I agree with the first paragraph of your statement, but I disagree that America has been a backward conservative nation for "much" of it's history. The Nancy aspect is a more recent phenomenon, IMO. America pioneered many things in it's first 150 years, industrially, scientifically, and otherwise. But yeah, we've taken a back seat to most of the world lately, we've gotten greedy, as well as complacent, entitled, and lazy.
I had once felt that way too, but there's a distinct difference: doctors need only keep up with advancements in medicine or new discoveries about extant biological systems: the human body itself, however, doesn't really change (not over a few millenia, anyhow). It's a relatively stationary target.
Software, OTOH, frequently changes drastically and constantly; it's engineered by man, and can be radically altered in any number of ways on whim, forcing a reinventing of the wheel sometimes even; a moving, morphing target, much of it probably driven as much as by planned obsolescence and profit as it is utter necessity. (Does Word really need to keep "evolving" to do what it does?) Sometimes I really wanna say "screw all this" and go start a goat farm.
That's not what I proposed. What I proposed is to reduce carbon emissions- just not at a breakneck pace which could destroy the economy, unless we absolutely know GW is man-made and will cause the sky to fall as some predict unless we hit reverse with full engines. At no point in my post did I support your option "B", that's just a strawman argument. I said the big question was not whether or not to reduce emissions, but only at what rate it can feasibly be done.
Show us these plentiful examples of businesses that actually did better economically by going green, ("virtually every") and I'll show you a cherry picked segment of business who could feasibly do that. Basically all it shows is that those industries that could do it without going bankrupt have done it- but it doesn't mean it applies unilaterally to all industries, especially the larger ones. And even among them, a fair share of it is probably exaggeration, for PR purposes - it's the "in" thing and magically makes big polluters like GE, or the oil companies, all of whom have been running TV ads lately, look like the good guys.
The evidence for a fragile, teetering economy, OTOH, is plentiful and obvious - not just domestically, but globally.
This/\
Absolutely we should move toward renewable, cleaner energy sources, and more recycling -I'm all for it- the big question is, at what rate can we do this without bringing about another type of catastrophe? The global economy is already in dire straits, it can't take much more, and carbon taxes and new regulations and such push it to the breaking point that much harder. So sure, we might wind up with a cleaner environment, but with a collapsed economy, bringing about a different kind of future nightmare scenario.
And what if it turns out we can really do little to nothing to reverse warming, because it wasn't really manmade to begin with? If it's all for naught, if we're just spitting in the wind, and the country is ruined in the process, how smart is that?
We need to know beyond a doubt whether this is truly manmade, if it's actually reversible, and ASAP. Until then, we should walk the tightrope and keep a cool head (no pun intended).
Not entirely true. Some places, but not most. My wife was a catholic school teacher, and taught evolution. (we're in the mid-atlantic states). Nonetheless, issues like this, and many others, should be handled at the State level of government, not the federal level. There's too much intervention at the federal level. Seems we're not much of a "united" "states" anymore, it's more like one big monolithic state with 50 satellite jurisdictions.
Anyway, this has potential for a brilliant PR move, if done the right way: "leak" a false younger age to IMDB, then sue when they publish it: you get attention, and you get people to believe you're actually younger than you really are.
It's always possible that this isn't a deliberate targeted attack at all; it could even just be that someone inadvertently used a removable drive that already happened to have a keylogger on it. This would probably be the best case scenario of course. I find it a little odd is that they're having trouble removing it though.
And that'd good for ANY book, not just best sellers. Just like the B&N coupons. Oh, sure, they ALSO have coupons for best sellers. But your implication that B&N is just a store for best sellers is absurd. Have you ever even been inside one?
Firstly, what does having been inside one have to do with membership perks when one could have a solely online experience, and still have access to the same offers?
By the same token one can go to the store all the time and not have a membership. One has little to do with the other.
But secondly, I've been in my local BN a hundred times -at least. AND I had a membership there.. for one year. Otherwise how could I possibly know about their offers and coupons?
How is that "nothing" for people who actually purchase books?I didn't say it was nothing. I said it was nothing like the B&N deals you can get. It's not even close. It might surprise you to know that I had a membership at BOTH places so I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
No, quite obviously you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I had membership to both Borders and BN myself, , and you never saw a coupon for *any* book you wanted for 40% at BN. Never. Don't try to tell me you did because you didn't, I know what the offers were. I let the BN membership go after that one year.
Now, if you are the kind of person who buys several books, say once a month, and you like the current ones, then BN is a good deal insofar as discounts are concerned; if like me, you buy one a week that is older, Borders was a better deal. This was never about total inventory though.
Yes, rah rah Borders. They had such great deals and carried such great titles that no one was buying and they went out of business.
And I did purchase the books, at least one a week.
Yeah, wow. Way to conflate the point I was making with what other people were saying. We're all really just the same person, you know. Twit.
Nice try. You said, "for people who actually buy the books", so you damn well know you insinuated I didn't buy them, like the 2 or 3 other posters who thought that as well.
BN won out because they were bigger, simple as that. I don't hate BN by any stretch, but their deals didn't benefit me. That's all I was trying to say. It was nice to have a choice though.
Name calling.. there ya go. What a great debater.
You should have spent those few hours making some purchases, too. Maybe then, Borders would still be in business and you'd have a place to sit around looking hip, frowning through your black-rimmed glasses at a book of obscure poetry whilst sipping your skinny half-caf mocha chai soy latte with artisanal fair trade sugar.
Wow, this thread is full of/.'ers who jump to conclusions based on logical fallacies. I *did* buy books, lots of them; I said I liked to spend time there on Saturday Afternoons- that doesn't automatically mean I didn't buy anything too. Too much is being read into that. I only meant to illustrate that I didn't just walk in, snatch a book and leave, I liked to look around and see what they had first.
NO I did not sit down and leisurely read their books (I'll never get why bookstores allow that, it seems a bad business model to give too much away); I did not go to the chick little built-in cafes either, I couldn't care less about them; I just walked around from section to section gathering things to buy or consider.
It's a troubling sign of the times, I don't like seeing brick 'n' mortar book stores going belly up, I loved to spend a few hours on Saturday afternoons looking around.
If people like you actually BOUGHT stuff instead of just looking around, they wouldn't go "belly up" would they?
Where did I say I didn't buy, AC? I stated I enjoyed looking around all afternoon. After that, I bought at least one book, if not more, every single Saturday. I had to devise new bookcases out of milk cartons when my bookcase got full just to accommodate all the books I bought from there.
PS to the modtard with the itchy trigger finger; how is this off-topic, exactly? Or is it some childish BN fanboism on your part?
Nonsense. Every week, I got a coupon for anywhere from 25% to 40% and sometimes even 50% off 1 book. And that'd good for ANY book, not just best sellers. In addition, after so many purchases (and not that many) you got "Borders Bucks", usually $5 off. They also had a premium membership, where additionally you got an add'l 10% off every purchase; they gave you $10 back in coupons right off the cuff. How is that "nothing" for people who actually purchase books? And I did purchase the books, at least one a week.
I liked Borders so much better than BN. BN is fine if you want current Best Sellers on the cheap, but if interested in more of the off-the-wall stuff, the coupons the free Border's membership offered (BN offers no free membership) were a far better deal.
It's a troubling sign of the times, I don't like seeing brick 'n' mortar book stores going belly up, I loved to spend a few hours on Saturday afternoons looking around.
maybe because most other countries in the modern world don't have a large rabidly religious and anti-science segment of their populations.
It's got nothing to do with that; it's all about the FDA and safety concerns.
But why is the FDA so anal? Because, in a nutshell, this country is overly-litigious, IMO. So the FDA has to play it conservatively, else there will be class-action lawsuits flying around quicker than you can blink. Lawyers, lawyers, everywhere.
I would think having a patient sign a waiver could avoid all that, but they'd still sue, claiming the drug's dangers were misrepresented or something. It's a lose/lose situation.
I refuse to believe liberals and conservatives can interbreed. If there was a resulting hybrid offspring it would most certainly be sterile.
Arnold Schwartzenegger and Maria Shriver
lol. I think the weirdest paring is James Carville and Mary Matalin - political consultants for the opposing parties. Amazing, shocking, and inspiring all at the same time.
If you equate physical motion with vibration, at it's stripped-down essence, then ostensibly, yes. Especially when swinging your arms while walking, which could be defined as an oscillation of sorts...just at a really, really, low frequency-- 1Hz or less.
"In Russia, BIOS rootkit exploits YOU!"
"Al Gore invented the rootkit"
"It's Bush's fault"
"All your BIOS are belong to us!" (Okay, haven't heard this one for a while)
There.. now we're done with all the/. memes and can move on, right?;)
Well, there's a couple of reasons: I keep a row of icons for frequently used apps on the left side of my desktop, I like instant (well, as "instant" as they can be) access to them, so I prefer them visible (in addition to the quick launch bar.. I have a lot of shortcuts!)
I've also noticed a little, infrequent bug where sometimes the taskbar button for a loaded app vanishes, usually Firefox for some reason.
There's always the "Alt-Tab" combo, but honestly it just doesn't really appeal to me as a primary method of app switching.. it's just a preference thing.
There's a certain "sweet spot" for me where window size is concerned, because I also can't stand to use windows that are the size of a postage stamp either, which I also frequently see people do -that's just too much scrolling. I guess I like a happy medium, but that's just me, to each their own. *shrug*
200 % agree. I hate when I go to someone else's PC (they need help on something) and all their windows are maximized. That's so geriatric. I like to stack/layer them, and still see a little desktop underneath.
Except that the Senate is majority Democrat, not right wing. The Right typically likes NASA, as you said, it goes hand in hand with the military. According to TFA, the House (Republican majority) recongnized the problem but didn't do anything about it, and the Senate just ignored it entirely. I don't think it makes sense to politically polarize this issue as they're both doing it.
Well, it's not as if the "civilized" Romans, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, (the endless list goes on) didn't do "barbaric" things like that as well. Mankinds history has always been violent, regardless of class. Mostly the label of "Barbarian" comes from a bias.F'instance, the Celtic tribes had laws, mathematics, and technology (i.e. among other things, all indications are that the celts invented (chain) mail, an advanced form of armor that the "more civilized" cultures borrowed), yet were still considered "barbarians" by the Romans.
I think the name was probably due to their living tribally rather than in large cities.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with the first paragraph of your statement, but I disagree that America has been a backward conservative nation for "much" of it's history. The Nancy aspect is a more recent phenomenon, IMO. America pioneered many things in it's first 150 years, industrially, scientifically, and otherwise. But yeah, we've taken a back seat to most of the world lately, we've gotten greedy, as well as complacent, entitled, and lazy.
His accusation is silly.. now get the hell away from my steak, it's mine!! MINE!
I had once felt that way too, but there's a distinct difference: doctors need only keep up with advancements in medicine or new discoveries about extant biological systems: the human body itself, however, doesn't really change (not over a few millenia, anyhow). It's a relatively stationary target.
Software, OTOH, frequently changes drastically and constantly; it's engineered by man, and can be radically altered in any number of ways on whim, forcing a reinventing of the wheel sometimes even; a moving, morphing target, much of it probably driven as much as by planned obsolescence and profit as it is utter necessity. (Does Word really need to keep "evolving" to do what it does?) Sometimes I really wanna say "screw all this" and go start a goat farm.
That's not what I proposed. What I proposed is to reduce carbon emissions- just not at a breakneck pace which could destroy the economy, unless we absolutely know GW is man-made and will cause the sky to fall as some predict unless we hit reverse with full engines. At no point in my post did I support your option "B", that's just a strawman argument. I said the big question was not whether or not to reduce emissions, but only at what rate it can feasibly be done.
Show us these plentiful examples of businesses that actually did better economically by going green, ("virtually every") and I'll show you a cherry picked segment of business who could feasibly do that. Basically all it shows is that those industries that could do it without going bankrupt have done it- but it doesn't mean it applies unilaterally to all industries, especially the larger ones. And even among them, a fair share of it is probably exaggeration, for PR purposes - it's the "in" thing and magically makes big polluters like GE, or the oil companies, all of whom have been running TV ads lately, look like the good guys.
The evidence for a fragile, teetering economy, OTOH, is plentiful and obvious - not just domestically, but globally.
This /\
Absolutely we should move toward renewable, cleaner energy sources, and more recycling -I'm all for it- the big question is, at what rate can we do this without bringing about another type of catastrophe? The global economy is already in dire straits, it can't take much more, and carbon taxes and new regulations and such push it to the breaking point that much harder. So sure, we might wind up with a cleaner environment, but with a collapsed economy, bringing about a different kind of future nightmare scenario.
And what if it turns out we can really do little to nothing to reverse warming, because it wasn't really manmade to begin with? If it's all for naught, if we're just spitting in the wind, and the country is ruined in the process, how smart is that?
We need to know beyond a doubt whether this is truly manmade, if it's actually reversible, and ASAP. Until then, we should walk the tightrope and keep a cool head (no pun intended).
Not entirely true. Some places, but not most. My wife was a catholic school teacher, and taught evolution. (we're in the mid-atlantic states). Nonetheless, issues like this, and many others, should be handled at the State level of government, not the federal level. There's too much intervention at the federal level. Seems we're not much of a "united" "states" anymore, it's more like one big monolithic state with 50 satellite jurisdictions.
Even the pr0n market has a niche for that.. yuck.
Anyway, this has potential for a brilliant PR move, if done the right way: "leak" a false younger age to IMDB, then sue when they publish it: you get attention, and you get people to believe you're actually younger than you really are.
I also recommend against TV for kids over 2. The overwhelming majority of it is a wasteland.
It's always possible that this isn't a deliberate targeted attack at all; it could even just be that someone inadvertently used a removable drive that already happened to have a keylogger on it. This would probably be the best case scenario of course. I find it a little odd is that they're having trouble removing it though.
And that'd good for ANY book, not just best sellers.
Just like the B&N coupons. Oh, sure, they ALSO have coupons for best sellers. But your implication that B&N is just a store for best sellers is absurd. Have you ever even been inside one?
Firstly, what does having been inside one have to do with membership perks when one could have a solely online experience, and still have access to the same offers?
By the same token one can go to the store all the time and not have a membership. One has little to do with the other.
But secondly, I've been in my local BN a hundred times -at least. AND I had a membership there.. for one year. Otherwise how could I possibly know about their offers and coupons?
How is that "nothing" for people who actually purchase books?I didn't say it was nothing. I said it was nothing like the B&N deals you can get. It's not even close. It might surprise you to know that I had a membership at BOTH places so I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
No, quite obviously you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I had membership to both Borders and BN myself, , and you never saw a coupon for *any* book you wanted for 40% at BN. Never. Don't try to tell me you did because you didn't, I know what the offers were. I let the BN membership go after that one year.
Now, if you are the kind of person who buys several books, say once a month, and you like the current ones, then BN is a good deal insofar as discounts are concerned; if like me, you buy one a week that is older, Borders was a better deal. This was never about total inventory though.
Yes, rah rah Borders. They had such great deals and carried such great titles that no one was buying and they went out of business.
And I did purchase the books, at least one a week.
Yeah, wow. Way to conflate the point I was making with what other people were saying. We're all really just the same person, you know. Twit.
Nice try. You said, "for people who actually buy the books", so you damn well know you insinuated I didn't buy them, like the 2 or 3 other posters who thought that as well. .. there ya go. What a great debater.
BN won out because they were bigger, simple as that. I don't hate BN by any stretch, but their deals didn't benefit me. That's all I was trying to say. It was nice to have a choice though.
Name calling
You should have spent those few hours making some purchases, too. Maybe then, Borders would still be in business and you'd have a place to sit around looking hip, frowning through your black-rimmed glasses at a book of obscure poetry whilst sipping your skinny half-caf mocha chai soy latte with artisanal fair trade sugar.
Wow, this thread is full of /.'ers who jump to conclusions based on logical fallacies. I *did* buy books, lots of them; I said I liked to spend time there on Saturday Afternoons- that doesn't automatically mean I didn't buy anything too. Too much is being read into that. I only meant to illustrate that I didn't just walk in, snatch a book and leave, I liked to look around and see what they had first.
NO I did not sit down and leisurely read their books (I'll never get why bookstores allow that, it seems a bad business model to give too much away); I did not go to the chick little built-in cafes either, I couldn't care less about them; I just walked around from section to section gathering things to buy or consider.
It's a troubling sign of the times, I don't like seeing brick 'n' mortar book stores going belly up, I loved to spend a few hours on Saturday afternoons looking around.
If people like you actually BOUGHT stuff instead of just looking around, they wouldn't go "belly up" would they?
Where did I say I didn't buy, AC? I stated I enjoyed looking around all afternoon. After that, I bought at least one book, if not more, every single Saturday. I had to devise new bookcases out of milk cartons when my bookcase got full just to accommodate all the books I bought from there.
PS to the modtard with the itchy trigger finger; how is this off-topic, exactly? Or is it some childish BN fanboism on your part?
Nonsense. Every week, I got a coupon for anywhere from 25% to 40% and sometimes even 50% off 1 book. And that'd good for ANY book, not just best sellers. In addition, after so many purchases (and not that many) you got "Borders Bucks", usually $5 off. They also had a premium membership, where additionally you got an add'l 10% off every purchase; they gave you $10 back in coupons right off the cuff. How is that "nothing" for people who actually purchase books? And I did purchase the books, at least one a week.
I liked Borders so much better than BN. BN is fine if you want current Best Sellers on the cheap, but if interested in more of the off-the-wall stuff, the coupons the free Border's membership offered (BN offers no free membership) were a far better deal.
It's a troubling sign of the times, I don't like seeing brick 'n' mortar book stores going belly up, I loved to spend a few hours on Saturday afternoons looking around.
Well, fsck me.. until I read your post, I thought the summary read "photons"...!
maybe because most other countries in the modern world don't have a large rabidly religious and anti-science segment of their populations.
It's got nothing to do with that; it's all about the FDA and safety concerns. But why is the FDA so anal? Because, in a nutshell, this country is overly-litigious, IMO. So the FDA has to play it conservatively, else there will be class-action lawsuits flying around quicker than you can blink. Lawyers, lawyers, everywhere.
I would think having a patient sign a waiver could avoid all that, but they'd still sue, claiming the drug's dangers were misrepresented or something. It's a lose/lose situation.
I refuse to believe liberals and conservatives can interbreed. If there was a resulting hybrid offspring it would most certainly be sterile.
Arnold Schwartzenegger and Maria Shriver
lol. I think the weirdest paring is James Carville and Mary Matalin - political consultants for the opposing parties. Amazing, shocking, and inspiring all at the same time.
If you equate physical motion with vibration, at it's stripped-down essence, then ostensibly, yes. Especially when swinging your arms while walking, which could be defined as an oscillation of sorts...just at a really, really, low frequency-- 1Hz or less.
"In Russia, BIOS rootkit exploits YOU!"
/. memes and can move on, right? ;)
"Al Gore invented the rootkit"
"It's Bush's fault"
"All your BIOS are belong to us!" (Okay, haven't heard this one for a while)
There.. now we're done with all the
I tried reading a book once, but apparently it's batteries were dead and I couldn't figure out where the hell to plug it in..
Well, there's a couple of reasons: I keep a row of icons for frequently used apps on the left side of my desktop, I like instant (well, as "instant" as they can be) access to them, so I prefer them visible (in addition to the quick launch bar.. I have a lot of shortcuts!)
I've also noticed a little, infrequent bug where sometimes the taskbar button for a loaded app vanishes, usually Firefox for some reason. There's always the "Alt-Tab" combo, but honestly it just doesn't really appeal to me as a primary method of app switching.. it's just a preference thing.
There's a certain "sweet spot" for me where window size is concerned, because I also can't stand to use windows that are the size of a postage stamp either, which I also frequently see people do -that's just too much scrolling. I guess I like a happy medium, but that's just me, to each their own. *shrug*
200 % agree. I hate when I go to someone else's PC (they need help on something) and all their windows are maximized. That's so geriatric. I like to stack/layer them, and still see a little desktop underneath.
Except that the Senate is majority Democrat, not right wing. The Right typically likes NASA, as you said, it goes hand in hand with the military. According to TFA, the House (Republican majority) recongnized the problem but didn't do anything about it, and the Senate just ignored it entirely. I don't think it makes sense to politically polarize this issue as they're both doing it.
Well, it's not as if the "civilized" Romans, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, (the endless list goes on) didn't do "barbaric" things like that as well. Mankinds history has always been violent, regardless of class. Mostly the label of "Barbarian" comes from a bias .F'instance, the Celtic tribes had laws, mathematics, and technology (i.e. among other things, all indications are that the celts invented (chain) mail, an advanced form of armor that the "more civilized" cultures borrowed), yet were still considered "barbarians" by the Romans.
I think the name was probably due to their living tribally rather than in large cities.
They're also known for their pasta inspired dances; namely, the Elbonian Macarena
yeah, I'll be here all week..