"You gotta be kidding, a shitload of animals use and constructs tools."
The most I've heard of are various apes using rocks to crack open nuts and such. I have yet to hear of, say, any other species developing cutting tools (with the exception of neanderthals). I'm not even sure an ape can even use a cutting tool very well (lack of opposable thumbs and all).
"monkeys can be trained to use complex and abstract languages."
So apes can be taught rudimentary American Sign. They can describe their favorite kitten. Can they describe what "favorite" means? Can they describe what "language" is?
"Squids seam to use a language way more complex then ours, but we don't know about that."
Um... if "we" don't know about that, how do you know they do?
"It boiled down to the idea that the universe is soo huge that IF we're the only intelligent life in the universe"
Ah, but is intelligent life all that matters? For example, I wouldn't say we're the only intelligent life on this planet, but we're the only ones capable of abstract language (and possibly abstract thought because of it) and tool use.
If so many video games are violent and the European video game market is groing faster than in North America, that begs the question "What video games are the Europeans buying?"
It seems to me that the Europeans are eating those games up like cake. After all, you pointed out that sales in Europe started to increase about the time games started to get more violent. And on top of that, they're buying them faster than they're selling in North America (how else can they be set to become the world's largest video game market?)
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some shines to find.
Why would they crash in the city? Airports are located on the outskirts of cities because nobody wants to live next to one. The only time they crash in cities is when it's done deliberately.
Other than 9/11, when was the last time you heard of someone on the ground dying from an airplane crash?
Something about out-sourcing jobs to foreign labor has been bugging me for quite a while now, and it seems obvious enough to me that I'm wondering why nobody else is thinking along these lines.
Mattel in recent years closed down a number of US factories and moved most of its manufacturing to Asia. In laying off the US laborers, they have effectively eliminated several thousand (potential) customers. Their employees no longer have a job and can't afford to purchase Barbie's Malibu Beach House. Even if they do get new jobs elsewhere, they'll probably avoid Mattel products out of spite.
So then we go look at the new Asian labor. They're paid a small fraction of Mattel's former employees, and the price of Barbie's Malibu Beach House resembles what each one makes in a month. Suffice to say that these new laborers are a long way off from being potential Mattel customers.
So while Mattel's labor costs have gone down, they've also trimmed their potential customer base. They could try to compensate for the loss of sales by passing on their savings labor costs on to the customers, but then they'll end up with no net gain in profit. And this doesn't even begin to figure in loss of sales due to bad press from laying off so many US workers to begin with.
How does this help Mattel? Even Henry Ford knew enough to pay his laborers enough to afford their own Model Ts.
Apples and oranges. Being an American has little if anything to do with genetics. Weren't born in the US? Take the oath. Poof, you're a citizen. You can do everything that a "natural-born" citizen can do except for the lone exception of running for US president. Hell, you can even be Secretary of State (ask Madeleine Albright).
And the "born in the US" requirement means just that. No requirement that your family must have lived in the US for X number of generations (like so many other countries). Heck, it doesn't matter if your parents are illegal aliens. If you are born in the US, you're a citizen.
Should the federal government be doing these kinds of background checks on foreign nationals? No. Does doing this mean the US government is looking for the genetic purity that the Nazis were looking for? Not by a long shot.
" i work for a *major* US telecom provider, and i must say this:
DON'T PANIC."
You're tied financially to these corps. Why should I trust you?
"is that this merge will allow us to provide high-end DSL service to residences across the country for less than $10 / mo."
As in "It will cost the telecom companies less than $10/month," or "End customers will be paying less than $10/month?" These are two very different things. With less capitalistic competition in the market, the telecoms have no incentive to pass their savings on to the customers. If anything, the savings will be passed on to the investors (higher profits, higher stock dividends).
"we will be able to do this due to the fact that there will be no middle-man provider."
Which also means there's fewer areas in which to compete against you.
"The best way (only way) right now is to be an intern and watch over some guy who did that too and move up."
You must live in the wrong state. When I ran for the US House last year (decided on very short notice), Google pointed me to the Louisiana Department of State, I found out there what was needed ($600 payed to the Department of State), filled out the paperwork, mailed in the money order, and that was that. The rest was figured out from the numerous and frequent mailings I ended up getting (and still get) from the state and the Federal Election Commission.
And it's not like Louisiana is world renown for its internet presence and connectivity or anything.
"What if you're just a simple decent qualified person who wants to run for Selectman/Mayor/Rep/Senator/Governor/President? I went to the Senate's web site [senate.gov], for instance (and many others using google) trying to find out HOW TO RUN!"
Of course they won't. If you bothered to peruse the US Constitution a little, you'd realize that it is not the federal government's place to tell the states how exactly their elections should be run. Different states have different requirements (beyond the lone federal requirement of "You must be over 30") and different qualifications.
"Just yesterday I thought it would be sweet if there was a web site people could go to to see how to run for political leadership in their state."
Find your state's Department of State. That's usually the best place to start.
"States maintain a web site like I described and one that would also show WHO is running"
You have two options. One is to go to the congresscritter's website in question and look at the legislation they sponsor and/or co-sponsor, and to THOMAS to see how they voted on legislation.
The other is to go to non-partisan information sources like Project Vote Smart, who attempt to make the information more digestable.
"And each candidate would have his own web site hosted (or just linked.) FAIRNESS IN EVERY WAY!"
Fair to everybody except for the taxpayers. As a former independent candidate and as a taxpayer, I do not want tax dollars going to pay for private political campaigns. Candidates (especially for federal office) get enough free attention from the press as it is that it really isn't needed.
"Nobody votes because theres a bunch of bums we don't know anything"
Because the information isn't there to know, or because they don't bother trying to find out?
"This would be a pretty cheap way for equal spending that everybody keeps pushing for,"
First off, it would be even cheaper if the taxpayers didn't have to pay any of it.
Secondly, the problem isn't "equal spending," the problem is things like "truth in advertising" and "honesty about campaign fundraising and spending." And if you need a law to require candidates to register this information with, say, the FEC, it's already too late. If you need to twist their arms to get them to share this information, they shouldn't be in office to begin with.
Good! The way Exxon-Mobil supports public domain works on PBS (think "Exxon-Mobil's Masterpiece Theater"), I'd expect them to be able to knock some sense into the media moguls.
"Well, here's another alternative: instead of clumsily (as the attempt would no doubt be, at least at first) trying to change weather to prevent floods or hurricanes, simply stop building in the path of floods and hurricanes."
Nice idea. Except for the bit where, for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the US, you're around 400 years too late (give or take a century). And that's just North America
And why does around half the population of the US live in this area? Why do most of the planet's population live within a few hundred miles of the nearest coast? Might have something to do with the transportation and trade hubs port cities tend to be. The further away you live from the ocean, the further away you live from ready contact with the outside world (ie. civilization).
"True, this means that more land would need to be left wild."
No, it wouldn't. You're advocating moving more people into the relatively unpopulated interior of the continents. But the coastal cities aren't going anywhere because those people will still need access to the oceans. So you'll end up with less land "left wild."
How, praytell, would you get e-mail addresses or domains to put in the block list without first getting spammed by them? Consult Yahoo's new Magic 8 Ball service?
"I doubt the people who stand to profit from weather modification will willingly wait one year let alone decades."
"As usual the extent of peoples concern for the rest of mankind and the future is but a shadow of their love of money."
I like how you assume that the profit made is solely monetary, let alone that the only profiteers are faceless, souless corporations (yadda yadda yadda).
I as a member from the general public would "profit" greatly from, say, not having to worry about category 5 hurricanes bearing down on my ass and flooding me out of my home (if not outright killing me). The same goes for tornadoes, lightning storms, hailstorms, blizzards...
But if the first and only thing you're able to think about is money, you should be worrying about yourself instead of those "evil corporations" you resemble so well.
"I may sound like a horrible person here, but I really think that as soon as we start screwing around with nature, we throw the balance out the window."
I hope you're "supporting the cause" by turning down medical attention in ways that make Christian Scientists look like hypochondriacs. I'd be seriously disillusioned if you, say, had health insurance. Or that you had a medicine cabinet (complete with medicine). Heck, you're failing your ideals if you drink fluoridated water.
Which reminds me: food and water you don't hunt and gather for yourself is also "throwing the balance out the window." And all your hunting better be with nothing more advanced than a sharp stick (if not with your bare hands). Clothing and shelter are also no-no's.
Speaking of which, what are you doing on a computer? You shouldn't be literate. Even language use is questionable.
Are you familiar with Jonathan Swift's modest proposal?
"What does a teenager committing brazen theft have to do with My Rights Online?"
Because he's a Russian teenager. It's another example of Americans brazenly trying to apply US laws to Russians who happen to be in the US. Russians are supposed to get some sort of "former super power get out of jail free" card or something.
"And if it's true and he's convicted, he should go to jail like all the other white-collar criminals who do this."
Shit we should be so lucky, do you know they have conjugal visits there? Really? Yes. Shit, I'm a free man and I haven't had a conjugal visit in 6 months.
Now since CC stands for cruiser and the Enterprise has been described as a cruiser, I assumed that the CC part of NCC stood for "cruiser" (silly me).
CCN I would have understood. "Nuclear cruiser." NCC looks backwards.
Now, so far, I've gotten an aeronatuical-ish explaination that just sounds stupid when you consider how the rest of the universe uses nautical terms (the rest of the show ain't exactly Air Force friendly).
I've also gotten an equally silly explaination of "naval construction contract." NCC-1701 USS Enterprise to me looks like it should mean "some-sort-of-cruiser-variant, hull number 1701, a. k. a. 'USS Enterprise'" just as CVN-65 USS Enterprise means "nuclear aircraft carrier hull number 65, a. k. a. 'USS Enterprise.'"
If Paramount and fanboys are going to hand-wave, at least try to make it sound more believable than that!
"When I got Digital cable, I had to buy all of these Motorola cable boxes for my TVs (I only got two, so I have 2 TVs still on regular cable - I wonder how long before they think of a way to charge me for these as well)."
Solution: Buy DSS boxes instead. When you compare the prices of digital cable (even without box rental from the cable company) and digital satellite, you will see that the DSS boxes will generally pay for themselves within a year.
That, and they sell DSS boxes with integrated TiVo.
"AT&T (well, now their cable TV is owned by ComCast) craftily has put metal slots over the coaxial out"
First off, it almost sounds like you're renting them instead of purchasing the boxes. Which brings me back to my first point.
Secondly, another advantage of DSS is that your service provider doesn't manufacture/sell the boxes. DirecTV doesn't have the opportunity to screw you over like that even if they wanted to.
"So what in this agreement says the set-top producer has to have an analog out in the first place."
The agreement does not. The fact that there are several hundred million analog televisions in the US alone does. Any box manufacturer that doesn't make their hardware backward compatible is shooting themselves in the foot.
The American consumer is already cranky about having to buy new digital televisions in the first place (especially in this economy), and anything that makes them crankier will only hurt the digital television industry as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's widely known that orangutans are capable of picking hard picked locks, with selfmade picking devices, for instance."
Mechanical aptitude != abstract thought
mechanics != physicists
"Can you pick a lock?"
I can be taught how to pick a lock. Can an orangutan be taught what "teaching" is?
"If a Segway can displace cars for short-distance travel,"
$5000 can buy a lot of gas. Heck, it can even get you a new car. Which you don't need to chain to a post to keep from walking off.
"You gotta be kidding, a shitload of animals use and constructs tools."
The most I've heard of are various apes using rocks to crack open nuts and such. I have yet to hear of, say, any other species developing cutting tools (with the exception of neanderthals). I'm not even sure an ape can even use a cutting tool very well (lack of opposable thumbs and all).
"monkeys can be trained to use complex and abstract languages."
So apes can be taught rudimentary American Sign. They can describe their favorite kitten. Can they describe what "favorite" means? Can they describe what "language" is?
"Squids seam to use a language way more complex then ours, but we don't know about that."
Um... if "we" don't know about that, how do you know they do?
"It boiled down to the idea that the universe is soo huge that IF we're the only intelligent life in the universe"
Ah, but is intelligent life all that matters? For example, I wouldn't say we're the only intelligent life on this planet, but we're the only ones capable of abstract language (and possibly abstract thought because of it) and tool use.
If so many video games are violent and the European video game market is groing faster than in North America, that begs the question "What video games are the Europeans buying?"
It seems to me that the Europeans are eating those games up like cake. After all, you pointed out that sales in Europe started to increase about the time games started to get more violent. And on top of that, they're buying them faster than they're selling in North America (how else can they be set to become the world's largest video game market?)
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some shines to find.
Congratulations. You actually made me look this up. My old college grammar book says:She doesn't seem to be doing any of those. She didn't say "If he do that" or "He should do that," she said "He do that."
Though I do agree with you that she probably did that to sound royal.
"This is all great, except that during the Kosovo conflict, 10 times as many drones were lost as manned vehicles."
What does this have to do with civillian flights? How many UPS planes fly into combat zones regularly?
Why would they crash in the city? Airports are located on the outskirts of cities because nobody wants to live next to one. The only time they crash in cities is when it's done deliberately.
Other than 9/11, when was the last time you heard of someone on the ground dying from an airplane crash?
Something about out-sourcing jobs to foreign labor has been bugging me for quite a while now, and it seems obvious enough to me that I'm wondering why nobody else is thinking along these lines.
Mattel in recent years closed down a number of US factories and moved most of its manufacturing to Asia. In laying off the US laborers, they have effectively eliminated several thousand (potential) customers. Their employees no longer have a job and can't afford to purchase Barbie's Malibu Beach House. Even if they do get new jobs elsewhere, they'll probably avoid Mattel products out of spite.
So then we go look at the new Asian labor. They're paid a small fraction of Mattel's former employees, and the price of Barbie's Malibu Beach House resembles what each one makes in a month. Suffice to say that these new laborers are a long way off from being potential Mattel customers.
So while Mattel's labor costs have gone down, they've also trimmed their potential customer base. They could try to compensate for the loss of sales by passing on their savings labor costs on to the customers, but then they'll end up with no net gain in profit. And this doesn't even begin to figure in loss of sales due to bad press from laying off so many US workers to begin with.
How does this help Mattel? Even Henry Ford knew enough to pay his laborers enough to afford their own Model Ts.
Apples and oranges. Being an American has little if anything to do with genetics. Weren't born in the US? Take the oath. Poof, you're a citizen. You can do everything that a "natural-born" citizen can do except for the lone exception of running for US president. Hell, you can even be Secretary of State (ask Madeleine Albright).
And the "born in the US" requirement means just that. No requirement that your family must have lived in the US for X number of generations (like so many other countries). Heck, it doesn't matter if your parents are illegal aliens. If you are born in the US, you're a citizen.
Should the federal government be doing these kinds of background checks on foreign nationals? No. Does doing this mean the US government is looking for the genetic purity that the Nazis were looking for? Not by a long shot.
" i work for a *major* US telecom provider, and i must say this:
DON'T PANIC."
You're tied financially to these corps. Why should I trust you?
"is that this merge will allow us to provide high-end DSL service to residences across the country for less than $10 / mo."
As in "It will cost the telecom companies less than $10/month," or "End customers will be paying less than $10/month?" These are two very different things. With less capitalistic competition in the market, the telecoms have no incentive to pass their savings on to the customers. If anything, the savings will be passed on to the investors (higher profits, higher stock dividends).
"we will be able to do this due to the fact that there will be no middle-man provider."
Which also means there's fewer areas in which to compete against you.
"The best way (only way) right now is to be an intern and watch over some guy who did that too and move up."
You must live in the wrong state. When I ran for the US House last year (decided on very short notice), Google pointed me to the Louisiana Department of State, I found out there what was needed ($600 payed to the Department of State), filled out the paperwork, mailed in the money order, and that was that. The rest was figured out from the numerous and frequent mailings I ended up getting (and still get) from the state and the Federal Election Commission.
And it's not like Louisiana is world renown for its internet presence and connectivity or anything.
"What if you're just a simple decent qualified person who wants to run for Selectman/Mayor/Rep/Senator/Governor/President? I went to the Senate's web site [senate.gov], for instance (and many others using google) trying to find out HOW TO RUN!"
Of course they won't. If you bothered to peruse the US Constitution a little, you'd realize that it is not the federal government's place to tell the states how exactly their elections should be run. Different states have different requirements (beyond the lone federal requirement of "You must be over 30") and different qualifications.
"Just yesterday I thought it would be sweet if there was a web site people could go to to see how to run for political leadership in their state."
Find your state's Department of State. That's usually the best place to start.
"States maintain a web site like I described and one that would also show WHO is running"
Like this?
"and what they DO and what they have DONE"
You have two options. One is to go to the congresscritter's website in question and look at the legislation they sponsor and/or co-sponsor, and to THOMAS to see how they voted on legislation.
The other is to go to non-partisan information sources like Project Vote Smart, who attempt to make the information more digestable.
"And each candidate would have his own web site hosted (or just linked.) FAIRNESS IN EVERY WAY!"
Fair to everybody except for the taxpayers. As a former independent candidate and as a taxpayer, I do not want tax dollars going to pay for private political campaigns. Candidates (especially for federal office) get enough free attention from the press as it is that it really isn't needed.
"Nobody votes because theres a bunch of bums we don't know anything"
Because the information isn't there to know, or because they don't bother trying to find out?
"This would be a pretty cheap way for equal spending that everybody keeps pushing for,"
First off, it would be even cheaper if the taxpayers didn't have to pay any of it.
Secondly, the problem isn't "equal spending," the problem is things like "truth in advertising" and "honesty about campaign fundraising and spending." And if you need a law to require candidates to register this information with, say, the FEC, it's already too late. If you need to twist their arms to get them to share this information, they shouldn't be in office to begin with.
Good! The way Exxon-Mobil supports public domain works on PBS (think "Exxon-Mobil's Masterpiece Theater"), I'd expect them to be able to knock some sense into the media moguls.
"I can assure you that Lord Cottenham pronounces it 'Pepp-iss' and so do
his son, the Viscount Crowhurst"
If they can't hire a secretary that understands subject/verb agreement, I have doubts about their ability to pronounce their own last names.
If history awareness in 2300 is anything like it is today, the readers will probably think that the USSR and Slashdot were around at the same time.
"Well, here's another alternative: instead of clumsily (as the attempt would no doubt be, at least at first) trying to change weather to prevent floods or hurricanes, simply stop building in the path of floods and hurricanes."
Nice idea. Except for the bit where, for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the US, you're around 400 years too late (give or take a century). And that's just North America
And why does around half the population of the US live in this area? Why do most of the planet's population live within a few hundred miles of the nearest coast? Might have something to do with the transportation and trade hubs port cities tend to be. The further away you live from the ocean, the further away you live from ready contact with the outside world (ie. civilization).
"True, this means that more land would need to be left wild."
No, it wouldn't. You're advocating moving more people into the relatively unpopulated interior of the continents. But the coastal cities aren't going anywhere because those people will still need access to the oceans. So you'll end up with less land "left wild."
How, praytell, would you get e-mail addresses or domains to put in the block list without first getting spammed by them? Consult Yahoo's new Magic 8 Ball service?
"I doubt the people who stand to profit from weather modification will willingly wait one year let alone decades."
"As usual the extent of peoples concern for the rest of mankind and the future is but a shadow of their love of money."
I like how you assume that the profit made is solely monetary, let alone that the only profiteers are faceless, souless corporations (yadda yadda yadda).
I as a member from the general public would "profit" greatly from, say, not having to worry about category 5 hurricanes bearing down on my ass and flooding me out of my home (if not outright killing me). The same goes for tornadoes, lightning storms, hailstorms, blizzards...
But if the first and only thing you're able to think about is money, you should be worrying about yourself instead of those "evil corporations" you resemble so well.
"I may sound like a horrible person here, but I really think that as soon as we start screwing around with nature, we throw the balance out the window."
I hope you're "supporting the cause" by turning down medical attention in ways that make Christian Scientists look like hypochondriacs. I'd be seriously disillusioned if you, say, had health insurance. Or that you had a medicine cabinet (complete with medicine). Heck, you're failing your ideals if you drink fluoridated water.
Which reminds me: food and water you don't hunt and gather for yourself is also "throwing the balance out the window." And all your hunting better be with nothing more advanced than a sharp stick (if not with your bare hands). Clothing and shelter are also no-no's.
Speaking of which, what are you doing on a computer? You shouldn't be literate. Even language use is questionable.
Are you familiar with Jonathan Swift's modest proposal?
Troll or hypocrite?
"What does a teenager committing brazen theft have to do with My Rights Online?"
Because he's a Russian teenager. It's another example of Americans brazenly trying to apply US laws to Russians who happen to be in the US. Russians are supposed to get some sort of "former super power get out of jail free" card or something.
"And if it's true and he's convicted, he should go to jail like all the other white-collar criminals who do this."
Shit we should be so lucky, do you know they have conjugal visits there? Really? Yes. Shit, I'm a free man and I haven't had a conjugal visit in 6 months.
I'm replying to my own post because nobody around here seems to know nautical acronyms/abbreviations.
Let's start with the easy ones:
HMS - His (at the time) Majesty's Ship
RN - Royal (British) Navy
Now on to the CC that everyone seems to have missed:
CC - cruiser (like the HMS Exeter)
Other examples include:
DD - destroyer
FF - frigate
CV - carrier
BB - battleship
SS - submarine
SSB - ballistic missile submarine
SSN - nuclear sumarine
SSBN - ballistic missile nuclear submarine
CVN - nuclear carrier
BBN - Wouldn't that be nice...
Now since CC stands for cruiser and the Enterprise has been described as a cruiser, I assumed that the CC part of NCC stood for "cruiser" (silly me).
CCN I would have understood. "Nuclear cruiser." NCC looks backwards.
Now, so far, I've gotten an aeronatuical-ish explaination that just sounds stupid when you consider how the rest of the universe uses nautical terms (the rest of the show ain't exactly Air Force friendly).
I've also gotten an equally silly explaination of "naval construction contract." NCC-1701 USS Enterprise to me looks like it should mean "some-sort-of-cruiser-variant, hull number 1701, a. k. a. 'USS Enterprise'" just as CVN-65 USS Enterprise means "nuclear aircraft carrier hull number 65, a. k. a. 'USS Enterprise.'"
If Paramount and fanboys are going to hand-wave, at least try to make it sound more believable than that!
Oh, wait, this is Star Trek... my bad.
PCI? You're funny.
You should know by now that the tuners will be USB and/or 1394 only, with proprietary Windows-only drivers (complete with DRM).
That's like asking for an Ethernet DSL modem.
"When I got Digital cable, I had to buy all of these Motorola cable boxes for my TVs (I only got two, so I have 2 TVs still on regular cable - I wonder how long before they think of a way to charge me for these as well)."
Solution: Buy DSS boxes instead. When you compare the prices of digital cable (even without box rental from the cable company) and digital satellite, you will see that the DSS boxes will generally pay for themselves within a year.
That, and they sell DSS boxes with integrated TiVo.
"AT&T (well, now their cable TV is owned by ComCast) craftily has put metal slots over the coaxial out"
First off, it almost sounds like you're renting them instead of purchasing the boxes. Which brings me back to my first point.
Secondly, another advantage of DSS is that your service provider doesn't manufacture/sell the boxes. DirecTV doesn't have the opportunity to screw you over like that even if they wanted to.
"And it would cost me an extra $10/month."
*insert Nelson laugh here*
"So what in this agreement says the set-top producer has to have an analog out in the first place."
The agreement does not. The fact that there are several hundred million analog televisions in the US alone does. Any box manufacturer that doesn't make their hardware backward compatible is shooting themselves in the foot.
The American consumer is already cranky about having to buy new digital televisions in the first place (especially in this economy), and anything that makes them crankier will only hurt the digital television industry as a whole.