Your idealism is laudable, but in the real world it's not just a simple matter of wanting to be informed; it's having a reliable source of information. People don't know who to believe, and who can blame them? How many politicians get elected, only to go back on their campaign promises, or perform in stark contrast to their platform or history? Better yet, how many stick to their promises once elected? 1%? That's probably being generous. It's not a simple matter of making an informed vote -- often times there is nobody on the ballot worth voting for. How can you be sure that your candidate is really who you think he is? What facts do you have to support your views, and what makes them more reliable than anyone else's?
Our founding fathers envisioned politics as a temporary responsibility, not a career. Parties were developed to nominate candidates based on principle, but those parties have responsibilities to the people that fund them, and they nominate people whose platform is most pallatable to their financeers. Less-mainstream candidates (by which I mean so-called non-partison or independant) are often viewed with suspicion and aren't taken seriously by the general public.
So how exactly do you go about informing people? Do you use TV ads? Do you go door-to-door? Why should anyone believe what you're saying over what anyone else is saying? "The truth wins in the end," is just an ideal, and ideals aren't compatible with reality. If you really want to make a change, get elected. Good luck with that, especially if you're not willing to bend to party pressure.
Great dying starts with great dyes. If the quality of your dye is lacking, the end result will suffer. First, take a white T-Shirt, and start twisting it in random places, like you're wringing it out to dry. Next take a rubber band and place it at various points along your twist to keep it in place. These rubber bands will also serve as dipping points. First, dip the tip of the twist into the color of your choice, and then into your melted wax. The wax will prevent subsequent colors from mixing with the previous color. Continue dipping each band into the color of your choice, followed by the wax. Allow several hours for the dyes to set before submersing the entire shirt into boiling water to remove most of the wax. Careful: boiling water is hot, so be sure not to use your hands to hold the t-shirt down as scalding, or even thorough cooking of the hands may result. If you are under the influence of mind altering substances, which you must be in order to think tye dying is a good idea, have a friend or relative do this part for you. Once removed from the boiling water, place the t-shirt in a washing machine set to "hot," but be sure not to place any other clothing in the washer as dye transfer may result. Chances are you don't bathe or wash regularly anyway, so don't worry about subsequent washings -- just dab some patchouli oil around the smelly parts and enjoy the ride. Remember: the dinosaurs enjoyed great dying millions of years ago, and you can too! Happy dying.
If you're light, it's fairly easy to travel at your own speed -- that is to say 186,282 miles per second or 299,800 kilometers per second. But if you are matter, then it's another matter altogether.
Right, well, uh.. How exactly would you distinguish light from matter if it's moving at the speed of light? Aside from when it hits you, that is.
There's an easy way to make matter move at the speed of light.. set it on fire. It's converting it back to it's original form that's the tough part. And of course the leftover parts that didn't quite make the jump to lightspeed.
I remember the average game title selling for around $40 in the 1980s, but most releases today are $50-$60. Or is Microsoft claiming their entertainment titles don't qualify because they're not entertaining?
(I'm just kidding, before any Halo lovers start a flame war).
My guess is they have a poorly designed backend/database system that is simply broken and cannot be fixed even by throwing more hardware at the issue.
I'll show you a poorly designed backend. Ever heard of Rosie O'Donnell?
It's funny how much of an interest so-called customers suddenly take in the business interest of a MMORPG deale^H^H^H^H^Hprovider when they can't get their fi^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hplay their game. The world won't end just because servers go offline, nor will the company go belly-up, because people will keep coming back for more, no matter what. They'll bitch and moan and sulk, and then start playing again the moment the servers are functional.
But, to address the technical aspects of your comment, one minor bug can wreck havoc in any piece of software. You'd be amazed how easy it is to omit a single character which can change the entire functionality of an algorithm. That doesn't mean that the software was poorly designed, rather that it was insufficiently tested before being implemented.
Now players can sit in queues for anywhere between 1 to 3 hours...and if they're lucky enough to wait that long and log in, they may get 10 minutes of actual playtime before they get booted out of the game or lag out and forced to sit in the queue yet again.
Now THAT'S news. I would understand if Blizzard would let people excercise free will, but forcing them to wait for 3 hours with only 10 minutes in game before making them wait 3 hours again? Could you provide some details? Are they using cattle prods or firearms to do this? What happens to the people who try to resist and go do something else instead? And what are they doing with the bodies? Thanks.
That's the software companies' fault for allowing downtime in the first place. If they'd keep their servers up, the gamers would have no time to visit a website.
New hardware, new OS, not backward compatible with existing software, but you can run a port of the Windows Amiga Emulator for the ultimate in efficiency. Oh yeah, the hardware features such technology as USB 1.1, and PC-133 RAM.
Good God, I loved my Amiga, but that's because it was the state of the art, not the state of decay that it's become.
An excellent novel on that topic is Steel Beach, by John Varley. He portrays a world of immortality. Relationships are many and varied, lasting days or hundreds of years and gender is little more than a fashion statement.
Your FUD spreads like chunky peanut butter on stale bread. This isn't the dark ages. Treatment wouldn't be reserved for the rich because it couldn't be. Proliferation would be unstoppable. Do third world countries have access to state of the art weapons? Do people starting in poverty orchestrate piracy on the largest of scales? Do people sell out items of national security for a little padding on their pocketbook? Would people beg, borrow, and steal for treatment? How many underground abortion clinics were running before Rowe v. Wade? For these and many, many other reasons, any attempt to keep this technology in the hands of the few would quickly backfire. The only possible way to prevent the spread of this technology would be to develop it in secret. Let's pretend that, in fact, it already exists. Nobody knows about it, so nobody tries to aquire it. But that's not stopping other researchers from pursuing it.
Technology is the great equalizer. The gun made muscles obsolete. The only people who are against the advance of technology are those who are happy with the status quo, and have nothing to gain by change.
Wisdom doesn't automatically come with old age. Nothing does - except wrinkles. It's true, some wines improve with age. But only if the grapes were good in the first place.
You can choose to greet change by cowering in fear and retreating into a hole or meeting it head-on and treating it as an opportunity. I believe today's kids are more likely to do the latter than previous generations were.
I think a longer lifespan would decrease this sort of thing as well. People can become despondant (is that the word?) when they know that death will soon be knocking on their door. It leads to feelings of helplessness and hopelessness in many people. Fortunate are those who can use it as inspiration to enjoy each day fully.
And, in case you were wondering why we live longer on average, it's not due to medicine, it's almost entirely due to public health measures, a reliable food supply, and prevention.
Well.. those things have contributed to people living longer past 40, but as far as average life expectancy, it's due in large part to lowering infant mortality.
Basic life expectancy numbers tend to exaggerate this growth, however. The low level of pre-modern life expectancy is distorted by the previous extremely high infant and childhood mortality. If a person did make it to the age of forty they had an average of another twenty years to live. Improvements in medicine, public health and nutrition have therefore mainly increased the numbers of people living beyond childhood, with less effect on overall average lifespan. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
Not that Wiki is authoritative, it was just the most convenient source I could find.
If the trolls on IMDb try to use the logic that one films sucks because another did better in the box office you seem to be twistig that logic entirely: that popularity automatically denotes inferority.
Well, the idea that popularity automatically denotes inferiority does have some merit to it.. Fashion is the perfect example of this. What's popular one day is repulsive the next. If fashion and film are both art, what does that say about popularity? And how much art is considered junk by its creator's contemporaries only to later be appreciated and prized?
The fact that non American film is not popular in America is no different than the fact that non Hindi film is not popular in India. The difference is that the population of America is only 350M while India is over 1B. That's three times the viewing audience. We can play the numbers game all day long, but, as I *said* (as opposed to the popularity=inferiority argument which you invented), numbers mean little. What I really meant to say in the previous post, and perhaps I should have stated it more clearly, is that there's no accounting for taste.
Bollywood isn't exactly overly blessed with quality but Hollywood is exactly the same in at regard.
I agree 100%. I think the difference is that Hollywood puts out a larger variety of films. There are typical plots for a given genre, but there's no typical genre, whereas Bollywood seems to crank out films depicting young lovers kept apart for social or political reasons. And that's not a jab at Bollywood, they just have a different target audience in a society dealing with different issues.
I'm guessing oh, say the speed of light times twice the distance to the satellite, with a few microseconds added on for processing delays. Just a guess. The Air Force still can't overcome physics. The Marines, on the other hand...
Slashdot Mirror
Quantum links have been around since the 80s.
http://www.qlinklives.org/
Your idealism is laudable, but in the real world it's not just a simple matter of wanting to be informed; it's having a reliable source of information. People don't know who to believe, and who can blame them? How many politicians get elected, only to go back on their campaign promises, or perform in stark contrast to their platform or history? Better yet, how many stick to their promises once elected? 1%? That's probably being generous. It's not a simple matter of making an informed vote -- often times there is nobody on the ballot worth voting for. How can you be sure that your candidate is really who you think he is? What facts do you have to support your views, and what makes them more reliable than anyone else's?
Our founding fathers envisioned politics as a temporary responsibility, not a career. Parties were developed to nominate candidates based on principle, but those parties have responsibilities to the people that fund them, and they nominate people whose platform is most pallatable to their financeers. Less-mainstream candidates (by which I mean so-called non-partison or independant) are often viewed with suspicion and aren't taken seriously by the general public.
So how exactly do you go about informing people? Do you use TV ads? Do you go door-to-door? Why should anyone believe what you're saying over what anyone else is saying? "The truth wins in the end," is just an ideal, and ideals aren't compatible with reality. If you really want to make a change, get elected. Good luck with that, especially if you're not willing to bend to party pressure.
Great dying starts with great dyes. If the quality of your dye is lacking, the end result will suffer. First, take a white T-Shirt, and start twisting it in random places, like you're wringing it out to dry. Next take a rubber band and place it at various points along your twist to keep it in place. These rubber bands will also serve as dipping points. First, dip the tip of the twist into the color of your choice, and then into your melted wax. The wax will prevent subsequent colors from mixing with the previous color. Continue dipping each band into the color of your choice, followed by the wax. Allow several hours for the dyes to set before submersing the entire shirt into boiling water to remove most of the wax. Careful: boiling water is hot, so be sure not to use your hands to hold the t-shirt down as scalding, or even thorough cooking of the hands may result. If you are under the influence of mind altering substances, which you must be in order to think tye dying is a good idea, have a friend or relative do this part for you. Once removed from the boiling water, place the t-shirt in a washing machine set to "hot," but be sure not to place any other clothing in the washer as dye transfer may result. Chances are you don't bathe or wash regularly anyway, so don't worry about subsequent washings -- just dab some patchouli oil around the smelly parts and enjoy the ride. Remember: the dinosaurs enjoyed great dying millions of years ago, and you can too! Happy dying.
Assuming you're even dead by then..
I like the all-consuming power I have as a computer geek.
Geeks consume all power? Maybe most of it, but all? Or did you mean all-encompassing power?
Carl Zimmer has a fascinating description of the sugars we humans lack that contaminated the stem cell lines.
I don't know about Carl, but I'm sure lacking some donut sugars right about now. Mmmmmm donuts.
And now that the US are with us, you guys could back us up with some mirrors. Thanks bunches to all the folks who are helping us out!
I see how it is.. when in need, call on the US. When everything's fine, screw the US. Why does that sound so familiar?
Slashendotten
If you're light, it's fairly easy to travel at your own speed -- that is to say 186,282 miles per second or 299,800 kilometers per second. But if you are matter, then it's another matter altogether.
Right, well, uh.. How exactly would you distinguish light from matter if it's moving at the speed of light? Aside from when it hits you, that is.
There's an easy way to make matter move at the speed of light.. set it on fire. It's converting it back to it's original form that's the tough part. And of course the leftover parts that didn't quite make the jump to lightspeed.
I remember the average game title selling for around $40 in the 1980s, but most releases today are $50-$60. Or is Microsoft claiming their entertainment titles don't qualify because they're not entertaining?
(I'm just kidding, before any Halo lovers start a flame war).
No problem..
You just gotta decompile it first.
My guess is they have a poorly designed backend/database system that is simply broken and cannot be fixed even by throwing more hardware at the issue.
I'll show you a poorly designed backend. Ever heard of Rosie O'Donnell?
It's funny how much of an interest so-called customers suddenly take in the business interest of a MMORPG deale^H^H^H^H^Hprovider when they can't get their fi^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hplay their game. The world won't end just because servers go offline, nor will the company go belly-up, because people will keep coming back for more, no matter what. They'll bitch and moan and sulk, and then start playing again the moment the servers are functional.
But, to address the technical aspects of your comment, one minor bug can wreck havoc in any piece of software. You'd be amazed how easy it is to omit a single character which can change the entire functionality of an algorithm. That doesn't mean that the software was poorly designed, rather that it was insufficiently tested before being implemented.
Now players can sit in queues for anywhere between 1 to 3 hours...and if they're lucky enough to wait that long and log in, they may get 10 minutes of actual playtime before they get booted out of the game or lag out and forced to sit in the queue yet again.
Now THAT'S news. I would understand if Blizzard would let people excercise free will, but forcing them to wait for 3 hours with only 10 minutes in game before making them wait 3 hours again? Could you provide some details? Are they using cattle prods or firearms to do this? What happens to the people who try to resist and go do something else instead? And what are they doing with the bodies? Thanks.
A LOT of gamers frequent P-A.
That's the software companies' fault for allowing downtime in the first place. If they'd keep their servers up, the gamers would have no time to visit a website.
Let players kill each other off... and make it permanent. A little population reduction.
Good plan. Once the players are dead, Blizzard can just delete their characters!
All my foes are spelling or grammar Nazis.
All your foes are belong to us.
New hardware, new OS, not backward compatible with existing software, but you can run a port of the Windows Amiga Emulator for the ultimate in efficiency. Oh yeah, the hardware features such technology as USB 1.1, and PC-133 RAM.
Good God, I loved my Amiga, but that's because it was the state of the art, not the state of decay that it's become.
An excellent novel on that topic is Steel Beach, by John Varley. He portrays a world of immortality. Relationships are many and varied, lasting days or hundreds of years and gender is little more than a fashion statement.
Your FUD spreads like chunky peanut butter on stale bread. This isn't the dark ages. Treatment wouldn't be reserved for the rich because it couldn't be. Proliferation would be unstoppable. Do third world countries have access to state of the art weapons? Do people starting in poverty orchestrate piracy on the largest of scales? Do people sell out items of national security for a little padding on their pocketbook? Would people beg, borrow, and steal for treatment? How many underground abortion clinics were running before Rowe v. Wade? For these and many, many other reasons, any attempt to keep this technology in the hands of the few would quickly backfire. The only possible way to prevent the spread of this technology would be to develop it in secret. Let's pretend that, in fact, it already exists. Nobody knows about it, so nobody tries to aquire it. But that's not stopping other researchers from pursuing it.
Technology is the great equalizer. The gun made muscles obsolete. The only people who are against the advance of technology are those who are happy with the status quo, and have nothing to gain by change.
You can choose to greet change by cowering in fear and retreating into a hole or meeting it head-on and treating it as an opportunity. I believe today's kids are more likely to do the latter than previous generations were.
I think a longer lifespan would decrease this sort of thing as well. People can become despondant (is that the word?) when they know that death will soon be knocking on their door. It leads to feelings of helplessness and hopelessness in many people. Fortunate are those who can use it as inspiration to enjoy each day fully.
Well.. those things have contributed to people living longer past 40, but as far as average life expectancy, it's due in large part to lowering infant mortality.
Not that Wiki is authoritative, it was just the most convenient source I could find.
And he still won't look a day over 20!
How the hell did you typo 90?
If the trolls on IMDb try to use the logic that one films sucks because another did better in the box office you seem to be twistig that logic entirely: that popularity automatically denotes inferority.
Well, the idea that popularity automatically denotes inferiority does have some merit to it.. Fashion is the perfect example of this. What's popular one day is repulsive the next. If fashion and film are both art, what does that say about popularity? And how much art is considered junk by its creator's contemporaries only to later be appreciated and prized?
The fact that non American film is not popular in America is no different than the fact that non Hindi film is not popular in India. The difference is that the population of America is only 350M while India is over 1B. That's three times the viewing audience. We can play the numbers game all day long, but, as I *said* (as opposed to the popularity=inferiority argument which you invented), numbers mean little. What I really meant to say in the previous post, and perhaps I should have stated it more clearly, is that there's no accounting for taste.
Bollywood isn't exactly overly blessed with quality but Hollywood is exactly the same in at regard.
I agree 100%. I think the difference is that Hollywood puts out a larger variety of films. There are typical plots for a given genre, but there's no typical genre, whereas Bollywood seems to crank out films depicting young lovers kept apart for social or political reasons. And that's not a jab at Bollywood, they just have a different target audience in a society dealing with different issues.
And yet i'd bet a fiver he wouldn't want to swap places with you. :)
;)
Cause we all know money buys happiness. If he knew me, he'd want to
wonder what the ping times would be like...
I'm guessing oh, say the speed of light times twice the distance to the satellite, with a few microseconds added on for processing delays. Just a guess. The Air Force still can't overcome physics. The Marines, on the other hand...