Well that depends on your definition of risk and your tolerance of failure. Humans are terrible at judging risks and odds, a fact which an entire industry exploits to make billions. And that's just the insurance industry.. who knows how much the gaming sector rakes in.
At any rate, the likelyhood of an accident may be very low, but the consequences are potentially fatal to thousands of people. Since accidents are unpreventable, it's a question of when, not if. When an accident occurs and containment is breached, are there resources in place to manage it? When you're in a nuclear facility, one would hope so, but not so much in the middle of a highway or a train track. So considering that, I would agree that transporting waste is extremely risky. Not necessarily so risky that it's not worth doing, but certainly such that it's worth avoiding when possible.
Well, we also have a lot more coal than France, so what's good for them isn't necessarily good for us. I'm all in favor of nuclear power, but if the emissions from coal can be contained, reburned, or whatever, that sounds good too. There's no silver bullet to the problem of energy production so far, and each solution has its drawbacks. I'm not too worried about a nuclear meltdown, but storing waste will be a very real problem for the forseeable future, and I doubt the costs of experimenting with reprocessing and containment are any lower than the costs of investigating techniques to lower coal emissions. Moreover, it's not a zero-sum game, so it makes sense to pursue any technology which is likely to yield satisfactory results.
It's that simple, if this story is true, Mr. Reiser had no empathy at all, and this was his wife.
His estranged wife, who reportedly had an affair with his former friend and won custody of the children (which is almost a given in any seperation, unfortunately for men, but that's another matter). While we are more likely to empathise with people we are close to, those very same people are the ones who have the ability to hurt us or anger us more than anyone else simply because they are the people we trust, or trusted. How often do you hear about someone killing their friend's wife because she was unfaithful? Almost never, because that person just doesn't have the same emotional connection as our own spouse or S.O.
I'm not trying to excuse murder by any means, rather to explain that the emotions involved can easily override empathy, especially when we're betrayed by the people we trust most. Neither am I saying his wife actually cheated on him, but if she did, along with taking his money and his children, he likely felt a great deal of animosity toward her, no matter how much he loved her. Hate is not the opposite of love -- apathy is.
Right, but education is contingent upon access to information, and quality is relative. When you talk about a university 100 years ago (let alone hundreds of years), each institution had its own compilation of information in the form of a library. Now that no longer need be the case. Not only that, but it's frankly impossible. Yes, they can have "lots" of information (books, journals, etc), but as I said, the more they spend on their own copies of that information, the less money they have for other things (or the higher the tuition). But since it's impossible to have copies of "everything," especially new research, it is encumbant upon universities to provide internet access You're making a case along the lines of "we got along fine for thousands of years with horses, so there's no need for cars now." Conditions change, and the people who best keep up with the changes are the ones who will be successful. And producing successful people is, at least partly, the goal of tertiary education.
That's a good idea, but it's sort of ridiculous. Students already pay for internet access. It's called tuition. Itemizing it as a seperate expense might change things from a legal perspective, especially for public institutions, but it's not like the students(' parents) weren't paying for it to begin with. Anyone who provides access should receive common carrier protections by definition without resorting to accounting tricks.
...that anyone would presume that any single institution could provide all of the information and references on any given topic. Aside from such thinking being the the characteristic trait of pompousness, it's also dangerously fallacious. We're not talking about elementary school here, where no amount of additional information will help someone learn 2+2. Tertiary education is all about moving beyond the basics and exploring the limits, and those limits are constantly being expanded by different people in geographically seperated locations all over the world. Sure, we could probably make the information available in hardcopy to every school, everywhere, but we've already developed a more efficient infrastructure for transferring information, and it's called the internet.
The internet is so successful because it virtually (no pun intended) removes the limits of any one individual or institution, and removing limits is just another way of saying that it extends capabilities. Realistically, no single institution can provide all existing resources. At the very least, this helps to minimize redundancies. Want to find out if a fly's brain could control a plane? A quick Google search will tell you it's already been done.
Is learning impossible without internet access? Of course not. But the capacity for education that it presents is the very reason there are significant efforts to make cheap laptops available in third world countries. It could be argued that the internet was the most important tool in revitalizing India, Russia, and possibly China.
Sure, people will spend a lot of time browsing MySpace or Facebook or whatever new hip site the kids are looking at these days, but the plethora of information available online -- even just including freely available resources -- dwarfs just about any single institution, almost by definition since the net is a collective. And by using information which is available online, institutions are able to free up money to be spent on other things, which only enhances the experience for their students.
Moreover, learning is "make[ing] network connections to outside sources" by definition. Learning, in an institutional setting, is an efficient way of discovering more about the world around you than you could possibly do on your own in a reasonable period of time, which is why people pay thousands of dollars for the experience.
Yeah, that saying is just a little bit older than Woody Allen, and while that particular version may be attributable to him, I highly doubt he was the first to add a third line.
I've got nothing against being snide, just make sure you know what you're talking about first.
From TFA: SlySoft have a product called AnyDVD which works in the background to automatically remove the copy protection of a DVD movie as soon as it's inserted into the drive. The other day they released an updated version of AnyDVD which effortlessly bypasses Protect DVD-Video.
Not necessarily. They make these things now -- credit cards, I believe they're called -- where you can basically fork over a half-year's pay in a 15 second transaction. It would surely be sorely tempting for anyone who wanted some genuine Trek memoribilia badly enough.
It's probably safe to assume that the six figure items, however, went to people who had 7-8 figure incomes.
Not to mention The Sims Online which is, I would wager, populated almost entirely by women. At least 2 of my wife's sisters and many of my friends' wives play that game religiously, and if my observations are any indication, females make up the VAST majority -- or vag-ority, if you will -- of Sims players.
The limit is actually 10, but regardless, there are ways to get around it that are no more complicated than installing the P2P software which you claim to be hindered.
Obviously the original minimum recommendation is the ORIGINAL MINIMUM recommendation. The two key words there have been capitalized for your convenience. Original recommendations are subject to change as the software itself changes. This should be obvious. Second -- regarding the word minimum -- you could probably get away with 1.5GB if you actually did a minimal install without all the fluff. You could look up how to do it if you're really interested.
But really, who the hell wants to install XP on a 2GB HD anyway? If you're using the machine for some function that doesn't require software installed, there are probably better solutions, so you're basically complaining that a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole.
But carry on living in your fantasy world where 2GB hard drives are hard-soldered into machines with no upgradability and 40GB drives aren't thrown in the trash or taken to recycling centers by the THOUSANDS every day. Heck, if you really need one, just let me know and I'll send you one for the cost of shipping if it will put an end to this nonsense.
Looks like they've also made another amazing discovery: Carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen are MADE OF PEOPLE!
The beautiful XIS spectrum demonstrates that Suzaku has an ability to attain to new knowledge on the chemical evolution of the interstellar materials of carbon, nitrogen and oxygens, the vital elements consisting of the human bodies. http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2005/08/20050817_suzaku_e .html
I believe I have the solution you're seeking. Using my technique, users would be able to arrange songs in an arbitrary manner according to any qualifications they desire, and then save the order of songs to something I'm temporarily calling a "playlist" until I can think of a better name. While the randomness is lost, the listener benefits by hearing only the songs he or she prefers rather than being assaulted by songs that don't fit the mood.
But seriously, what you're asking for is to have your cake and eat it too. People want to hear the songs they want without having to pick them. There's no real solution to that since nobody else knows, or can know, what you want to hear unless you tell them. Services like Pandora.com aim to make educated guesses, but they do a half-assed job at best. The real solution is just to pick your own songs. Yeah, I know, it takes a minor amount of effort, but anything worth having does. Even if there was a device that could read your mood and try to play things accordingly, it would be a dismal failure because it wouldn't know whether to perpetuate your mood, or try to change it. Maybe you want to wallow in self-pity while listening to Wicked Game. Or maybe you want some punk rock to release the pent up frustration of it all. The bottom line is that user input is required to obtain satisfactory results.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. We already know we're fat and dumb, but we're happy about it.
And your evidence for this statement is?
Well that depends on your definition of risk and your tolerance of failure. Humans are terrible at judging risks and odds, a fact which an entire industry exploits to make billions. And that's just the insurance industry.. who knows how much the gaming sector rakes in.
At any rate, the likelyhood of an accident may be very low, but the consequences are potentially fatal to thousands of people. Since accidents are unpreventable, it's a question of when, not if. When an accident occurs and containment is breached, are there resources in place to manage it? When you're in a nuclear facility, one would hope so, but not so much in the middle of a highway or a train track. So considering that, I would agree that transporting waste is extremely risky. Not necessarily so risky that it's not worth doing, but certainly such that it's worth avoiding when possible.
Well, we also have a lot more coal than France, so what's good for them isn't necessarily good for us. I'm all in favor of nuclear power, but if the emissions from coal can be contained, reburned, or whatever, that sounds good too. There's no silver bullet to the problem of energy production so far, and each solution has its drawbacks. I'm not too worried about a nuclear meltdown, but storing waste will be a very real problem for the forseeable future, and I doubt the costs of experimenting with reprocessing and containment are any lower than the costs of investigating techniques to lower coal emissions. Moreover, it's not a zero-sum game, so it makes sense to pursue any technology which is likely to yield satisfactory results.
It's that simple, if this story is true, Mr. Reiser had no empathy at all, and this was his wife.
His estranged wife, who reportedly had an affair with his former friend and won custody of the children (which is almost a given in any seperation, unfortunately for men, but that's another matter). While we are more likely to empathise with people we are close to, those very same people are the ones who have the ability to hurt us or anger us more than anyone else simply because they are the people we trust, or trusted. How often do you hear about someone killing their friend's wife because she was unfaithful? Almost never, because that person just doesn't have the same emotional connection as our own spouse or S.O.
I'm not trying to excuse murder by any means, rather to explain that the emotions involved can easily override empathy, especially when we're betrayed by the people we trust most. Neither am I saying his wife actually cheated on him, but if she did, along with taking his money and his children, he likely felt a great deal of animosity toward her, no matter how much he loved her. Hate is not the opposite of love -- apathy is.
Maybe he should try that then..
Six months after he started gaming full time, he signed his $250,000 contract. He also got a publicist, a financial adviser and media training.
Sounds like other people are doing it for him to me.
So yes.
And no.
Anyone else not at all surprised that Roland is interested in artificial hugs? God knows it's the only kind he's going to get around here.
BTW, any information on just how much pressure those things can generate? It would be an awful shame if they were to pop somebody. Awful shame...
Only Chuck Norris can cut funding for Chuck Norris. Chuck's just waiting for Bush to leave office before he corrects our orbit.
No.. they can fit more than one child in a room in most countries.
What about a stressed out, crying arabic speaker that has just had his family shot and/or blown up?
Not to mention a panicked, confused english speaker who just had his leg blown off by an IED.
Right, but education is contingent upon access to information, and quality is relative. When you talk about a university 100 years ago (let alone hundreds of years), each institution had its own compilation of information in the form of a library. Now that no longer need be the case. Not only that, but it's frankly impossible. Yes, they can have "lots" of information (books, journals, etc), but as I said, the more they spend on their own copies of that information, the less money they have for other things (or the higher the tuition). But since it's impossible to have copies of "everything," especially new research, it is encumbant upon universities to provide internet access You're making a case along the lines of "we got along fine for thousands of years with horses, so there's no need for cars now." Conditions change, and the people who best keep up with the changes are the ones who will be successful. And producing successful people is, at least partly, the goal of tertiary education.
Easy test -- just create a poll:
Have you ever eaten Spam?
1) Yes.
2) No.
3) That's unpossible!
That's a good idea, but it's sort of ridiculous. Students already pay for internet access. It's called tuition. Itemizing it as a seperate expense might change things from a legal perspective, especially for public institutions, but it's not like the students(' parents) weren't paying for it to begin with. Anyone who provides access should receive common carrier protections by definition without resorting to accounting tricks.
...that anyone would presume that any single institution could provide all of the information and references on any given topic. Aside from such thinking being the the characteristic trait of pompousness, it's also dangerously fallacious. We're not talking about elementary school here, where no amount of additional information will help someone learn 2+2. Tertiary education is all about moving beyond the basics and exploring the limits, and those limits are constantly being expanded by different people in geographically seperated locations all over the world. Sure, we could probably make the information available in hardcopy to every school, everywhere, but we've already developed a more efficient infrastructure for transferring information, and it's called the internet.
The internet is so successful because it virtually (no pun intended) removes the limits of any one individual or institution, and removing limits is just another way of saying that it extends capabilities. Realistically, no single institution can provide all existing resources. At the very least, this helps to minimize redundancies. Want to find out if a fly's brain could control a plane? A quick Google search will tell you it's already been done.
Is learning impossible without internet access? Of course not. But the capacity for education that it presents is the very reason there are significant efforts to make cheap laptops available in third world countries. It could be argued that the internet was the most important tool in revitalizing India, Russia, and possibly China.
Sure, people will spend a lot of time browsing MySpace or Facebook or whatever new hip site the kids are looking at these days, but the plethora of information available online -- even just including freely available resources -- dwarfs just about any single institution, almost by definition since the net is a collective. And by using information which is available online, institutions are able to free up money to be spent on other things, which only enhances the experience for their students.
Moreover, learning is "make[ing] network connections to outside sources" by definition. Learning, in an institutional setting, is an efficient way of discovering more about the world around you than you could possibly do on your own in a reasonable period of time, which is why people pay thousands of dollars for the experience.
Yeah, that saying is just a little bit older than Woody Allen, and while that particular version may be attributable to him, I highly doubt he was the first to add a third line.
I've got nothing against being snide, just make sure you know what you're talking about first.
You already missed liftoff, launchpad.
From TFA: SlySoft have a product called AnyDVD which works in the background to automatically remove the copy protection of a DVD movie as soon as it's inserted into the drive. The other day they released an updated version of AnyDVD which effortlessly bypasses Protect DVD-Video.
Not necessarily. They make these things now -- credit cards, I believe they're called -- where you can basically fork over a half-year's pay in a 15 second transaction. It would surely be sorely tempting for anyone who wanted some genuine Trek memoribilia badly enough.
It's probably safe to assume that the six figure items, however, went to people who had 7-8 figure incomes.
women are playing with bricks and logic, while men are playing with dolls and avatars
That's because we work with bricks and logic all day while women work hard pretending to be human.
Not to mention The Sims Online which is, I would wager, populated almost entirely by women. At least 2 of my wife's sisters and many of my friends' wives play that game religiously, and if my observations are any indication, females make up the VAST majority -- or vag-ority, if you will -- of Sims players.
The limit is actually 10, but regardless, there are ways to get around it that are no more complicated than installing the P2P software which you claim to be hindered.
Obviously the original minimum recommendation is the ORIGINAL MINIMUM recommendation. The two key words there have been capitalized for your convenience. Original recommendations are subject to change as the software itself changes. This should be obvious. Second -- regarding the word minimum -- you could probably get away with 1.5GB if you actually did a minimal install without all the fluff. You could look up how to do it if you're really interested.
But really, who the hell wants to install XP on a 2GB HD anyway? If you're using the machine for some function that doesn't require software installed, there are probably better solutions, so you're basically complaining that a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole.
But carry on living in your fantasy world where 2GB hard drives are hard-soldered into machines with no upgradability and 40GB drives aren't thrown in the trash or taken to recycling centers by the THOUSANDS every day. Heck, if you really need one, just let me know and I'll send you one for the cost of shipping if it will put an end to this nonsense.
Well I'd say Slashdot, but it's already taken.
I guess I've just never seen that particular abbreviation for Yahoo Messenger, but it sort of sounds like an IM client for furries to me.
Perhaps he misread the "A" in faces as an "E".
I believe I have the solution you're seeking. Using my technique, users would be able to arrange songs in an arbitrary manner according to any qualifications they desire, and then save the order of songs to something I'm temporarily calling a "playlist" until I can think of a better name. While the randomness is lost, the listener benefits by hearing only the songs he or she prefers rather than being assaulted by songs that don't fit the mood.
But seriously, what you're asking for is to have your cake and eat it too. People want to hear the songs they want without having to pick them. There's no real solution to that since nobody else knows, or can know, what you want to hear unless you tell them. Services like Pandora.com aim to make educated guesses, but they do a half-assed job at best. The real solution is just to pick your own songs. Yeah, I know, it takes a minor amount of effort, but anything worth having does. Even if there was a device that could read your mood and try to play things accordingly, it would be a dismal failure because it wouldn't know whether to perpetuate your mood, or try to change it. Maybe you want to wallow in self-pity while listening to Wicked Game. Or maybe you want some punk rock to release the pent up frustration of it all. The bottom line is that user input is required to obtain satisfactory results.