That's stupid. What if a kid bumps his bike into a bridge pylon by accident* and because of lack of servicing by the government this is enough to make the bridge collapse ? Is the kid('s parent) responsible for the bridge collapse ?
If you walk into a room and a house of cards collapses can you be charged for hours or days of lost labour ?
Or is this just because it's an oil company and it comes down to "blaming the unpopular" ?
* because I don't think anyone is seriously arguing these people intentionally cause quakes
Because if the electrical energy companies found a way to create large amounts of petrol at, say, 10$ per barrel, they could easily start using 100$ stacks as bricks to build the company headquarters.
Most energy companies are not exactly posting huge profits by the way. Oil companies excepted, but they've got nothing to do with the energy grid.
Yeah, problem is people don't like the answer to the budget problems. The only solution is halving social services (at least), and reducing it further as population increases. And that assessment is dated - it doesn't include the Obamacare extra expenditures.
Whereas the major competition, tokamaks and ITER, simply require you to run -263 degrees pipes at less than 70 centimeters of a 1 million degrees plus fusion reaction. Those reactors have used over 10 times the "way over the top" budget of the NIF, is no closer to fusion than they are, and has been researched double as long...
I'm not joining the bandwagon of "ITER will never work", just pointing out that it's not exactly looking like a great investement at the moment.
The renewables idea is not a very good suggestion, until the storage and transportation problems are worked out. Working fusion would provide continuous large scale power generation independant of pretty much anything. If we can ever get it to work, it would rock.
We used to have a monopoly on cell phones here in Belgium. Before the "opening of the market" they covered barely half the country, only allowed 3 cellphone models on their network and they were never caught upgrading any tower.
1) okay. You still could take large quantities of the stuff according to the EPA, an adult should be able to take ~100ml of the stuff. Whereas 1 nanogram of Claviceps_purpurea is a surefire death sentence, and that amount of course, is very easy to miss. It's also guaranteed not to be on grain, except of course, organic grain. 2) "and most grain is tested for this sort of thing" true. Guess which grain is not, in fact, tested. Granted, the situation is improving. If you go "true" organic, buying at the farm or farmer's market, of course you're buying untested grain. 3) chickens are environmental disasters, and goats are environmental catastrophies. Large animals are not bad for the environment, but require large farmlands and labor.
That this is a reporter commenting on the grammar and writing style of a scientific study ?
So yes, organic food is NOT more nutricious, that part is true.
This does not mean 1) anything about pesticides 2) scary bacteria 3) that the sky will turn green tomorrow
And the journalist claims that not explicitly mentioning this is causing mass confusion. Okay. However the writing style of the article kind of indicates that the journalist really really really wants the opposite to be true.
But I would argue that the journalist is being very disingenious himself since it's also proven that 1) the current pesticides mainly work against the nervous system of insects. We have a totally different neural architecture (all animals do) and can take huge doses of pesticides without any effect (which is of course the whole point of them). I hear the taste is horrible but you won't die from drinking a bottle of roundup. 2) organic foods are much more dangerous to your health when it comes to bacterial or fungal contamination. Yes, organic foods are "usually" more healthy, but one infection with e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claviceps_purpurea will kill you. Despite the fact that it is not technically antibiotics resistant, how that helps you when you're very unlikely to make it to the hospital alive is a bit of an open question. Organic foods are much more likely to be contaminated, and frankly if you have to ask why, I have to question your intelligence. 3) organic foods are not just more expensive, they're more expensive to make. They're more energy intensive (so they're bad for climate change), they're more land-intensive (meaning kids in africa starve because of them), they're more labour intensive (actually this is probably good given the economic climate), and they require more large farm animals (which are very very bad for the climate)
Besides it doesn't matter. Economics (and anti-climate laws) are forcing agriculture to use massively less energy. Unless exceptions are made for "organic" agriculture it will be gone in a matter of years. It will mean less people starve, of course.
Copyright has *nothing* to do with making copies. Copy all you want ! Make 3d scans !
You just can't distribute it without a licence.
So make whatever 3d model you want. Just don't distribute it. Distribution is any act that gives access to a product to a different legal entity (so, theoretically, you can send a copied DVD to your spouse, and your company can have DVD lending and book sharing, or xbox game sharing, even with making copies of the originals).
(this is not legal advice, contact a legal professional before engaging in behavior you're not certain about...)
Isn't this how most business people think? IME, I've never in my life encountered a group of people who are so prejudiced toward those that actually do the work.
I wonder about that. Whilst I can certainly feel what you mean, working in IT myself. I can see that the "producing people" are not the way forward for society. Whilst there are exceptions, if it were up to most producing people their company would advance to the point where they have their hands ~90% full and then they'd make it a crime punishable by death to change anything at all.
I've had a little, but only a little, experience on the other side of the fence, and there is much not to like about these "producing people", if you are dependant on their products. They are not proactive. They are concerned with their own pet peeves, and will gladly run the project into the ground to get their 5th "redesign, this time it'll be right" done. You can explain the real function of the software to them ad nauseum, but they will be concerned with getting the logic "closed" (as in there is no way at all to get the software to do something unexpected). They will optimize queries that are run yearly on a table with 1000 records down to the assembly executed...
And of course, the more recent one : they will test the software. Now this sounds great, doesn't it ? Except it takes them at least twice as long to write the tests as the functionality. And they will write the tests while watching the coverage tools' output, writing tests to the specific implementation of their routines, which results in a million tiny little tests and no real system test... and the result is that despite spending double the time testing the software it completely crashes the first day of production, and turns out to be intricately and invasively optimized... for the wrong thing.
The producing people... well they do the work that needs to be done. The business people in small firms... make the work possible in the first place.
Business people do not give programmers the information they feel they need (but partially this is the programmer's fault for not simply collecting that information themselves). Programmers, aside from not giving anything remotely near the feedback business people require, let their own academic pet peeves override judgement. And I don't just mean programming language selection.
Maybe it's just that I've always been a "producing person" but it seems to me that's the easier job by far.
Why don't we go back to the "origin" ? Oh cool, then we can see how all political persuasions are really from the same origins, Obama and Stalin,... do you wish to argue that thing coming from the same origins are the same ?
It matters what the different rules *are*, and how they have been historically applied. Needless to say, Judaism, Christianity and islam are *VERY* different in that regard. Surely this cannot be a controversial statement.
What I don't get is why we're having this argument at all. Why doesn't "all religions are the same" doesn't get thrown out as the blatantly ridiculous load of crap that it is ? Religions are much more different than political parties, yet nobody's making the point that the greens and the communists are doing the exact same thing. That would be moronic. Well claiming religions are identical is equally moronic.
The film was calculated in such a way that if it's shown to enough Muslims eventually someone would be affected by it in that way. It's not merely like making a violent movie in the USA, it's more about making films to see just what it would take to get people to go violent. Films can make some people violent, as can scripture, or anything else, and when you have a billion people and millions see something then of course a few hundred out of millions could take it the wrong way.
True, but because of that reason it is also desensitization training for 1 billion people. And frankly, it's heavily needed and it's working. The more this is done, and the more it is repeated, the less issues we'll have with this.
Remember that one of the people who nearly got killed by this mob was guilty of the "offence" of not wanting to help kill others for this movie. It's not like you can avoid shit like this.
Obviously that depends on what those rules actually say.
Which brings us back to the point. Religions are different. One of them is extremely disturbing and violent and frankly, we should do something about it, now rather than later.
Then what's holding you back ? It's not like the right is somehow preventing you from migrating to a communist country (only communist countries see the need to prevent their citizens leaving), or even joining a communist community right in the US.
Why don't you ?
Here's my theory. Because you (and 99% of "leftists" on slashdot) : 1) will defend whatever seems more popular, not their own opinion, which is pretty leftists at the moment. 2) live according to what is in reality somewhere between right and extreme-right behavior, which is of course what you really believe in. If you are to be judged by actions, not words.
Understanding this distinction is key to this whole situation (the Muslim rioters don't get it, either), and the Preacher's post merits many Insightful/Informative mods.
Huh ? They get it perfectly well. The whole rioting thing... is a threat. It's the "don't laugh with me or I'll beat you up" from kindergarten, except with moronic adults and killing.
And I forgot about a pet peeve of mine. Keep in mind that for anything remotely interesting, the cost in stores should be using the exchange rate 1 EUR = 1 USD, for example for an iPad or a tablet or a computer. So everything remote computer or telco related is another 30% more expensive than in the US.
It's getting close to the point that if you want to buy a decent laptop, you may as well travel into the US to buy it, as the price difference will pay for the flight, and you get to go sightseeing in the process.
Just so you know you hit 42% + 5.5% of taxes at ~50k USD in Germany. And VAT is 19%. So really tax rate for 2* the minimum wage is ~60% in terms of what you can actually spend on goods versus what ends up in the government hands.
And that's only if you don't own a house or a car or..., because then you'll be paying more.
And it's not like higher paying jobs are easier in Germany. In fact, they're far easier to get in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
That's stupid. What if a kid bumps his bike into a bridge pylon by accident* and because of lack of servicing by the government this is enough to make the bridge collapse ? Is the kid('s parent) responsible for the bridge collapse ?
If you walk into a room and a house of cards collapses can you be charged for hours or days of lost labour ?
Or is this just because it's an oil company and it comes down to "blaming the unpopular" ?
* because I don't think anyone is seriously arguing these people intentionally cause quakes
Because if the electrical energy companies found a way to create large amounts of petrol at, say, 10$ per barrel, they could easily start using 100$ stacks as bricks to build the company headquarters.
Most energy companies are not exactly posting huge profits by the way. Oil companies excepted, but they've got nothing to do with the energy grid.
Yeah, problem is people don't like the answer to the budget problems. The only solution is halving social services (at least), and reducing it further as population increases. And that assessment is dated - it doesn't include the Obamacare extra expenditures.
For obvious reasons, this is really unpopular.
Whereas the major competition, tokamaks and ITER, simply require you to run -263 degrees pipes at less than 70 centimeters of a 1 million degrees plus fusion reaction. Those reactors have used over 10 times the "way over the top" budget of the NIF, is no closer to fusion than they are, and has been researched double as long ...
I'm not joining the bandwagon of "ITER will never work", just pointing out that it's not exactly looking like a great investement at the moment.
The renewables idea is not a very good suggestion, until the storage and transportation problems are worked out. Working fusion would provide continuous large scale power generation independant of pretty much anything. If we can ever get it to work, it would rock.
We used to have a monopoly on cell phones here in Belgium. Before the "opening of the market" they covered barely half the country, only allowed 3 cellphone models on their network and they were never caught upgrading any tower.
I guess this is a case of "pick your poison".
It's awesome that the US even has unlimited data plans to lose. Aside from Sweden, I know of no place in Europe that has them.
1) okay. You still could take large quantities of the stuff according to the EPA, an adult should be able to take ~100ml of the stuff. Whereas 1 nanogram of Claviceps_purpurea is a surefire death sentence, and that amount of course, is very easy to miss. It's also guaranteed not to be on grain, except of course, organic grain.
2) "and most grain is tested for this sort of thing" true. Guess which grain is not, in fact, tested. Granted, the situation is improving. If you go "true" organic, buying at the farm or farmer's market, of course you're buying untested grain.
3) chickens are environmental disasters, and goats are environmental catastrophies. Large animals are not bad for the environment, but require large farmlands and labor.
That this is a reporter commenting on the grammar and writing style of a scientific study ?
So yes, organic food is NOT more nutricious, that part is true.
This does not mean
1) anything about pesticides
2) scary bacteria
3) that the sky will turn green tomorrow
And the journalist claims that not explicitly mentioning this is causing mass confusion. Okay. However the writing style of the article kind of indicates that the journalist really really really wants the opposite to be true.
But I would argue that the journalist is being very disingenious himself since it's also proven that
1) the current pesticides mainly work against the nervous system of insects. We have a totally different neural architecture (all animals do) and can take huge doses of pesticides without any effect (which is of course the whole point of them). I hear the taste is horrible but you won't die from drinking a bottle of roundup.
2) organic foods are much more dangerous to your health when it comes to bacterial or fungal contamination. Yes, organic foods are "usually" more healthy, but one infection with e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claviceps_purpurea will kill you. Despite the fact that it is not technically antibiotics resistant, how that helps you when you're very unlikely to make it to the hospital alive is a bit of an open question. Organic foods are much more likely to be contaminated, and frankly if you have to ask why, I have to question your intelligence.
3) organic foods are not just more expensive, they're more expensive to make. They're more energy intensive (so they're bad for climate change), they're more land-intensive (meaning kids in africa starve because of them), they're more labour intensive (actually this is probably good given the economic climate), and they require more large farm animals (which are very very bad for the climate)
Besides it doesn't matter. Economics (and anti-climate laws) are forcing agriculture to use massively less energy. Unless exceptions are made for "organic" agriculture it will be gone in a matter of years. It will mean less people starve, of course.
Copyright has *nothing* to do with making copies. Copy all you want ! Make 3d scans !
You just can't distribute it without a licence.
So make whatever 3d model you want. Just don't distribute it. Distribution is any act that gives access to a product to a different legal entity (so, theoretically, you can send a copied DVD to your spouse, and your company can have DVD lending and book sharing, or xbox game sharing, even with making copies of the originals).
(this is not legal advice, contact a legal professional before engaging in behavior you're not certain about ...)
You are mistaken : at slashdot facts don't get used to deny democratic moronic ideas. Only republican ones.
You seriously haven't noticed this before ?
Isn't this how most business people think? IME, I've never in my life encountered a group of people who are so prejudiced toward those that actually do the work.
I wonder about that. Whilst I can certainly feel what you mean, working in IT myself. I can see that the "producing people" are not the way forward for society. Whilst there are exceptions, if it were up to most producing people their company would advance to the point where they have their hands ~90% full and then they'd make it a crime punishable by death to change anything at all.
I've had a little, but only a little, experience on the other side of the fence, and there is much not to like about these "producing people", if you are dependant on their products. They are not proactive. They are concerned with their own pet peeves, and will gladly run the project into the ground to get their 5th "redesign, this time it'll be right" done. You can explain the real function of the software to them ad nauseum, but they will be concerned with getting the logic "closed" (as in there is no way at all to get the software to do something unexpected). They will optimize queries that are run yearly on a table with 1000 records down to the assembly executed ...
And of course, the more recent one : they will test the software. Now this sounds great, doesn't it ? Except it takes them at least twice as long to write the tests as the functionality. And they will write the tests while watching the coverage tools' output, writing tests to the specific implementation of their routines, which results in a million tiny little tests and no real system test ... and the result is that despite spending double the time testing the software it completely crashes the first day of production, and turns out to be intricately and invasively optimized ... for the wrong thing.
The producing people ... well they do the work that needs to be done. ... make the work possible in the first place.
The business people in small firms
Business people do not give programmers the information they feel they need (but partially this is the programmer's fault for not simply collecting that information themselves). Programmers, aside from not giving anything remotely near the feedback business people require, let their own academic pet peeves override judgement. And I don't just mean programming language selection.
Maybe it's just that I've always been a "producing person" but it seems to me that's the easier job by far.
Why don't we go back to the "origin" ? Oh cool, then we can see how all political persuasions are really from the same origins, Obama and Stalin, ... do you wish to argue that thing coming from the same origins are the same ?
It matters what the different rules *are*, and how they have been historically applied. Needless to say, Judaism, Christianity and islam are *VERY* different in that regard. Surely this cannot be a controversial statement.
What I don't get is why we're having this argument at all. Why doesn't "all religions are the same" doesn't get thrown out as the blatantly ridiculous load of crap that it is ? Religions are much more different than political parties, yet nobody's making the point that the greens and the communists are doing the exact same thing. That would be moronic. Well claiming religions are identical is equally moronic.
The film was calculated in such a way that if it's shown to enough Muslims eventually someone would be affected by it in that way. It's not merely like making a violent movie in the USA, it's more about making films to see just what it would take to get people to go violent. Films can make some people violent, as can scripture, or anything else, and when you have a billion people and millions see something then of course a few hundred out of millions could take it the wrong way.
True, but because of that reason it is also desensitization training for 1 billion people. And frankly, it's heavily needed and it's working. The more this is done, and the more it is repeated, the less issues we'll have with this.
Remember that one of the people who nearly got killed by this mob was guilty of the "offence" of not wanting to help kill others for this movie. It's not like you can avoid shit like this.
Obviously that depends on what those rules actually say.
Which brings us back to the point. Religions are different. One of them is extremely disturbing and violent and frankly, we should do something about it, now rather than later.
Then what's holding you back ? It's not like the right is somehow preventing you from migrating to a communist country (only communist countries see the need to prevent their citizens leaving), or even joining a communist community right in the US.
Why don't you ?
Here's my theory. Because you (and 99% of "leftists" on slashdot) :
1) will defend whatever seems more popular, not their own opinion, which is pretty leftists at the moment.
2) live according to what is in reality somewhere between right and extreme-right behavior, which is of course what you really believe in. If you are to be judged by actions, not words.
Well, in one scene of the film, The Prophet is given a Tabasco enema by "The Satanic Nurses", and he does squeal:
"Oooh! You make me feel so Macho!"
Heh that made me laugh. Maybe I should look at the movie.
Understanding this distinction is key to this whole situation (the Muslim rioters don't get it, either), and the Preacher's post merits many Insightful/Informative mods.
Huh ? They get it perfectly well. The whole rioting thing ... is a threat. It's the "don't laugh with me or I'll beat you up" from kindergarten, except with moronic adults and killing.
Why "religion" ? You make it sound like all religions have their followers pull this crap, when in reality ... it's only one of them.
I thought the whole point of tolerance was to not blame groups for what their subgroups did.
It had a really lousy opening weekend.
Really ? Attendance was really good worldwide and I heard it set entire crowds on fire ...
+1
You mean 1 person ?
Apple US store iPad US$399
Apple DE store iPad EU399
399 USD = 325 EUR
And I forgot about a pet peeve of mine. Keep in mind that for anything remotely interesting, the cost in stores should be using the exchange rate 1 EUR = 1 USD, for example for an iPad or a tablet or a computer. So everything remote computer or telco related is another 30% more expensive than in the US.
It's getting close to the point that if you want to buy a decent laptop, you may as well travel into the US to buy it, as the price difference will pay for the flight, and you get to go sightseeing in the process.
Just so you know you hit 42% + 5.5% of taxes at ~50k USD in Germany. And VAT is 19%. So really tax rate for 2* the minimum wage is ~60% in terms of what you can actually spend on goods versus what ends up in the government hands.
And that's only if you don't own a house or a car or ..., because then you'll be paying more.
And it's not like higher paying jobs are easier in Germany. In fact, they're far easier to get in the US.
Heh I just checked my thermometer. It only goes down to +5 degrees. Never seen it anywhere near that either.