They ARE giving you the information and letting you decide -- just like Fox News.
FACT: Microsoft is doing terriffic work cleaning up poorly maintained and clearly biased Wikipedia entries, and they've even provided a boost to tech-sector employment by hiring several full-time workers to do the work. Without their contributions, Wikipedia could devolve into groupthink and/or factfinding. Three cheers for Microsoft!
I'm not sure what you mean by "badass." My GMail address fares no better than my Hotmail address. If anything, my GMail address (which I have given only to a few friends and potential employers) gets slightly more spam in the Inbox (although less overall). Maybe GMail is just a bigger target because of how highly it (initially) touted its spam-fighting capabilities, but I haven't noticed a significant improvement.
I will say that GMail is less likely to mark a valid e-mail as spam though, from what I've noticed. Not that I've had anything other than a registration confirmation or password reminder marked as spam in Hotmail, and I never provide my GMail address for those, so it's not really a valid comparison.
Don't recall off-hand, but Yoplait, etc. are predominantly milk and milk solids
What do you think "real" yogurt is made out of?
with a healthy (pun intended) dose of various gums and emulsifiers added to give it the texture of real yoghurt.
"Real" yogurt -- as you describe it, sans additives -- has a low consistancy and tends to seperate quickly, hence the process of homoginzation and the addition of gums. These things were specifically added to combat the problem of consistency and texture, not to "emulate natural yogurt."
There are no emulsifiers that I know of in yogurt, since the ingredients blend readily. "Emulsifier" is a scary word, but it's just something that allows two otherwise immiscible substances (like oil and water) to be more easily blended. They're typically natural substances, such as mustard, egg yolk, and other protiens. In other words, nothing to get one's panties in a bunch over.
what's the difference between real cheese, and the waxy pasteurised stuff sold as cheese in the typical supermarket? Easy -- one is cheese; the other is something else.
Processed American cheese must contain at least 90 percent real cheese. Products labeled "cheese food" must be 51 percent cheese, and most are 65 percent.
Anyone that has even once tasted either will agree this.
Fortunate then, that opinions are not evidence.
To answer the GP's question, the difference between Yoplait and Activa is mostly the name and some of the flavorings. They both have live bacterial cultures, else they wouldn't ferment to begin with.
Let me be the first to predict that stealing the earth's warmth will cause global cooling and an imminent ice age. Or else, releasing all the stored heat will contribute to global warming.
Either way, the earth's core will probably stop spinning and we'll have to find a way to restart it.
Backed vs. fiat currency is all just semantics. In either case, the government controls the supply. If a "backed" currency economy collapsed, do you really think the government would let you trade in your currency for whatever it's backed against? Of course not.
Things are, and have always been, worth what someone is willing to pay for them, and that includes currency. It is impossible to tie currency to an actual standard, because no single thing has the same worth to every person, including gold. Since gold would be nearly worthless in an economic collapse ("You want some water? I need some food, and that shiny metal doesn't look very nutritional!), it's pretty pointless to use it to back your currency. And since everything is in fluctuation in both supply and demand, there's really nothing suitable.
Currency represents an idea; a measure of something intangible, presumably work done. If people suddenly decide that a currency worthless (or worth less, or worth more), then it is. If the government floods the market with more currency, then it will result in inflation, fiat or not.
Taking pictures of your kid (or any other, for that matter) sans clothing is perfectly legal, in the US at least. The only time it becomes illegal is if there are prurient interests or intents.
My kids think it's hilarious to run around the house with their clothes off, and I'll be damned if I don't have the event properly documented to show the family and, especially, their first girlfriends.
I won't say it's wrong for the security guard to ask some questions if he sees something suspicious, but in all reality, someone with malicious intent will just lie, and preventing a photo at a pool won't prevent a telescopic lense, or a hidden camera, etc., so it's fairly pointless, while at the same time making the innocent grandparents feel guilty. Some degree of suspicion is healthy, but when a society succombs to paranoia, it tends to be detrimental in the long run. I'm a firm believer that it's better for a society to tolerate a certain degree of lawlessness that comes with freedom, than to investigate every occurance that's "out of the ordinary." That is, it must accept that some things are out of its control, and some of those things may be lawless. It may be prudent to err on the side of caution, but too far on the "cautious" side is just as dangerous for a society as too far on the reckless. In all things, moderation.
Those are commonly called life partners, a subset of SOs. Obviously I wasn't referring to them specifically, and just making a joke in general, so piss off.
Scientists have previously suggested that a mere pencil-thick strand of silk could actually stop a Boeing 747 in mid flight.
What does that even mean? I'm pretty sure that even if the strand didn't break, the plane would slice clean through or rip apart rather than stopping. I think -- and I could be way off here -- that simply providing the lifting strength of the strand would be more useful, either in tons, in common cargo, or in comparison to another well-known line material, such as steel cable. "A 1/4" thick strand of silk could lift 100,000 tons -- as much as 4 2"-thick braided steel crane cables," would be a much better comparison.
(Note that I pulled those numbers out of my silk-spinner.. I have no idea what the actual figures are since, as we established, I am unfamiliar with the units of force of "747s in mid-flight.")
On a side note, how many bugs are going to get stuck in this stuff, and what happens if it gets in your hair?
This gives consumers enough advanced notice to decide about entering into a new plan now, or just extending their old plan until the iPhone is available.
That depends.. how many people (at this point) enter into new contracts by convenience rather than necessity? Probably only first-time buyers. The only time I buy a new phone is when my old one gets broken/lost/stolen, at which point I don't have the luxury of waiting 6 months -- I need a new one, and I need it NOW.
And how many people stick with their old phones long enough for their contract to exipre? And are those sort of people likely to be interested in something brand new when they've been satisfied with their existing phone for so long? I'm sure there are some, but I'd wager that the majority of interested buyers are existing customers (of someone) who will either a) break contract, or b) will wait until their current contract expires to switch. Group A definately needs no advanced notice, and group B is probably insignificant, since people frugal enough to wait out their contracts are unlikely to spend $600 on a phone. Additionally, most providers will let you out of a contract without penalty if you do enough b*tching, so no advanced notice of the iPhone doesn't really seem that beneficial.
Hopefully you meant "spouse." If any other sort of "significant other" is trying to control your finances, that's a good hint to start looking for a new one!
Drivers, DON'T WORRY! If an unauthorized steering wheel is detected, ONLY THE STEERING will be affected, and ONLY FOR THE ROAD YOU ARE ON. The brakes, accelerator, and "oh shit" handles will still function 100%.
As far as I'm concerned though, just because it's possible to abuse something, doesn't mean it's going to be abused. I think a comment I made to friend was "You can't stop giving gardeners a spade just because they might beat someone to death with it".
You're wrong there, unfortunately. Very wrong. Someone will eventually abuse that shovel, because tools are power and power corrupts. Shovels, however, are not absolute power, and they're not distributed in such a way where one group of people has significant leverage over another. Gardeners, for example, are unlikely to be successful in taking over their neighborhood with their tools, even if they tried.
Not everyone will have access to cameras, though, so cameras fundamentally shift the balance of power further away from the citizenry and toward the government. The incumbent government, whose only real motivation is to maintain and expand its power and control. Gardeners may be a step closer to absolute power with their gardening tools, but they're nowhere near as close as the incumbent government. So the question remains: Do we want our government to move closer to absolute power by widening the gap between the power of the citizenry and the power of its leaders? Do we want our government to continue to increase and expand its knowledge of us, while closing off more of itself every day?
Will cameras help deter and solve crime? Of course they will. But is that worth the risks? Is crime really spiraling out of control?
For the sake of argument, let's say the cameras are overwhelmingly effective, and crime drops to minimal levels. What then? Surely we would leave the system in place, since it's obviously been an effective deterrent. But what do the operators do? Who do they watch when there are no more criminals? What happens then?
Of course, they're likely to only have a moderate impact, at best, which makes the question of benefit vs. cost all the more important. And by cost, I don't mean simply dollars, although that's certianly significant, but the cost of giving up a little more power, a little more freedom, and a little more control over our goverment "of, for, and by the people."
I don't think there is a fundamental issue with the concept that there is no such thing as "privacy" in a "public" place
One other thing.. I have no expectation of privacy in a public place -- nor does anyone else. But while there is not explicit privacy in public, there is, at least, relative anonymity coupled with the social prohibition against endlessly staring at people, an action which would legally constitute harassment. Nobody really pays attention to anyone else in public unless they're making a spectacle of themselves, so while there's no guarantee of privacy, there's at least a meager amount provided. Cameras remove even the possibility of privacy.
Imagine a bunch of beaurocrats sitting around in a park, say, and intently watching each person and taking notes on all of their actions, activities, and their habits. That is effectively what's happening with omnipresent cameras, with the added bonus that they can see you, but you can't see them.
I am a logical citizen, and I don't think there is a fundamental issue with the concept that there is no such thing as "privacy" in a "public" place - such as a street corner.
My house is on the street corner. Now I have a camera potentially watching everything I do, 24/7.
"Oh look, Mr. Pad left the blinds up tonight! It looks like he and Mrs. Pad are about to ARRHHOMG, MY EYES! It's like the surface of the sun, but bigger! Harry, you gotta cut out the portion of my brain that just stored that memory. Come on, pal."
But seriously, if you don't think it's an issue, put a user-controlled camera outside your house. Nothing to worry about unless you've got something to hide, right? I honestly wouldn't give 2 sh*ts if someone watches *me* -- their loss (of time, innocence, and sanity) -- but I can imagine more than a few people would be uncomfortable with that sort of thing. In fact, I think lowering someone else's level of comfort just to raise your own is utter BS, especially when the proponents of cameras will never feel completely safe (since there's no such thing), but meanwhile the people who live around the cameras will feel just a little more vulnerable. Great tradeoff.
The FULL quote to which you replied was: But since this is a luxury good, it should be fine for them to price however they like.
You say: I won't say that music and movies are luxuries...listening to music and watching a movie is a real need
In the immortal words of some guy, "That's the craziest shit I ever heard!"
Personally, I rarely listen to music, which is at least one example of music being unnecessary, but nonetheless: recorded media is a luxury. Hell, even turning on the radio or TV is a luxury, but guess what? Almost anyone can do it, which means that you don't need to own a recording to experience entertainment in the manner you describe. Recorded media is a luxury, even if you can somehow, in your warped sense of privileged reality, honestly believe that the content is a necessity.
But, for the sake of argument, if the poorest of the poor couldn't find a discarded TV and/or radio, they could still sing songs and tell stories. I mean really, what do you think homeless people do? Whip out their video iPod to while away the long, boring days?
The only thing more unbelievable than your obtuse comment is that someone modded you up.
And the subsonic rounds are not useless for sniper operations. If I remember correctly, when USSR was in Afganistan, the insurgents used.22LR rifles with silencers in close range.
Yeah, I was referring to long range. If you're at close range, it's debatable whether it could really be called sniping anyway..22LRs are easily suppressed since the report is very quiet to begin with, even with supersonic cartridges. In fact, they're the one of the few rounds that can actually be "silenced," although again, usually only with subsonic ammunition.
almost anyone with some skills can construct a silencer.
Just a note, in the US, from my understanding, a Federal Firearms License (FFL) is required to purchase, own, or construct a suppressor. Even if your intentions are completely benign, as most people's are, it's not worth the risk of getting caught. I believe the FFL application fee is ~$200US.
...the machine utilizes robotic hearing technology...to sense a shot fired and pinpoint its source.
The problem is that it's simple to pinpoint a source out in the open, but it's much more difficult to determine the source in an urban environment with all of the occlusions and echoes caused by buildings, vehicles, etc. I'm sure this thing works great in the lab, but I doubt it would fare as well in real urban combat.
Not really.. The real problem is that it's much more effective to use subsonic ammunition with a suppressor, otherwise there's that whole "sonic boom" thing to contend with. Subsonic ammunition doesn't have a very flat trajectory, and is more susceptible to wind (simply because it spends more time in the air over a given distance) which makes it almost useless for sniping.
Slashdot Mirror
One can dream that they'll come to there senses. There is nothing more annoying than petty restrictions
They're is one thing, but there not going to tell you what it is until their ready.
They ARE giving you the information and letting you decide -- just like Fox News.
FACT: Microsoft is doing terriffic work cleaning up poorly maintained and clearly biased Wikipedia entries, and they've even provided a boost to tech-sector employment by hiring several full-time workers to do the work. Without their contributions, Wikipedia could devolve into groupthink and/or factfinding. Three cheers for Microsoft!
I'll take the Ferrari minus the notebook please. Did I mention that I could be Jim Wales?
I'm not sure what you mean by "badass." My GMail address fares no better than my Hotmail address. If anything, my GMail address (which I have given only to a few friends and potential employers) gets slightly more spam in the Inbox (although less overall). Maybe GMail is just a bigger target because of how highly it (initially) touted its spam-fighting capabilities, but I haven't noticed a significant improvement.
I will say that GMail is less likely to mark a valid e-mail as spam though, from what I've noticed. Not that I've had anything other than a registration confirmation or password reminder marked as spam in Hotmail, and I never provide my GMail address for those, so it's not really a valid comparison.
Don't recall off-hand, but Yoplait, etc. are predominantly milk and milk solids
What do you think "real" yogurt is made out of?
with a healthy (pun intended) dose of various gums and emulsifiers added to give it the texture of real yoghurt.
"Real" yogurt -- as you describe it, sans additives -- has a low consistancy and tends to seperate quickly, hence the process of homoginzation and the addition of gums. These things were specifically added to combat the problem of consistency and texture, not to "emulate natural yogurt."
There are no emulsifiers that I know of in yogurt, since the ingredients blend readily. "Emulsifier" is a scary word, but it's just something that allows two otherwise immiscible substances (like oil and water) to be more easily blended. They're typically natural substances, such as mustard, egg yolk, and other protiens. In other words, nothing to get one's panties in a bunch over.
what's the difference between real cheese, and the waxy pasteurised stuff sold as cheese in the typical supermarket? Easy -- one is cheese; the other is something else.
Processed American cheese must contain at least 90 percent real cheese. Products labeled "cheese food" must be 51 percent cheese, and most are 65 percent.
Anyone that has even once tasted either will agree this.
Fortunate then, that opinions are not evidence.
To answer the GP's question, the difference between Yoplait and Activa is mostly the name and some of the flavorings. They both have live bacterial cultures, else they wouldn't ferment to begin with.
Let me be the first to predict that stealing the earth's warmth will cause global cooling and an imminent ice age. Or else, releasing all the stored heat will contribute to global warming.
Either way, the earth's core will probably stop spinning and we'll have to find a way to restart it.
Everything lags once it's hit by MC Hawking radiation.
And SBOs are also the biggest source of tax fraud. I'd find my references, but I gotta run and Google is always available.
Backed vs. fiat currency is all just semantics. In either case, the government controls the supply. If a "backed" currency economy collapsed, do you really think the government would let you trade in your currency for whatever it's backed against? Of course not.
Things are, and have always been, worth what someone is willing to pay for them, and that includes currency. It is impossible to tie currency to an actual standard, because no single thing has the same worth to every person, including gold. Since gold would be nearly worthless in an economic collapse ("You want some water? I need some food, and that shiny metal doesn't look very nutritional!), it's pretty pointless to use it to back your currency. And since everything is in fluctuation in both supply and demand, there's really nothing suitable.
Currency represents an idea; a measure of something intangible, presumably work done. If people suddenly decide that a currency worthless (or worth less, or worth more), then it is. If the government floods the market with more currency, then it will result in inflation, fiat or not.
Taking pictures of your kid (or any other, for that matter) sans clothing is perfectly legal, in the US at least. The only time it becomes illegal is if there are prurient interests or intents.
My kids think it's hilarious to run around the house with their clothes off, and I'll be damned if I don't have the event properly documented to show the family and, especially, their first girlfriends.
I won't say it's wrong for the security guard to ask some questions if he sees something suspicious, but in all reality, someone with malicious intent will just lie, and preventing a photo at a pool won't prevent a telescopic lense, or a hidden camera, etc., so it's fairly pointless, while at the same time making the innocent grandparents feel guilty. Some degree of suspicion is healthy, but when a society succombs to paranoia, it tends to be detrimental in the long run. I'm a firm believer that it's better for a society to tolerate a certain degree of lawlessness that comes with freedom, than to investigate every occurance that's "out of the ordinary." That is, it must accept that some things are out of its control, and some of those things may be lawless. It may be prudent to err on the side of caution, but too far on the "cautious" side is just as dangerous for a society as too far on the reckless. In all things, moderation.
Those are commonly called life partners, a subset of SOs. Obviously I wasn't referring to them specifically, and just making a joke in general, so piss off.
Let me get this striaght: Apples are not oranges, therefore people who cannot throw apples should not even think about growing oranges.
Scientists have previously suggested that a mere pencil-thick strand of silk could actually stop a Boeing 747 in mid flight.
What does that even mean? I'm pretty sure that even if the strand didn't break, the plane would slice clean through or rip apart rather than stopping. I think -- and I could be way off here -- that simply providing the lifting strength of the strand would be more useful, either in tons, in common cargo, or in comparison to another well-known line material, such as steel cable. "A 1/4" thick strand of silk could lift 100,000 tons -- as much as 4 2"-thick braided steel crane cables," would be a much better comparison.
(Note that I pulled those numbers out of my silk-spinner.. I have no idea what the actual figures are since, as we established, I am unfamiliar with the units of force of "747s in mid-flight.")
On a side note, how many bugs are going to get stuck in this stuff, and what happens if it gets in your hair?
This gives consumers enough advanced notice to decide about entering into a new plan now, or just extending their old plan until the iPhone is available.
That depends.. how many people (at this point) enter into new contracts by convenience rather than necessity? Probably only first-time buyers. The only time I buy a new phone is when my old one gets broken/lost/stolen, at which point I don't have the luxury of waiting 6 months -- I need a new one, and I need it NOW.
And how many people stick with their old phones long enough for their contract to exipre? And are those sort of people likely to be interested in something brand new when they've been satisfied with their existing phone for so long? I'm sure there are some, but I'd wager that the majority of interested buyers are existing customers (of someone) who will either a) break contract, or b) will wait until their current contract expires to switch. Group A definately needs no advanced notice, and group B is probably insignificant, since people frugal enough to wait out their contracts are unlikely to spend $600 on a phone. Additionally, most providers will let you out of a contract without penalty if you do enough b*tching, so no advanced notice of the iPhone doesn't really seem that beneficial.
Hopefully you meant "spouse." If any other sort of "significant other" is trying to control your finances, that's a good hint to start looking for a new one!
Drivers, DON'T WORRY! If an unauthorized steering wheel is detected, ONLY THE STEERING will be affected, and ONLY FOR THE ROAD YOU ARE ON. The brakes, accelerator, and "oh shit" handles will still function 100%.
As far as I'm concerned though, just because it's possible to abuse something, doesn't mean it's going to be abused. I think a comment I made to friend was "You can't stop giving gardeners a spade just because they might beat someone to death with it".
You're wrong there, unfortunately. Very wrong. Someone will eventually abuse that shovel, because tools are power and power corrupts. Shovels, however, are not absolute power, and they're not distributed in such a way where one group of people has significant leverage over another. Gardeners, for example, are unlikely to be successful in taking over their neighborhood with their tools, even if they tried.
Not everyone will have access to cameras, though, so cameras fundamentally shift the balance of power further away from the citizenry and toward the government. The incumbent government, whose only real motivation is to maintain and expand its power and control. Gardeners may be a step closer to absolute power with their gardening tools, but they're nowhere near as close as the incumbent government. So the question remains: Do we want our government to move closer to absolute power by widening the gap between the power of the citizenry and the power of its leaders? Do we want our government to continue to increase and expand its knowledge of us, while closing off more of itself every day?
Will cameras help deter and solve crime? Of course they will. But is that worth the risks? Is crime really spiraling out of control?
For the sake of argument, let's say the cameras are overwhelmingly effective, and crime drops to minimal levels. What then? Surely we would leave the system in place, since it's obviously been an effective deterrent. But what do the operators do? Who do they watch when there are no more criminals? What happens then?
Of course, they're likely to only have a moderate impact, at best, which makes the question of benefit vs. cost all the more important. And by cost, I don't mean simply dollars, although that's certianly significant, but the cost of giving up a little more power, a little more freedom, and a little more control over our goverment "of, for, and by the people."
I don't think there is a fundamental issue with the concept that there is no such thing as "privacy" in a "public" place
One other thing.. I have no expectation of privacy in a public place -- nor does anyone else. But while there is not explicit privacy in public, there is, at least, relative anonymity coupled with the social prohibition against endlessly staring at people, an action which would legally constitute harassment. Nobody really pays attention to anyone else in public unless they're making a spectacle of themselves, so while there's no guarantee of privacy, there's at least a meager amount provided. Cameras remove even the possibility of privacy.
Imagine a bunch of beaurocrats sitting around in a park, say, and intently watching each person and taking notes on all of their actions, activities, and their habits. That is effectively what's happening with omnipresent cameras, with the added bonus that they can see you, but you can't see them.
I am a logical citizen, and I don't think there is a fundamental issue with the concept that there is no such thing as "privacy" in a "public" place - such as a street corner.
My house is on the street corner. Now I have a camera potentially watching everything I do, 24/7.
"Oh look, Mr. Pad left the blinds up tonight! It looks like he and Mrs. Pad are about to ARRHHOMG, MY EYES! It's like the surface of the sun, but bigger! Harry, you gotta cut out the portion of my brain that just stored that memory. Come on, pal."
But seriously, if you don't think it's an issue, put a user-controlled camera outside your house. Nothing to worry about unless you've got something to hide, right? I honestly wouldn't give 2 sh*ts if someone watches *me* -- their loss (of time, innocence, and sanity) -- but I can imagine more than a few people would be uncomfortable with that sort of thing. In fact, I think lowering someone else's level of comfort just to raise your own is utter BS, especially when the proponents of cameras will never feel completely safe (since there's no such thing), but meanwhile the people who live around the cameras will feel just a little more vulnerable. Great tradeoff.
I have children for breakfast. Oh, don't worry.. they're mine. Nothing wakes you up faster than children at breakfast.
The FULL quote to which you replied was: But since this is a luxury good, it should be fine for them to price however they like.
You say: I won't say that music and movies are luxuries...listening to music and watching a movie is a real need
In the immortal words of some guy, "That's the craziest shit I ever heard!"
Personally, I rarely listen to music, which is at least one example of music being unnecessary, but nonetheless: recorded media is a luxury. Hell, even turning on the radio or TV is a luxury, but guess what? Almost anyone can do it, which means that you don't need to own a recording to experience entertainment in the manner you describe. Recorded media is a luxury, even if you can somehow, in your warped sense of privileged reality, honestly believe that the content is a necessity.
But, for the sake of argument, if the poorest of the poor couldn't find a discarded TV and/or radio, they could still sing songs and tell stories. I mean really, what do you think homeless people do? Whip out their video iPod to while away the long, boring days?
The only thing more unbelievable than your obtuse comment is that someone modded you up.
Great information -- hopefully some mods see it.
.22LR rifles with silencers in close range.
.22LRs are easily suppressed since the report is very quiet to begin with, even with supersonic cartridges. In fact, they're the one of the few rounds that can actually be "silenced," although again, usually only with subsonic ammunition.
And the subsonic rounds are not useless for sniper operations. If I remember correctly, when USSR was in Afganistan, the insurgents used
Yeah, I was referring to long range. If you're at close range, it's debatable whether it could really be called sniping anyway.
almost anyone with some skills can construct a silencer.
Just a note, in the US, from my understanding, a Federal Firearms License (FFL) is required to purchase, own, or construct a suppressor. Even if your intentions are completely benign, as most people's are, it's not worth the risk of getting caught. I believe the FFL application fee is ~$200US.
...the machine utilizes robotic hearing technology...to sense a shot fired and pinpoint its source.
The problem is that it's simple to pinpoint a source out in the open, but it's much more difficult to determine the source in an urban environment with all of the occlusions and echoes caused by buildings, vehicles, etc. I'm sure this thing works great in the lab, but I doubt it would fare as well in real urban combat.
Not really.. The real problem is that it's much more effective to use subsonic ammunition with a suppressor, otherwise there's that whole "sonic boom" thing to contend with. Subsonic ammunition doesn't have a very flat trajectory, and is more susceptible to wind (simply because it spends more time in the air over a given distance) which makes it almost useless for sniping.
I think it has more to do with the fact that buttons are the epitome of lascivious immorality!