesting anything different. But it does not seem to wholly prevent ideology from trumping morality.
While Wiki is designed for collaboration, it doesn't allow simulatenous changes that are immediately visible to all collaborators. If you and I were working on a document in SubEthaEdit you would see any changes I make as I make them, and I yours.
All that and syntax highlighting, too. It's basically the difference between a text editor you run yourself vs. typing a message into Slashdot.
A court has acted to limit the powers of government. The government has one job, and one only-ensuring that nobody's person or property is harmed without their consent.
That would be attractive if it weren't so brain-dead stupid.
Hint: If your political philosophy can fit on a bumper sticker, it doesn't reflect the real world. Libertarianism is nice and utopian and all, but it's also more of a religion than a successful political ideology.
But why? I really don't understand the draw of the mac as a server.
Because there is far more to OS X than merely a pretty GUI. The entire underlying kernel is an excellent POSIX-compliant UNIX implementation, arguably better than Solaris. I've been using my PowerMac as a pseudo-media server for about a year now, and it's been rock solid and a pleasure to work with via ssh. With Linux I was frequently (sometimes constantly) having to fight with various installers, configuration management, etc. That is far less of an issue under OS X, and it has freed up my time to do other more intersting things.
Besides, even on a headless server you can access the GUI remotely. You want to see something strange, do a VNC connection to OS X via Solaris.:) There's something not quite right about seeing the dock inside of a Gnome window.
Why should we expect different behavior from the tab key? Because emacs screwed up X many years ago?
No, because it's convenient. Your mileage apparently varies, but I like editors that have this behavior, and in my experience it's not all that uncommon among IDEs or "programmers editors". It would be interestin to see/compile a list of different IDEs/editors and how their behavior compares in this respect.
In this case I believe Yahoo! is arguing that the deceased gave up any inheritance rights when he accepted the terms and conditions, which stated that property rights cannot be transferred even in the event of death.
If you don't want to replace that text with what you type next, why would you use the mechanism that has been incredibly consistent and standardized for literally decades for saying, "replace this text with what I type next"?
Because most IDEs do exactly what you say they shouldn't, and for good reason. Indenting blocks of text is so commonplace as to be pedantic; BBEdit's aparent lack of support for such a feature keep it from being a top-class editor. I have only briefly used it, but this was so immediately noticable that it kept me from switching.
Me: This entire controversy seems mostly rhetorical sleight-of-hand to deflect attention away from that.
You: CBS airing forged documents is "rhetorical sleight-of-hand"?
Thanks for proving my point.
You: The real tragedy here is that Dan Rather isn't also being punished as well. He gets special treatment for being a "name."
Kind of like someone else I can think of, someone who just happens to be president right now and was a pampered rich kid during the Vietnam war. Going AWOL is ok, but fuck up and publish forged documents... man, now that's a real crime.
Right.
Do you eat hypocrisy for all three meals a day, or just breakfast?
It wasn't AWOL so much as his immediate superiors not caring if he did things that were technically against the rules.
In other words: It wasn't his fault? No, he was active duty, and was absent without official leave. We can argue semantics all day, if you'd like, but this says reams about the character of the man and those who defend him.
I don't know about always, but I do find it extremely plausible that Bush went AWOL, and that the facts seem to back it up. This entire controversy seems mostly rhetorical sleight-of-hand to deflect attention away from that.
Or of coordinated efforts at distraction. Bush did go AWOL, it's just those documents that were apparently forgeries. And IIRC they were forgeries of documents that did, according to eyewitnesses, exist.
The funny (and of course overlooked by the cranial-rectal inversion crowd) thing about the CBS/document story is that contrary to the screeching about it, the entire saga is proof that there is no goddamn liberal media.
Jayson Blair was fired in noisy disgrace for making up mostly harmless stuff, taking down Howell Raines with him. One botched news story at CBS, in which the substances was entirely true but the window dressing was not authenticated, and multiple people lose their jobs, and it becomes the biggest media story of the year. Why do we know or care? Because the right wing cranks demanded the head of the "liberal" Clinton-hating-obsessive Howell Raines because he opposed the Iraq war by putting Judith Miller on the front page. That story garnered blanket wall to wall media coverage, and has established itself as the reference point for "bad media," with the universal liberal media consensus being that it was in part a consequence of affirmative action programs.
Judith Miller - Shitty reporting. Doesn't believe it's her job to try to verify what her sources tell her. Claimed she was "proved fucking right," though about what we're not sure. Times defends her. Lots of people dead.
Jack Kelley was fired rather quietly with not very much publicity from USA Today after it was discovered he manufactured massive piles of horeshit over a period of several years about things which actually did matter. Editors ignored complaints for years, by their own admission in part because they trusted him because he was a devout Christian. One or two day minor story, no one knows who Jack Kelley is, and while it was a much more serious problem, his name, unlike Blair's, is not the standard name invoked as an example of "bad media." Editors did resign in the wake, but for some reason did not become household names and are not regularly mentioned as examples of "bad editors."
Stephen Glass -- made lots of shit up. Coddled, protected, and promoted heavily by conservative editors at the New Republic who never had their reputations tarnished by the situation.
Even more serious stuff:
Jeff Gerth: Original Whitewater story almost entirely wrong, with Gerth clearly lying about parts of it (that is, parts were false in ways which he clearly knew were false). Times defends him and the story to this day.
Lisa Myers -- deliberately alters tapes to convey false story about Mrs. Clinton. Her punishment? Promotion.
Chris Vlasto -- Many sins, including pulling a "Lisa Myers" himself, producing a segment for Nightline with deliberately improperly edited tape. Punishment? Promotion.
Jeff Greenfield -- Nightline correspondent on Vlasto produced segment. Punishment? Cushy job at CNN.
I could go on and on. But, the worst Rather has been accused of by sensible people is letting partisanship cloud his judgment. Accepting that as true just for sake of argument, it's still a far less egregious sin than most of the Whitewater-era horseshit which has never been acknowledged as horseshit by the liberal media, even though unlike the Rather incident, much of that horseshit was clearly deliberately manufactured by the producers and reporters. These events were recycled and echoed throuhgout the entire liberal media, with no one calling foul and no one calling for their heads. Without making any statement about what the appropriate consequences for "Rathergate" should be, it's clear that the media attention by that liberal media and the actual consequences have been much greater than dozens of worse incidents involving clear deliberate deception by people in the media.
Dan Rather - evil biased liberal whose partisanship led him to jump the gun on a story? Believe that if you want, I don't really care. But, "Rathergate" proof of "liberal media?" Just the opposite.
So did Bush go AWOL or not? I know the documents in question were forged, but to my knowledge the underlying story was never in doubt. Bush didn't complete his service, missed the physical, etc., etc.
Intel was supposed to pump the Pentium 4 to 4 GHz in 2004. It fizzled at 3.8....
8. Apple Computer's G5 Chips at 3 GHz
Intel's in good company. Nobody hit the chip speeds they promised. In June 2003, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said IBM's G5 chips would be at 3 GHz within 12 months. It's been 18.
Ok, now why did they put Apple higher on the list than Intel? Intel has a far broader market reach, and Apple is dependent upon IBM for their chips. Intel is dependent on Intel. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Doesn't seem fair to Apple, does it?
Holy shit. Did I just write that? Was that me? Well folks, I think it's time to go chew on a shotgun barrel. I hereby bequeath my G5 to that stripper at Baby Doll's who really liked me. Maybe she can perform with it.
Oh man, now look at that last sentence... My sexual fantasies are involving G5s. Fuck this. Off with my head.
Re:Another example of fantastic journalism from /.
on
Gates Nose-Dives at CES
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
News Flash: Slashdot is not unbiased towards Microsoft. This seems to shock you. And the thing is, they (we!) understand that MS is pure crapola and borderline-to-outright evil, and so for/. to do what you suggest they would have to approach the situation dishonestly, pretending that MS's history of security problems, bad software, and monopolistic characteristics just don't exist. Gates making vapid proclamations about the future direction of MS is neither newsworthy nor interesting; that happens every single year, and they usually turn out to be almost completely wrong.
What *is* interesting is the so-called "world's greatest software company" has a demo crash on their most public figure, and that he resorts to anachronistic political labels for buttressing his argument.
America was founded because some wig wearing guys back a few hundred years ago didn't want to pay high taxes on a hot beverage.
The rallying cry was "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation." The notion that "taxes are theft" has been introduced by the libertarians, and wasn't something the Founders ever considered.
It's unclear if that is what you're talking about, so my apologies if that's not what you meant.
Maybe. But when speaking of revolutionary technologies they will always also be evolutionary. Nothing gets created in a vacuum. I'm not in marketing, but I nonetheless consider the iPod revolutionary for the simple fact that it opened the floodgates to a market that at that time had few players. It showed that a successful business model could be based selling limited DRM music and hardware. Others could have done it, but didn't. Apple did, hence the iPod (rightfully) gets the glory.
A series of straw-men: "Hey, you forgot to blame 'haliburton', didn't say the term 'neocon', only implied a 'conspiracy' and left out the part how the republicans have been planning this all since the 70's, as proved by memos 'recreated' for CBS and dan rather."
Ad hominem: "You're an idiot"
Ad hominem: "You're not worth taking seriously."
Ad hominems and ego stroking: "You're an idiot, I'm doing this for fun."
And then, on your sixth reply, FINALLY something with some meat, no matter how misguided it is.
Yeah man, it takes you six messages to even come CLOSE to admitting that Bush might just be ever so partially responsible for energy policy in the US, then trot out the a bait and switch with the old It'sNotReallyBush'sFaultDon'tLookAtBushBlameCongre ss) and you're trying to convince the world you give the guy a fair shake?
Right.
Bush is in the pockets of the oil industry. I know that just chafes your ass to no end to even consider the idea, but it's a fact and I can prove it to Bush cultists like yourself on a freakin' Etch-a-Sketch, mmmk? Nuclear is neither as profitable nor as established as oil and coal, and has little friends among an administration run by Texas oilmen with close ties not only back home but with international oil interests like the Saudi royals.
Final question: Do you have gay butt sex with Sean Hannity? Cuz it seems like it's his spooge coming out of your mouth. In one end, out the other, doncha know.
Re:For those that care about politics...
on
Amazon Sales Record
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Hm. You don't care, but bother to reply, and say you'd mod it off topic.
Hmm. Even after all that you still were unable to actually answer the questions. Fascinating and tragic all at the same time. It's like you don't see it or something. Crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
So despite all this potential for generating more than enough energy for decades to come... why bother resorting to all kind of foreign policy antics to obtain the tradional heavily polluting energy sources ?
Money. There are heavily entrenched interests in the US in coal and oil, and they happen to be running the country (into the ground, I'll add.) Their freshman level understanding of Adam Smith leads them to believe that they are doing society a good by pursuing their selfish interests, namely advancing the wealth of the dirty industries with which they are so entwined.
It's not that they are pro- or anti-nuclear, it's just that nuclear doesn't fit in to their schemes, and go largely (though not wholly) ignored.
Education is the silver bullet.
I agree in spirit, but in practice I don't think it works out quite that well. Many destructive zealots are well educated, from Bush to Zawahari -- a doctor -- to the 9/11 conspirators, many of whom were highly educated. Mohammed Atta, for example, was a full fledged architect.
Education is important, to be sure, and I am by no means suggesting anything different. But it does not seem to wholly prevent ideology from trumping morality.
While Wiki is designed for collaboration, it doesn't allow simulatenous changes that are immediately visible to all collaborators. If you and I were working on a document in SubEthaEdit you would see any changes I make as I make them, and I yours.
All that and syntax highlighting, too. It's basically the difference between a text editor you run yourself vs. typing a message into Slashdot.
A court has acted to limit the powers of government. The government has one job, and one only-ensuring that nobody's person or property is harmed without their consent.
That would be attractive if it weren't so brain-dead stupid.
Hint: If your political philosophy can fit on a bumper sticker, it doesn't reflect the real world. Libertarianism is nice and utopian and all, but it's also more of a religion than a successful political ideology.
But why? I really don't understand the draw of the mac as a server.
Because there is far more to OS X than merely a pretty GUI. The entire underlying kernel is an excellent POSIX-compliant UNIX implementation, arguably better than Solaris. I've been using my PowerMac as a pseudo-media server for about a year now, and it's been rock solid and a pleasure to work with via ssh. With Linux I was frequently (sometimes constantly) having to fight with various installers, configuration management, etc. That is far less of an issue under OS X, and it has freed up my time to do other more intersting things.
Besides, even on a headless server you can access the GUI remotely. You want to see something strange, do a VNC connection to OS X via Solaris. :) There's something not quite right about seeing the dock inside of a Gnome window.
Why should we expect different behavior from the tab key? Because emacs screwed up X many years ago?
No, because it's convenient. Your mileage apparently varies, but I like editors that have this behavior, and in my experience it's not all that uncommon among IDEs or "programmers editors". It would be interestin to see/compile a list of different IDEs/editors and how their behavior compares in this respect.
In this case I believe Yahoo! is arguing that the deceased gave up any inheritance rights when he accepted the terms and conditions, which stated that property rights cannot be transferred even in the event of death.
If you don't want to replace that text with what you type next, why would you use the mechanism that has been incredibly consistent and standardized for literally decades for saying, "replace this text with what I type next"?
Because most IDEs do exactly what you say they shouldn't, and for good reason. Indenting blocks of text is so commonplace as to be pedantic; BBEdit's aparent lack of support for such a feature keep it from being a top-class editor. I have only briefly used it, but this was so immediately noticable that it kept me from switching.
Me: This entire controversy seems mostly rhetorical sleight-of-hand to deflect attention away from that.
You: CBS airing forged documents is "rhetorical sleight-of-hand"?
Thanks for proving my point.
You: The real tragedy here is that Dan Rather isn't also being punished as well. He gets special treatment for being a "name."
Kind of like someone else I can think of, someone who just happens to be president right now and was a pampered rich kid during the Vietnam war. Going AWOL is ok, but fuck up and publish forged documents... man, now that's a real crime.
Right.
Do you eat hypocrisy for all three meals a day, or just breakfast?
It wasn't AWOL so much as his immediate superiors not caring if he did things that were technically against the rules.
In other words: It wasn't his fault? No, he was active duty, and was absent without official leave. We can argue semantics all day, if you'd like, but this says reams about the character of the man and those who defend him.
I don't know about always, but I do find it extremely plausible that Bush went AWOL, and that the facts seem to back it up. This entire controversy seems mostly rhetorical sleight-of-hand to deflect attention away from that.
Or do you think Bush didn't go AWOL?
From Atrios:
The funny (and of course overlooked by the cranial-rectal inversion crowd) thing about the CBS/document story is that contrary to the screeching about it, the entire saga is proof that there is no goddamn liberal media.
Jayson Blair was fired in noisy disgrace for making up mostly harmless stuff, taking down Howell Raines with him. One botched news story at CBS, in which the substances was entirely true but the window dressing was not authenticated, and multiple people lose their jobs, and it becomes the biggest media story of the year. Why do we know or care? Because the right wing cranks demanded the head of the "liberal" Clinton-hating-obsessive Howell Raines because he opposed the Iraq war by putting Judith Miller on the front page. That story garnered blanket wall to wall media coverage, and has established itself as the reference point for "bad media," with the universal liberal media consensus being that it was in part a consequence of affirmative action programs.
Judith Miller - Shitty reporting. Doesn't believe it's her job to try to verify what her sources tell her. Claimed she was "proved fucking right," though about what we're not sure. Times defends her. Lots of people dead.
Jack Kelley was fired rather quietly with not very much publicity from USA Today after it was discovered he manufactured massive piles of horeshit over a period of several years about things which actually did matter. Editors ignored complaints for years, by their own admission in part because they trusted him because he was a devout Christian. One or two day minor story, no one knows who Jack Kelley is, and while it was a much more serious problem, his name, unlike Blair's, is not the standard name invoked as an example of "bad media." Editors did resign in the wake, but for some reason did not become household names and are not regularly mentioned as examples of "bad editors."
Stephen Glass -- made lots of shit up. Coddled, protected, and promoted heavily by conservative editors at the New Republic who never had their reputations tarnished by the situation.
Even more serious stuff:
Jeff Gerth: Original Whitewater story almost entirely wrong, with Gerth clearly lying about parts of it (that is, parts were false in ways which he clearly knew were false). Times defends him and the story to this day.
Lisa Myers -- deliberately alters tapes to convey false story about Mrs. Clinton. Her punishment? Promotion.
Chris Vlasto -- Many sins, including pulling a "Lisa Myers" himself, producing a segment for Nightline with deliberately improperly edited tape. Punishment? Promotion.
Jeff Greenfield -- Nightline correspondent on Vlasto produced segment. Punishment? Cushy job at CNN.
I could go on and on. But, the worst Rather has been accused of by sensible people is letting partisanship cloud his judgment. Accepting that as true just for sake of argument, it's still a far less egregious sin than most of the Whitewater-era horseshit which has never been acknowledged as horseshit by the liberal media, even though unlike the Rather incident, much of that horseshit was clearly deliberately manufactured by the producers and reporters. These events were recycled and echoed throuhgout the entire liberal media, with no one calling foul and no one calling for their heads. Without making any statement about what the appropriate consequences for "Rathergate" should be, it's clear that the media attention by that liberal media and the actual consequences have been much greater than dozens of worse incidents involving clear deliberate deception by people in the media.
Dan Rather - evil biased liberal whose partisanship led him to jump the gun on a story? Believe that if you want, I don't really care. But, "Rathergate" proof of "liberal media?" Just the opposite.
So did Bush go AWOL or not? I know the documents in question were forged, but to my knowledge the underlying story was never in doubt. Bush didn't complete his service, missed the physical, etc., etc.
Sounds like we better hope that no one patents a strain of marijuana. You'd get the freaking death penalty for violating that.
9. Intel's Pentium 4 at 4 GHz
Intel was supposed to pump the Pentium 4 to 4 GHz in 2004. It fizzled at 3.8....
8. Apple Computer's G5 Chips at 3 GHz
Intel's in good company. Nobody hit the chip speeds they promised. In June 2003, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said IBM's G5 chips would be at 3 GHz within 12 months. It's been 18.
Ok, now why did they put Apple higher on the list than Intel? Intel has a far broader market reach, and Apple is dependent upon IBM for their chips. Intel is dependent on Intel. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Doesn't seem fair to Apple, does it?
Holy shit. Did I just write that? Was that me? Well folks, I think it's time to go chew on a shotgun barrel. I hereby bequeath my G5 to that stripper at Baby Doll's who really liked me. Maybe she can perform with it.
Oh man, now look at that last sentence... My sexual fantasies are involving G5s. Fuck this. Off with my head.
What *is* interesting is the so-called "world's greatest software company" has a demo crash on their most public figure, and that he resorts to anachronistic political labels for buttressing his argument.
America was founded because some wig wearing guys back a few hundred years ago didn't want to pay high taxes on a hot beverage.
The rallying cry was "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation." The notion that "taxes are theft" has been introduced by the libertarians, and wasn't something the Founders ever considered.
It's unclear if that is what you're talking about, so my apologies if that's not what you meant.
I believe in a kind and loving God. Keeping that belief is hard usualy because of the acts of man.
When I was 15, my 13 year old sister was raped and murdered, three months after she had been Baptized.
Yeah, you can say maintaining belief is a wee-bit difficult. What good is God if he stands by and watches while children get raped?
I just did the same thing. Great suggestion.
Maybe. But when speaking of revolutionary technologies they will always also be evolutionary. Nothing gets created in a vacuum. I'm not in marketing, but I nonetheless consider the iPod revolutionary for the simple fact that it opened the floodgates to a market that at that time had few players. It showed that a successful business model could be based selling limited DRM music and hardware. Others could have done it, but didn't. Apple did, hence the iPod (rightfully) gets the glory.
So let's see, your replies have been:
Straw-man: "Tree huggers fault"
A series of straw-men: "Hey, you forgot to blame 'haliburton', didn't say the term 'neocon', only implied a 'conspiracy' and left out the part how the republicans have been planning this all since the 70's, as proved by memos 'recreated' for CBS and dan rather."
Ad hominem: "You're an idiot"
Ad hominem: "You're not worth taking seriously."
Ad hominems and ego stroking: "You're an idiot, I'm doing this for fun."
And then, on your sixth reply, FINALLY something with some meat, no matter how misguided it is.
Yeah man, it takes you six messages to even come CLOSE to admitting that Bush might just be ever so partially responsible for energy policy in the US, then trot out the a bait and switch with the old It'sNotReallyBush'sFaultDon'tLookAtBushBlameCongre ss) and you're trying to convince the world you give the guy a fair shake?
Right.
Bush is in the pockets of the oil industry. I know that just chafes your ass to no end to even consider the idea, but it's a fact and I can prove it to Bush cultists like yourself on a freakin' Etch-a-Sketch, mmmk? Nuclear is neither as profitable nor as established as oil and coal, and has little friends among an administration run by Texas oilmen with close ties not only back home but with international oil interests like the Saudi royals.
Final question: Do you have gay butt sex with Sean Hannity? Cuz it seems like it's his spooge coming out of your mouth. In one end, out the other, doncha know.
Sounds like you care quiet a lot, actually.
Hmm. Even after all that you still were unable to actually answer the questions. Fascinating and tragic all at the same time. It's like you don't see it or something. Crazy.
Which was the whole point of the post. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.