If you can afford some things that are worth stealing (big TV, laptop, etc), you can probably afford at least some of the above.
Neither televisions or laptops are particularly expensive, so I'm not entirely certain it is possible to justify that people who own such "luxury" items would also be able to afford measures necessary to protect their investments.
Most people gamble on it being cheaper to bet against not being robbed though.
Granted.
And as the neighborhood is described as "affluent", I think that the people in this case could probably afford some decent security.
Yes, this is true. My examples were generic and not directly aimed at this neighborhood, though. So please keep in mind the context of my statements, too. Thanks.:)
Or perhaps we could develop a social contract that balances things private and public so that I don't have to hide my stuff in a bunker in order to insure you don't feel you have a right to put pictures of it on the internet in a massive geo-tagged database you make available for your private commercial gain.
This is a good illustration of why defining anything "in view" as public is a dangerous slope (thanks, vux). It's not much of a stretch, then, to suggest that because a burglar was able to spot something valuable in your house (like a television) by glancing through the window, it's really your fault he stole it. After all, it was in "public view," right?
I realize that many Slashdotters don't see this as a problem--it's Google, after all, and they don't do evil--but remember, our rights are being stripped away bit by bit as they have for decades. Eventually, private property will effectively only be that which is confined to the inner workings of your skull, and I'm sure it won't be long until that is defiled!
Let's look at it another way: Imagine the support we'd be hearing for the villagers if this had been a "Microsoft StreetView" project.;)
3. if these residents secured their properties properly, they wouldn't have been broken into.
I think you're being a little unfair here. I've known a few people who have taken very careful measures to ensure their house was safe against burglars but still wound up having it broken into. Keep in mind, too, that not everyone can afford alarms, bars on every window, and so forth.
The problem with burglary is the burglar. This argument is the same ridiculous one used in sexual assault cases where the defense suggests that the woman was "asking for it." I won't let that fly.
It's possible that part of this may be related to the same phenomenon responsible for the old adage: The best place to hide something is in plain sight. Except that I would imagine it could be rephrased to suggest that plain sight simply renders a possible exploit so obvious that "surely no one would be this stupid..."
I think the point the OP was making was in relation to laptops where, to improve battery performance, the idea is to collate all writes to disk so it's only necessary to spin up the drive once every half hour or so. While battery-backed cache is a good thing, it's out of scope from the original point made.
Yes, I know--if the battery suddenly comes loose or the OS crashes, that's a fair bit of data lost. However, some people actually like squeezing out as much battery time as they can at the cost of potential data loss. Granted, most of the solutions I've seen have been intended instead to allow the laptop to sit with its disk in a powered-down state while syslog is still happily generating events without any clue that no data is actually being written (yet). Beyond that, I've never seen a situation where someone is actually doing real work where the disks are powered down, so I'd imagine the original poster had the syslog issue in mind when he wrote.:)
It may be arguing semantics here, but I felt it was necessary to point this out since you may not have been aware of the power-down issue, syslog, and laptop use case scenarios where writing--but not really writing--is happening in memory with period commits to flush the cache. Personally? I just leave the damn thing on.;)
Those benchmarks are pretty interesting, but it seems to me that an overwhelming majority of those posted later in the article are CPU-bound operations rather than disk-bound (or GPU, as may have been the case with UT2004).
To be fair both to ext4 and the other file systems, I can't really see the benchmarks you linked to as being representative of real world operations. I'd be hesitant to make my judgments of the merits of a given FS based upon that alone; after all, I personally don't create 4GiB+ files regularly (perhaps someone who does video editing might). I think it would be far more useful to test a file system's capability for reading, writing, creating, and deleting hundreds of smaller files (e-mail and web service load profile) or perhaps the average time taken to load a specific application or series of applications (great for most general usage, such as word processors and the likes). Perhaps I just overlooked that in the article...
I do seem to remember a benchmark some time back that tested things similar to what I mentioned regarding small files between ext4 and reiserfs. It would be wonderful if someone benchmarked both of those file systems in addition to ext3, XFS, and others. Perhaps I'm stricken with excessive skepticism, but the benchmark linked by the OP smells too artificial for my taste.;)
Actually, one of the tags currently on the story as of this writing, "dualactionscience" is both brilliant and humorous at the same time--and unlikely to offend anyone. I think it's appropriate. In fact, I'm still laughing about it nearly ten minutes later! Bravo to the individual who thought that one up.
Art is eternal, but the means for Artists to make money is evaporating.
I don't advocate piracy (it's far too easy to simply buy whatever you want and download it these days, be it from Amazon, iTunes, or Netflix). I do think your argument is absurd.
The reason an artists' means to make money are "evaporating" might have something to do with the fact that the large media conglomerates tend to be money-hungry sponges. Let's look at the music industry: Got any idea how much money an artist makes from a single CD sale versus how much the record label makes? It's a real eye opener. Guess who's screwing the artists more (hint: it's not the file sharers).
So why take away from the industry that helps artists make money?
I don't really see the major record labels helping artists all that much. Most of the ones I listen to are published through independent, small labels that provide artists with fairer contracts. If anything, the major labels are antithetic to helping artists.
Let's try another question. Where do a majority of bands make their money? It's not from CD sales, it's from concerts.
You raise interesting and thoughtful questions. However, judging by this and other posts of yours, I do think you've been drinking too much of the Koolaid the media has been handing out to the public at large since the days of Napster. (Another bit of trivia: Record industry profits were highest when Napster was at its peak. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. There's a reason they're floundering right now, and it's not from piracy.)
And you in the US - don't think you're far behind. Your bunch of idiots wait to see what oppressive regime the bunch of idiots in Europe can impose on their populace before imposing it on you...
Oh, there's no doubt about this. I mentioned in a previous post that we in the US appear to be using things like this as a test case (without actually committing to it) to determine if the concept would fly. There are a few members of Congress who have openly expressed their sentiments as pro-filtration.
Unfortunately, I think they'll point to ongoing piracy as the illegal activity which requires immediate censorship. It seems much easier to sell the stories of whiny, multi-billion dollar corporations losing money to the likes of cheap college students than to complain about smut. Oh, and the children. You can never feel too sorry for the children.
The disgusting part about this is that that government has essentially said "We feel you're to incompetent to know what's good for you."
It does remind me of a quote attributed to Ronald Reagan, though: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
What is sad about this, sadder than even Australia coming within an inch of this level of censorship, is that a government could let itself get so out of control.
What's frightening about this, though, is that other Western governments are probably using this as a test case to determine the efficacy of such censorship (and whether public opinion will effectively bend over and take it).
Make no mistake about it, there are forces in the US and UK alike that would very much appreciate this level of censorship, perhaps even under the guise of limiting/preventing piracy.
Can you really make someone not talk about your product on a blog? Simply using the word netbook on your blog can get you in trouble?
Some moderators must really be in a foul mood today--it seems nearly everything's being labeled as "Offtopic." I think your question is valid since most people who skimmed the posting might be compelled to wonder the same thing (and this is Slashdot, after all, so no one's going to bother reading the article, right?).
What I'm curious about is why Psion waited so long to start sending out notices. I always thought that if a company felt it had reasonable grounds for defensibility with regards to a trademark, they wouldn't sit on their hands for months at a time. It's almost as if they were waiting to see how well netbooks performed in the market before deciding it was time to vie for a cut of the profits (probably via lawsuits). It's a conspiratorial notion, sure, but in this day and ages where patent trolling firms sit on mountains of paperwork vaguely describing some generic mechanism without any capacity for manufacturing the product on their own, sue others who "infringe," and then make their profits from settlements or royalties... it's not too far fetched!
This is how everything is sold, though: for what the market will bear.
This is true, but what Microsoft is doing is attempting to artificially segment the market into more price points than it can reasonably bear. I hope their analysts have a good reason for this, particularly when most consumer purchases are down. If Vista is any indication what might happen, the average consumer will purchase whatever happens to be on their system for the cheapest price (usually some variation of "Home"), businesses will most likely purchase Business, and gamers or enthusiasts will most likely purchase Ultimate.
I really don't see what was so awful about having as many as three segments: Home, Professional, and Server. I think this is why there are quite a few people upset with Microsoft offering six different flavors. It has nothing to do with a reasonable segmentation of the market; instead, it looks to be a decision solely based on greed.
In this argument, Linux enters as an apples-to-oranges debate, because most distros can be obtained for free. Unlike Windows.
So that's how L. Ron came up with his writings.....;)
You may be on to something. However, we should keep it hushed. I wouldn't want Tom Cruise to come beating down my door (assuming he could reach that high) because I partook in uncovering his--hold on, I think I hear something...
I'm sorry but I can't let this slide. Iran's history of sabre-rattling?
Of course you can't let it slide, because I'm certain you believe everything they do is exclusively for peaceful purposes. Just like other launches they've done.
It seems like every few weeks either the US and/or Israel keep making threats against Iran ("no option is off the table").
I don't recall mentioning Israel in my post. Odd.
It would be fantastic if my point would have been taken at face value. Iran's President has been making a variety of strong statements for quite some time now, and I'm not going to enumerate through a healthy list when Google can provide more than enough articles to illustrate my point. The simple truth to the matter is that Iran's strong words and sabre-rattling imply that we need to take the purposes of this launch with a healthy dose of skepticism. Is that too much to ask?
As for Iran's belligirent attitude towards the US, that is amply explained by the US' sorry history of intervention in that country (overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh and installing the tyrant Shah). If that happened to your country, you might feel just slightly miffed towards the country that caused that to happen.
I wasn't debating what bearing the US' history has had on Iran's statements as of late. I'm simply pointing out that their statements are indicative of ulterior motives with regards to demonstrations like this launch.
Please stop basing your world views on the propaganda spread by the US and all those other 'responsible members of the international community', your only fooling yourself. We are being lied to and told half-truths by our prime minister here in the Netherlands, who still refuses to acknowledge Iraq was invaded based on false intelligence, and is still desperately trying to prevent the truth being uncovered. And we like to view our country as one of the most democratic and free in this world.
Please stop bogarting that pipe;)
I disagree. He should keep it. After a few more puffs, we'll get to hear a lengthy dissertation on how citizens of the planet Zork conspired with Bush to beam people off the aircraft flown into the WTC so they could go about doing their probe thing. I'd imagine they felt it was safer this way, considering how many abductees are on to them.;)
And to that lets also add that Osama bin Laden was on CIA payroll
Citation?
I'm sure you could find a citation on any number of conspiratorial sites that also claim four planes were remotely piloted, some into tall buildings, on a particular day in September. In fact, different flavors might even include something about aliens and the resurrection of Hitler!:)
Sarcasm aside (and my horrible sense of humor!), it's unfortunate that misnomers like this are believed so widely by generally well educated people. I do think, however, that strawmen like "OBL was on the CIA payroll, it's true!" are often used as a means of shifting blame upon the US for essentially creating the problem it now has to deal with. Never mind that such a belief is an awfully narrow-minded view of history. It's almost as if everyone has suddenly forgotten there was such a thing as the Cold War...
As you pointed out in your previous post, we clearly had other thing to worry about, and the terrorists we're fighting now aren't quite the same thing. But, a citation would at least be humorous. At the very least, it would be entertaining to read over the latest nutjob theories.
No they did not fix the votes - the USA swamped us with advertising until we elected the Adenauer into office.
I certainly won't argue that this is something the US should have avoided. However, I don't think anything malicious was intended by using advertisements to essentially "force" a candidate on a nation. Swamping an electorate with endless streams of advertisements is "business as usual" during an election cycle here--it's even expected! There's an old saying here: "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
I personally feel that political advertisements should be banned or limited. They largely scaremonger, lie, and spread misinformation. It's pathetic that our political culture is being used as best practice elsewhere.
Just wait until the automated nightly calls start. The incessant, automated nightly calls...
Do we really have to turn this into a discussion of nuclear weapons?
Yes, because it's applicable technology (as you later admit).
Can't we just accept this at face value -- a very difficult technical achievement made all the more impressive for occurring in a country that's under international sanctions designed to prevent, among other things, advancements in the field of rocketry?
Given Iran's recent history of sabre-rattling, I don't see why we can't be skeptical.
A satellite called Hope. This isn't a message to the world screaming, "Fear Us!". This is a message to the world asking, "Respect Us."
I don't really see what the name of the satellite has to do with the fact that Iran has proven it is fast approaching the capability to launch payloads. Whether those payloads will be for peaceful or wartime purposes remains to be seen. However, given President Ahmadinejad's statements over the last couple of years, I think it's important to take this demonstration and its purpose with a healthy dose of suspicion.
All of them? We don't do military conquest anymore, only economic ones.
Insightful? Don't be petty, and I think it's grossly unfair to characterize the economic clime as a form of "conquest."
Unless you happen to be fond of outlandish conspiracy theories, the economic problems we're facing are fully attributable to greed, and it's not just the fault of the US. Generally speaking, if businesses and consumers realized that they should live within their means rather than stretching credit so thin that it breaks, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I'm sure you have your reasons to claim this is an economic conquest, and I'd love to hear them. Judging by your one-liner, I suspect you were instead fishing for mod points.
Why this post got rated troll, I'll never know (aside from the pacifists on Slashdot--but that's another story).
The US (and to a lesser degree the UK) is largely frowned upon as having an imperialist agenda. Yet, whenever something bad happens somewhere overseas, the first thing the UN generally does when it needs muscle backing its policy is come begging for US-backed peacekeeping forces. Like it or not, that's part of why our defense spending needs to be so high: no one else wants to do the dirty work save for the US and UK.
Though, it's really a difference of opinion. Most Slashdotters see no reason in having a show of force used as a preventative measure. While there are arguments in favor of that, I wish most people would realize that not everyone is going to agree on the same thing. And for that matter, -1, Troll doesn't mean -1, I Disagree. I guess someone must've urinated in a mod's Cheerios this morning.
We need to use non carbon emitting sources such as nuclear power, solar and wind power.
None of these are 0 carbon if you look at the full life cycle: building, transporting the materials (and fuel and waste), storing the waste and then decommissioning.
While you are correct, I think this is being petty. The poster you quoted is correct; none of those sources actually emit CO2 directly. Oddly, it's a good illustration of the point the OP was making. There is no middle ground precisely because everyone is too busy correcting each other, citing different sources, making different claims, and not putting all that much effort into developing a solution. Frankly, it bothers me a whole lot less that the infrastructure to support the cleaner energy production types generates CO2 because the net gain is lower.
Personally, I wouldn't have any heartburn about a zero emission molten salt plant out here in the desert. For one, it would help the local economy (that's a plus), and two, it's a whole lot cleaner. Sure, the process of building the plant itself would generate a modest amount of pollution, but to argue that the facility does not qualify as zero emission because of the CO2 generated to build it is just petty.
Petty Much?
on
Using Drupal
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I respect anyone who capitalizes on the ignorance of others when the ignorance involves someone doing something on the web while at the same time being unable to use a search engine.
I can't shake the feeling this is something of a troll, but I'll bite. There are two reasons that I will purchase a tangible copy (physical--as someone else mentioned, dead tree):
1) I like to have a physical copy of a text. Sure, digital prints are easier to search and just as easy to browse, but there are times when I'd like to have something to read through no matter where I am, particularly if I don't happen to have a laptop with me. (Increasingly rare, but likely. Doctor's offices come to mind; there's no way I'm reading the cruft they have stacked atop a bare table in the waiting room.) 2) It's a great way to show your support for the authors' work and to help offset the publication costs. I've done that with the Baen Library before. I'll read some of their texts online, and if I like it, I'll go to the bookstore to purchase a couple of copies for myself and friends. If the author is especially interesting, I'll even buy a few of his or her works while I'm there if I haven't read them.
The desire to have a tangible asset isn't the result of ignorance or stupidity (though, I'd argue it's pretty stupid to waste your own paper printing out the entire thing when there's a perfectly good bound copy you can buy), and I think it's petty to attribute it to that.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither televisions or laptops are particularly expensive, so I'm not entirely certain it is possible to justify that people who own such "luxury" items would also be able to afford measures necessary to protect their investments.
Granted.
Yes, this is true. My examples were generic and not directly aimed at this neighborhood, though. So please keep in mind the context of my statements, too. Thanks. :)
They don't?
I seem to remember UNIX being prominently displayed on Apple's OS X page when OS X was first announced, and it's still there!
This is a good illustration of why defining anything "in view" as public is a dangerous slope (thanks, vux). It's not much of a stretch, then, to suggest that because a burglar was able to spot something valuable in your house (like a television) by glancing through the window, it's really your fault he stole it. After all, it was in "public view," right?
I realize that many Slashdotters don't see this as a problem--it's Google, after all, and they don't do evil--but remember, our rights are being stripped away bit by bit as they have for decades. Eventually, private property will effectively only be that which is confined to the inner workings of your skull, and I'm sure it won't be long until that is defiled!
Let's look at it another way: Imagine the support we'd be hearing for the villagers if this had been a "Microsoft StreetView" project. ;)
I think you're being a little unfair here. I've known a few people who have taken very careful measures to ensure their house was safe against burglars but still wound up having it broken into. Keep in mind, too, that not everyone can afford alarms, bars on every window, and so forth.
The problem with burglary is the burglar. This argument is the same ridiculous one used in sexual assault cases where the defense suggests that the woman was "asking for it." I won't let that fly.
It's possible that part of this may be related to the same phenomenon responsible for the old adage: The best place to hide something is in plain sight. Except that I would imagine it could be rephrased to suggest that plain sight simply renders a possible exploit so obvious that "surely no one would be this stupid..."
I think the point the OP was making was in relation to laptops where, to improve battery performance, the idea is to collate all writes to disk so it's only necessary to spin up the drive once every half hour or so. While battery-backed cache is a good thing, it's out of scope from the original point made.
Yes, I know--if the battery suddenly comes loose or the OS crashes, that's a fair bit of data lost. However, some people actually like squeezing out as much battery time as they can at the cost of potential data loss. Granted, most of the solutions I've seen have been intended instead to allow the laptop to sit with its disk in a powered-down state while syslog is still happily generating events without any clue that no data is actually being written (yet). Beyond that, I've never seen a situation where someone is actually doing real work where the disks are powered down, so I'd imagine the original poster had the syslog issue in mind when he wrote. :)
It may be arguing semantics here, but I felt it was necessary to point this out since you may not have been aware of the power-down issue, syslog, and laptop use case scenarios where writing--but not really writing--is happening in memory with period commits to flush the cache. Personally? I just leave the damn thing on. ;)
Those benchmarks are pretty interesting, but it seems to me that an overwhelming majority of those posted later in the article are CPU-bound operations rather than disk-bound (or GPU, as may have been the case with UT2004).
To be fair both to ext4 and the other file systems, I can't really see the benchmarks you linked to as being representative of real world operations. I'd be hesitant to make my judgments of the merits of a given FS based upon that alone; after all, I personally don't create 4GiB+ files regularly (perhaps someone who does video editing might). I think it would be far more useful to test a file system's capability for reading, writing, creating, and deleting hundreds of smaller files (e-mail and web service load profile) or perhaps the average time taken to load a specific application or series of applications (great for most general usage, such as word processors and the likes). Perhaps I just overlooked that in the article...
I do seem to remember a benchmark some time back that tested things similar to what I mentioned regarding small files between ext4 and reiserfs. It would be wonderful if someone benchmarked both of those file systems in addition to ext3, XFS, and others. Perhaps I'm stricken with excessive skepticism, but the benchmark linked by the OP smells too artificial for my taste. ;)
Actually, one of the tags currently on the story as of this writing, "dualactionscience" is both brilliant and humorous at the same time--and unlikely to offend anyone. I think it's appropriate. In fact, I'm still laughing about it nearly ten minutes later! Bravo to the individual who thought that one up.
I don't advocate piracy (it's far too easy to simply buy whatever you want and download it these days, be it from Amazon, iTunes, or Netflix). I do think your argument is absurd.
The reason an artists' means to make money are "evaporating" might have something to do with the fact that the large media conglomerates tend to be money-hungry sponges. Let's look at the music industry: Got any idea how much money an artist makes from a single CD sale versus how much the record label makes? It's a real eye opener. Guess who's screwing the artists more (hint: it's not the file sharers).
I don't really see the major record labels helping artists all that much. Most of the ones I listen to are published through independent, small labels that provide artists with fairer contracts. If anything, the major labels are antithetic to helping artists.
Let's try another question. Where do a majority of bands make their money? It's not from CD sales, it's from concerts.
You raise interesting and thoughtful questions. However, judging by this and other posts of yours, I do think you've been drinking too much of the Koolaid the media has been handing out to the public at large since the days of Napster. (Another bit of trivia: Record industry profits were highest when Napster was at its peak. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. There's a reason they're floundering right now, and it's not from piracy.)
Oh, there's no doubt about this. I mentioned in a previous post that we in the US appear to be using things like this as a test case (without actually committing to it) to determine if the concept would fly. There are a few members of Congress who have openly expressed their sentiments as pro-filtration.
Unfortunately, I think they'll point to ongoing piracy as the illegal activity which requires immediate censorship. It seems much easier to sell the stories of whiny, multi-billion dollar corporations losing money to the likes of cheap college students than to complain about smut. Oh, and the children. You can never feel too sorry for the children.
The disgusting part about this is that that government has essentially said "We feel you're to incompetent to know what's good for you."
It does remind me of a quote attributed to Ronald Reagan, though: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
What's frightening about this, though, is that other Western governments are probably using this as a test case to determine the efficacy of such censorship (and whether public opinion will effectively bend over and take it).
Make no mistake about it, there are forces in the US and UK alike that would very much appreciate this level of censorship, perhaps even under the guise of limiting/preventing piracy.
It's too late. The causality was a casualty.
Easy. White noise is at least soothing and tolerable. :)
Some moderators must really be in a foul mood today--it seems nearly everything's being labeled as "Offtopic." I think your question is valid since most people who skimmed the posting might be compelled to wonder the same thing (and this is Slashdot, after all, so no one's going to bother reading the article, right?).
What I'm curious about is why Psion waited so long to start sending out notices. I always thought that if a company felt it had reasonable grounds for defensibility with regards to a trademark, they wouldn't sit on their hands for months at a time. It's almost as if they were waiting to see how well netbooks performed in the market before deciding it was time to vie for a cut of the profits (probably via lawsuits). It's a conspiratorial notion, sure, but in this day and ages where patent trolling firms sit on mountains of paperwork vaguely describing some generic mechanism without any capacity for manufacturing the product on their own, sue others who "infringe," and then make their profits from settlements or royalties... it's not too far fetched!
This is true, but what Microsoft is doing is attempting to artificially segment the market into more price points than it can reasonably bear. I hope their analysts have a good reason for this, particularly when most consumer purchases are down. If Vista is any indication what might happen, the average consumer will purchase whatever happens to be on their system for the cheapest price (usually some variation of "Home"), businesses will most likely purchase Business, and gamers or enthusiasts will most likely purchase Ultimate.
I really don't see what was so awful about having as many as three segments: Home, Professional, and Server. I think this is why there are quite a few people upset with Microsoft offering six different flavors. It has nothing to do with a reasonable segmentation of the market; instead, it looks to be a decision solely based on greed.
In this argument, Linux enters as an apples-to-oranges debate, because most distros can be obtained for free. Unlike Windows.
You may be on to something. However, we should keep it hushed. I wouldn't want Tom Cruise to come beating down my door (assuming he could reach that high) because I partook in uncovering his--hold on, I think I hear something...
Of course you can't let it slide, because I'm certain you believe everything they do is exclusively for peaceful purposes. Just like other launches they've done.
I don't recall mentioning Israel in my post. Odd.
It would be fantastic if my point would have been taken at face value. Iran's President has been making a variety of strong statements for quite some time now, and I'm not going to enumerate through a healthy list when Google can provide more than enough articles to illustrate my point. The simple truth to the matter is that Iran's strong words and sabre-rattling imply that we need to take the purposes of this launch with a healthy dose of skepticism. Is that too much to ask?
I wasn't debating what bearing the US' history has had on Iran's statements as of late. I'm simply pointing out that their statements are indicative of ulterior motives with regards to demonstrations like this launch.
I disagree. He should keep it. After a few more puffs, we'll get to hear a lengthy dissertation on how citizens of the planet Zork conspired with Bush to beam people off the aircraft flown into the WTC so they could go about doing their probe thing. I'd imagine they felt it was safer this way, considering how many abductees are on to them. ;)
I'm sure you could find a citation on any number of conspiratorial sites that also claim four planes were remotely piloted, some into tall buildings, on a particular day in September. In fact, different flavors might even include something about aliens and the resurrection of Hitler! :)
Sarcasm aside (and my horrible sense of humor!), it's unfortunate that misnomers like this are believed so widely by generally well educated people. I do think, however, that strawmen like "OBL was on the CIA payroll, it's true!" are often used as a means of shifting blame upon the US for essentially creating the problem it now has to deal with. Never mind that such a belief is an awfully narrow-minded view of history. It's almost as if everyone has suddenly forgotten there was such a thing as the Cold War...
As you pointed out in your previous post, we clearly had other thing to worry about, and the terrorists we're fighting now aren't quite the same thing. But, a citation would at least be humorous. At the very least, it would be entertaining to read over the latest nutjob theories.
I certainly won't argue that this is something the US should have avoided. However, I don't think anything malicious was intended by using advertisements to essentially "force" a candidate on a nation. Swamping an electorate with endless streams of advertisements is "business as usual" during an election cycle here--it's even expected! There's an old saying here: "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
I personally feel that political advertisements should be banned or limited. They largely scaremonger, lie, and spread misinformation. It's pathetic that our political culture is being used as best practice elsewhere.
Just wait until the automated nightly calls start. The incessant, automated nightly calls...
Yes, because it's applicable technology (as you later admit).
Given Iran's recent history of sabre-rattling, I don't see why we can't be skeptical.
I don't really see what the name of the satellite has to do with the fact that Iran has proven it is fast approaching the capability to launch payloads. Whether those payloads will be for peaceful or wartime purposes remains to be seen. However, given President Ahmadinejad's statements over the last couple of years, I think it's important to take this demonstration and its purpose with a healthy dose of suspicion.
Insightful? Don't be petty, and I think it's grossly unfair to characterize the economic clime as a form of "conquest."
Unless you happen to be fond of outlandish conspiracy theories, the economic problems we're facing are fully attributable to greed, and it's not just the fault of the US. Generally speaking, if businesses and consumers realized that they should live within their means rather than stretching credit so thin that it breaks, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I'm sure you have your reasons to claim this is an economic conquest, and I'd love to hear them. Judging by your one-liner, I suspect you were instead fishing for mod points.
Why this post got rated troll, I'll never know (aside from the pacifists on Slashdot--but that's another story).
The US (and to a lesser degree the UK) is largely frowned upon as having an imperialist agenda. Yet, whenever something bad happens somewhere overseas, the first thing the UN generally does when it needs muscle backing its policy is come begging for US-backed peacekeeping forces. Like it or not, that's part of why our defense spending needs to be so high: no one else wants to do the dirty work save for the US and UK.
Though, it's really a difference of opinion. Most Slashdotters see no reason in having a show of force used as a preventative measure. While there are arguments in favor of that, I wish most people would realize that not everyone is going to agree on the same thing. And for that matter, -1, Troll doesn't mean -1, I Disagree. I guess someone must've urinated in a mod's Cheerios this morning.
While you are correct, I think this is being petty. The poster you quoted is correct; none of those sources actually emit CO2 directly. Oddly, it's a good illustration of the point the OP was making. There is no middle ground precisely because everyone is too busy correcting each other, citing different sources, making different claims, and not putting all that much effort into developing a solution. Frankly, it bothers me a whole lot less that the infrastructure to support the cleaner energy production types generates CO2 because the net gain is lower.
Personally, I wouldn't have any heartburn about a zero emission molten salt plant out here in the desert. For one, it would help the local economy (that's a plus), and two, it's a whole lot cleaner. Sure, the process of building the plant itself would generate a modest amount of pollution, but to argue that the facility does not qualify as zero emission because of the CO2 generated to build it is just petty.
I can't shake the feeling this is something of a troll, but I'll bite. There are two reasons that I will purchase a tangible copy (physical--as someone else mentioned, dead tree):
1) I like to have a physical copy of a text. Sure, digital prints are easier to search and just as easy to browse, but there are times when I'd like to have something to read through no matter where I am, particularly if I don't happen to have a laptop with me. (Increasingly rare, but likely. Doctor's offices come to mind; there's no way I'm reading the cruft they have stacked atop a bare table in the waiting room.)
2) It's a great way to show your support for the authors' work and to help offset the publication costs. I've done that with the Baen Library before. I'll read some of their texts online, and if I like it, I'll go to the bookstore to purchase a couple of copies for myself and friends. If the author is especially interesting, I'll even buy a few of his or her works while I'm there if I haven't read them.
The desire to have a tangible asset isn't the result of ignorance or stupidity (though, I'd argue it's pretty stupid to waste your own paper printing out the entire thing when there's a perfectly good bound copy you can buy), and I think it's petty to attribute it to that.