you'd need to drink an awful lot of soda to experience anything.
No, you just need to drink one sip of soda to experience its sweet taste and bubbling sensation in your throat - and that's what brings people back, not some freaky "drug experience". The sense of "otherness" a drug gives does not have much in common with everyday pleasures, although both can be addictive.
Coffeine is slightly nastier than tastes and flavors, because although you hardly notice it consciously (unless you take unusual amounts), you get a subconscious positive association with it. But again, it's very different from intoxicants, which are definitively consciously noticeable.
Dyslectics were allowed to use computers when I was in school. Apparently, the idea was that focusing on spelling correctly, writing readably and thinking about what too write became too heavy a load for them when they had such problems with the first one
I knew at least one dyslectic who had gorgeous handwriting, so not sure if it always makes sense. He was Waldorf-educated, though. (I was, too, technically. My handwriting was OK, but steadily deteriorated due to having to write four pages every single day.)
There was a guy who tried to patent a method for lifting sunken ships, by pumping down thousands of little plastic balls filled with air. It was approved in many countries, but rejected in the Netherlands, because the technique had been used in a Donald Duck story by Carl Barks 15 years earlier.
All patent legislation demands that the idea be "novel". In principle, you could point to fiction as evidence that an idea isn't novel - but it's in states interests to approve as many patents as possible, so I doubt it would happen today.
The Greeks did not have computers, an internet, nor collaborative Web 2.0 technologies and concepts.
No, but between themselves, they had what is the fruit of that technology - namely really good communication opportunities with your neighbors.
Your calls for consensus are not sensible. Supermajority/consensus-requirements give much stronger ability to block change than to enact change, and that may sound nice - but what if urgent change is needed? What if disaster is knocking on the door? Then a minority (under consensus, a single person) can hold everyone hostage, requiring endless concessions in order to be willing to not sacrifice everything. (You could see practical examples of such desperado-extortion in California back when they demanded supermajority for budgets).
Systems demanding consensus do not scale - this should be obvious. People advocating consensus between 10000+ people have no conceptions of scale.
Consider a historical example of decision making by consensus: The quakers. They are/were an extremely ideologically homogenous group. Yet they could only make consensus decision making work by having an extremely large excommunication rate.
To the degree that Wikipedia entertains the farce that they operate by consensus, they also have a very high "excommunication rate".
In both these communities (Wikipedia, and historical Quakers) there is strong pressure towards ideological conformity, on account of such expulsion practices. If you disagree with the "consensus", you are extremely careful about saying it, if you say it at all. Is this desirable?
The only experience the Founders had in this regard was history, the disastrous self-destructive "direct democracy" you mention earlier as having been invented two fucking thousand years ago. Maybe you skimmed that section of history -- the original Greek Democracy experiment was considered a catastrophe because the mob ran away with the government.
Calling it "experience" is going a bit far, since they were relying on two-thousand year old stories, as recounted by the winners. (Plato and Aristotle hated democracy - their texts have survived, but very little from the democrats. What there is, is worth reading.)
Even then, Greek democracy was not totally considered a disaster. It was also considered a golden age of culture and enlightenment, the place where all the ideas that were resurrected in the renaissance were first born. Even the ideologues they cherished, such as Plato and Aristotle, could hardly have done what they did without the possibilities democracy opened up.
Our old leaders were just very reluctant to connect that success with democracy, since they were themselves men of unusual power and money - oligarchs. And, would they like to think, unusual wisdom, and unusual suitability to rule others (to their own best interest).
The anti-democratic prejudice in the constitution (which came from elitist ideology, not experience), was gradually weakened through US history - especially it took a fatal blow in the civil war. It would probably be better to keep going than to try to take history back 150 years.
One of the practical things of indirect democracy, from the ruling class' point of view, is that when the system misbehaves, we tend to blame moral failure of individuals instead of the system itself. Whereas if a direct democracy misbehaves, we have no choice but to blame the system (unless we adopt the classical anti-egalitarian view that the lower classes are morally base, and nobles are actually noble - but surely no one wants that today).
So, when George W. Bush starts a war against Iraq that the people oppose, We blame it on the moral defects of Geoge W. Bush, not the presidental/parliamental system. Next time we will elect a guy without such moral defects! Like that Obama fellow!
When Socrates drinks hemlock, we blame the direct democracy system.
(By the way, people don't know half about Socrates' trial. For legal reasons, the charges were vague, but "corrupting the youth" and "impiety" was really about how he was the teacher and guru for Critias, the atheistic tyrant who overthrew Athenian democracy with Spartan help and murdered thousands in his reign of terror. It's more like putting Marx on trial for the crimes of Lenin and Stalin, than randomly executing an innocent.)
The problem here is the middleman: Device manufacturers. They would tear android apart in order to carve a niche for themselves, in addition to making it very hard for users to have control over their own phones. Android is a commons, and although it is software, it has things that can be wrecked by reckless exploitation (such as a reputation).
It is in general a problem that the device manufacturers are totally, 100% willing to destroy the commons (the Android ecosystem and its reputation) for an advantage to themselves. Google only has two tools to restrain them, so it has to use them all for what it's worth:
1. Delaying release of source code, giving the most compliant early access. 2. Making demands in order to allow pre-installation of Google's apps (GMail, Maps, etc.)
It is absolutely legal to install those app packages, yes. I'm surprised you're suggesting a (now) huge open source project like Cyanogen should just not care about compliance.(
Way back, they did distribute the apps included in the system, and Google told them to not do that. So they asked if distributing them separately was OK, and Google said yes.
Well, at least they admit it now, they didn't always. Stuff like "scientists have discovered the formula for the perfect ice cream" as the ice cream season starts in spring used to get published, without a word of who had paid these third-rate academics to come up with it.
By now, people should realize that when Daily Mail writes "boffins discover..." it's a press release disguised as science.
I'm not going to risk losing my GMail account in this name by trying to go to G+.
You've bought the FUD. If you get caught with a fake name on G+, your G+-account is suspended, and that's that.
There are cases where Google will actually kick you out of all their services and possibly delete your stuff. That is when it looks like you are engaging in seriously illegal stuff that could land Google in trouble (the well-publicized case about the person it happened to, in many channels left out the fact that he was an artist who was deliberately testing the limits against what could be considered child pornography or not).
"Chitika Insights", have you heard of them before? I haven't. There is a big part of the tech media industry which delivers reports useful to the company PR department that currently pays them. Odds of Chitika Insights being this kind of company are better than even in my book.
You have to do some pretty serious stuff to actually get blocked from all Google services. The guy who started that brouhaha was an artist who was deliberately testing the boundaries about what could be considered child pornography or not.
Getting blocked from Google+, however, is a lot easier.
> Sure Apple took an unprofitable niche market and turned it into the hottest property in tech today
So what if they did? Just because your marketing (let's face it: that's an essential and the decisive factor) opened up a new market niche, doesn't mean you're entitled to keep that market niche for yourself. Rounded corners or not. Apple fanboys seem to think that because Apple "was there first" and opened up that market niche, they're morally entitled to keep it forever.
Look up Google Native Client. They tried a variant of C in sandbox as well.
What I hope is that Dart has a Hindley-Miller type system, and some sort of ridiculous type magic guaranteeing safety. Oh, and is simple, neat, and damn efficient.
Contrails can become clouds in a clear sky, if the atmospheric conditions are right. I suppose you could see this as a kind of accidental geoengineering, since there's some evidence the increased cloud cover reduces surface temperatures.
Nobody is even allowed to offer a calm, opposing opinion supported by evidence.
Never mind that they're at 5 insightful? and you're at 4 insightful as I write this? Despite denouncing climate science as dogma and calling mainstream climate scientists "hockey stick fiddlers"? Go on playing the victim card.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you just need to drink one sip of soda to experience its sweet taste and bubbling sensation in your throat - and that's what brings people back, not some freaky "drug experience". The sense of "otherness" a drug gives does not have much in common with everyday pleasures, although both can be addictive.
Coffeine is slightly nastier than tastes and flavors, because although you hardly notice it consciously (unless you take unusual amounts), you get a subconscious positive association with it. But again, it's very different from intoxicants, which are definitively consciously noticeable.
Maybe he would them to bits with his katana.
The enemy in question is probably the bees. All it takes is for ONE to squeeze out, and bother the driver enough that he steers off the road.
Dyslectics were allowed to use computers when I was in school. Apparently, the idea was that focusing on spelling correctly, writing readably and thinking about what too write became too heavy a load for them when they had such problems with the first one
I knew at least one dyslectic who had gorgeous handwriting, so not sure if it always makes sense. He was Waldorf-educated, though. (I was, too, technically. My handwriting was OK, but steadily deteriorated due to having to write four pages every single day.)
It may be.
There was a guy who tried to patent a method for lifting sunken ships, by pumping down thousands of little plastic balls filled with air. It was approved in many countries, but rejected in the Netherlands, because the technique had been used in a Donald Duck story by Carl Barks 15 years earlier.
All patent legislation demands that the idea be "novel". In principle, you could point to fiction as evidence that an idea isn't novel - but it's in states interests to approve as many patents as possible, so I doubt it would happen today.
No, but between themselves, they had what is the fruit of that technology - namely really good communication opportunities with your neighbors.
Your calls for consensus are not sensible. Supermajority/consensus-requirements give much stronger ability to block change than to enact change, and that may sound nice - but what if urgent change is needed? What if disaster is knocking on the door? Then a minority (under consensus, a single person) can hold everyone hostage, requiring endless concessions in order to be willing to not sacrifice everything. (You could see practical examples of such desperado-extortion in California back when they demanded supermajority for budgets).
Systems demanding consensus do not scale - this should be obvious. People advocating consensus between 10000+ people have no conceptions of scale.
Consider a historical example of decision making by consensus: The quakers. They are/were an extremely ideologically homogenous group. Yet they could only make consensus decision making work by having an extremely large excommunication rate.
To the degree that Wikipedia entertains the farce that they operate by consensus, they also have a very high "excommunication rate".
In both these communities (Wikipedia, and historical Quakers) there is strong pressure towards ideological conformity, on account of such expulsion practices. If you disagree with the "consensus", you are extremely careful about saying it, if you say it at all. Is this desirable?
Calling it "experience" is going a bit far, since they were relying on two-thousand year old stories, as recounted by the winners. (Plato and Aristotle hated democracy - their texts have survived, but very little from the democrats. What there is, is worth reading.)
Even then, Greek democracy was not totally considered a disaster. It was also considered a golden age of culture and enlightenment, the place where all the ideas that were resurrected in the renaissance were first born. Even the ideologues they cherished, such as Plato and Aristotle, could hardly have done what they did without the possibilities democracy opened up.
Our old leaders were just very reluctant to connect that success with democracy, since they were themselves men of unusual power and money - oligarchs. And, would they like to think, unusual wisdom, and unusual suitability to rule others (to their own best interest).
The anti-democratic prejudice in the constitution (which came from elitist ideology, not experience), was gradually weakened through US history - especially it took a fatal blow in the civil war. It would probably be better to keep going than to try to take history back 150 years.
One of the practical things of indirect democracy, from the ruling class' point of view, is that when the system misbehaves, we tend to blame moral failure of individuals instead of the system itself. Whereas if a direct democracy misbehaves, we have no choice but to blame the system (unless we adopt the classical anti-egalitarian view that the lower classes are morally base, and nobles are actually noble - but surely no one wants that today).
So, when George W. Bush starts a war against Iraq that the people oppose, We blame it on the moral defects of Geoge W. Bush, not the presidental/parliamental system. Next time we will elect a guy without such moral defects! Like that Obama fellow!
When Socrates drinks hemlock, we blame the direct democracy system.
(By the way, people don't know half about Socrates' trial. For legal reasons, the charges were vague, but "corrupting the youth" and "impiety" was really about how he was the teacher and guru for Critias, the atheistic tyrant who overthrew Athenian democracy with Spartan help and murdered thousands in his reign of terror. It's more like putting Marx on trial for the crimes of Lenin and Stalin, than randomly executing an innocent.)
The problem here is the middleman: Device manufacturers. They would tear android apart in order to carve a niche for themselves, in addition to making it very hard for users to have control over their own phones. Android is a commons, and although it is software, it has things that can be wrecked by reckless exploitation (such as a reputation).
It is in general a problem that the device manufacturers are totally, 100% willing to destroy the commons (the Android ecosystem and its reputation) for an advantage to themselves. Google only has two tools to restrain them, so it has to use them all for what it's worth:
1. Delaying release of source code, giving the most compliant early access.
2. Making demands in order to allow pre-installation of Google's apps (GMail, Maps, etc.)
It is absolutely legal to install those app packages, yes. I'm surprised you're suggesting a (now) huge open source project like Cyanogen should just not care about compliance.(
Way back, they did distribute the apps included in the system, and Google told them to not do that. So they asked if distributing them separately was OK, and Google said yes.
Well, at least they admit it now, they didn't always. Stuff like "scientists have discovered the formula for the perfect ice cream" as the ice cream season starts in spring used to get published, without a word of who had paid these third-rate academics to come up with it.
By now, people should realize that when Daily Mail writes "boffins discover..." it's a press release disguised as science.
You've bought the FUD. If you get caught with a fake name on G+, your G+-account is suspended, and that's that.
There are cases where Google will actually kick you out of all their services and possibly delete your stuff. That is when it looks like you are engaging in seriously illegal stuff that could land Google in trouble (the well-publicized case about the person it happened to, in many channels left out the fact that he was an artist who was deliberately testing the limits against what could be considered child pornography or not).
"Chitika Insights", have you heard of them before? I haven't. There is a big part of the tech media industry which delivers reports useful to the company PR department that currently pays them. Odds of Chitika Insights being this kind of company are better than even in my book.
You have to do some pretty serious stuff to actually get blocked from all Google services. The guy who started that brouhaha was an artist who was deliberately testing the boundaries about what could be considered child pornography or not.
Getting blocked from Google+, however, is a lot easier.
> Sure Apple took an unprofitable niche market and turned it into the hottest property in tech today
So what if they did? Just because your marketing (let's face it: that's an essential and the decisive factor) opened up a new market niche, doesn't mean you're entitled to keep that market niche for yourself. Rounded corners or not. Apple fanboys seem to think that because Apple "was there first" and opened up that market niche, they're morally entitled to keep it forever.
Look up Google Native Client. They tried a variant of C in sandbox as well.
What I hope is that Dart has a Hindley-Miller type system, and some sort of ridiculous type magic guaranteeing safety. Oh, and is simple, neat, and damn efficient.
I'd consider a pony as well.
Power demand is not falling, increase in power demand is falling. Or is it increase in the speed of increase in power demand? Some derivative, anyway.
Is this a parody? So hard to tell...
> Since the German court has ruled twice on the side of the argument that I agree with, I really don't think I have to.
Yes, you do. You have to explain why you agree with it, not come here with some bullshit judicial positivism.
Different: Different size, different layout, different aspect ratio, different number of buttons.
Similar: Rounded rectangle. Camera.
The Register is so bad, it's hard to believe they're not part of Gawker.
Most likely you "remembered" it after reading it on Watts or something.
I suggest you read up on skepticalscience.com, which is to global warming denialists what the talk.origins FAQ is to creationists. "Scientists predicted an ice age in the 70s" is number 11 of 169 on their list.
There's really no excuse for an educated person to deny climate science any longer.
srsly? Chemtrail conspiracy theories on slashdot?
Contrails can become clouds in a clear sky, if the atmospheric conditions are right. I suppose you could see this as a kind of accidental geoengineering, since there's some evidence the increased cloud cover reduces surface temperatures.
We would have to mess up this planet amazingly bad before Mars starts looking like a good option. I hope it won't come to that.
Never mind that they're at 5 insightful? and you're at 4 insightful as I write this? Despite denouncing climate science as dogma and calling mainstream climate scientists "hockey stick fiddlers"? Go on playing the victim card.