My solution - incorporate a moderation system like the one on slashdot to filter out the dickwads.
Heh. Like the moderation system here on slashdot really works to filter out the "dickwads" as you say. No, it also works to "filter out" anything the moderator doesn't want to hear. Instead, people should engage the gray matter between their ears and THINK about what they read, and if they don't agree, make a sighing sound and MOVE ON. Censorship just gives power to those who appoint themselves as "censor".
For the same reason that someone who signs a contract without reading it and/or insisting on changes, deserves to be screwed. It's called a manual, it comes with the device, and you are allowed to read it. There is no "deception", only ignorance on the part of the user.
I keep meaning to respond without RTFA-ing (R-ingTFA?) so I can lower my blood pressure at least a couple of hundred diastolic points, but I just can't make myself do it.
I'm sorry sir, you're just not slashdot material. Not reading the articles is somewhat more than formality. It's REQUIRED. Please leave and come back when you forget how to read.
Hey hang on, exactly how much do you expect to make when your market consists of "that portion of India that can't afford their own personal computer"?
Or the glass itself, causing a prolonged foreign body reaction, with the corresponding long term exposure to growth factors in the tissue surrounding the implant. A great promotion phase that just needs a bit of initiation. Radio induced genetic mutation could be an excellent initiator. Therefore, cancer.
And perhaps you should look at history, because what I am saying is that this is NOTHING NEW. 99% of the wealth has ALWAYS been in the hands of less than 1% of the population. Be it the emperor or the King and his friends, or the heads of large corporations. Or the small group of elite politicians in the so called "communist" states. You are just kidding yourself if you think it was ever any other way.
As production increases, the rich benefit most. Yeah, so the rich get richer. The poor are still slaves - if not whipped to death nowadays, they are simply enslaved by credit, mortgages, fees, etc. But the poor today have public transport (and even vehicles). The poor today are allowed to "own" their property. They are allowed to travel, and they are allowed to do anything that the rich can do, provided they can afford it. Now if they can't manage the little money they have and try to live beyond their means, then it's their own damned fault if they end up in a huge mess. A fool and his money are soon parted - be he RICH or POOR alike.
Somebody else might say the rich are currently stealing from the poor.
No, the rich EXPLOIT the poor. Because they set the terms for the labor force and if the workers don't like it, we'll just find more workers elsewhere. Yes sometimes this exploitation is even abusive - when the labor force (or the envronment, etc) is harmed. Then it can be considered "theft". This is where governments have to regualte, to prevent abuse by the wealthy. But if the labor force wants a full share in the profits, then they should be forced to swallow the RISKS of the investment/business as well. After all it's only fair, no?
However nationalizing corporations (a la Hugo Chavez), banks (Britain under Labour?) and the private holdings of wealthy families (a la Soviet Union, China and any other communist country you care to mention: this is outright theft.
we might see some kind of subconscious magical thinking whereby he thinks that defending the ultra-rich will somehow make him ultra-rich.
No I'm just a realist. Even under a "socialist" economy, where you steal from the rich and give to the poor, the political elite - those who actually control who get what, will be FAR richer than you. Remember the Soviet Union? The place where shortages existed in everything from bread to clothing? Ahh, but if you were a high ranking party member, there was a SPECIAL store you could go to, where they had everything in stock. No politburo member ever had to wait in line for anything.
There will always be rich, and there will always be poor in ANY society. Also my financial situation is none of your business, but you are WAY off...
What exactly gave you the impression they were jokers?
What planet have you been living on for the past few years? If you wish to call the Bush administration an intellectual elite, I guess that's your right. The polls, however, are starting to support the "joker" category.
and the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
This has been the case since the first man beat up his neighbor and forced him to become his slave. This rich will ALWAYS be richer, but the poor increase their standard of living. Today being "poor" in the West means having a small tv, and a second hand car, a used fridge and electricity, and a menial job. 200 years ago it meant starvation, and it still does in some places. Your point is?
Slashdot Mirror
Can this thing seriously carry any cargo that is worthwhile?
Well if you're in the used battery business, this thing is a gold mine!
I, for one, welcome our [can't think of a damn thing witty] overlords.
Robotic, solar powered flying overlords?
Accessing my mp3s and documents over the web has been a dream up to now.
That's funny, I have no trouble at all accessing your documents...
If he got shit for using "lindows", I bet ajaxWindows is going to go down a real treat with Microsoft. Law suit in 5, 4, 3...
My solution - incorporate a moderation system like the one on slashdot to filter out the dickwads.
Heh. Like the moderation system here on slashdot really works to filter out the "dickwads" as you say. No, it also works to "filter out" anything the moderator doesn't want to hear. Instead, people should engage the gray matter between their ears and THINK about what they read, and if they don't agree, make a sighing sound and MOVE ON. Censorship just gives power to those who appoint themselves as "censor".
Every other phone I have EVER seen is actually OFF when you turn it OFF.
I've got news for you...
For the same reason that someone who signs a contract without reading it and/or insisting on changes, deserves to be screwed. It's called a manual, it comes with the device, and you are allowed to read it. There is no "deception", only ignorance on the part of the user.
As the first thing that pops into my mind is
"I'm in Ur computer loggin Ur keys"
This is what happens when you visit "that other place" too often.
I keep meaning to respond without RTFA-ing (R-ingTFA?) so I can lower my blood pressure at least a couple of hundred diastolic points, but I just can't make myself do it.
I'm sorry sir, you're just not slashdot material. Not reading the articles is somewhat more than formality. It's REQUIRED. Please leave and come back when you forget how to read.
3) PROFIT!
Hey hang on, exactly how much do you expect to make when your market consists of "that portion of India that can't afford their own personal computer"?
OTH, it might be a trace element in the glass.
Or the glass itself, causing a prolonged foreign body reaction, with the corresponding long term exposure to growth factors in the tissue surrounding the implant. A great promotion phase that just needs a bit of initiation. Radio induced genetic mutation could be an excellent initiator. Therefore, cancer.
Hope they're not Li-ion.
Actually, the little rovers could use the extra heat...
Why hang five/six of them on a B-52 when you can shove a dozen of them in a C-130 Herc.?
It's called making sure you're over budget, so that they don't cut your budget next year.
This is clearly Iran's fault, silly. Invasion in 5, 4, 3...
Also for a modest sum I can contradict whatever decipher_saint says. In court, if needed.
Obviously education still remains as a tiny fraction of the economy.
the only possible solution is to treat everyone as if they have convicted a crime?!
Everyone HAS committed some form of crime at some time or other. Just not everyone has been caught.
It's easier for the Scots though, because if they want to collect it from you again they can get it from the sheep in your backyard.
No that won't work, they'll just end up with the DNA from every male in the village... but now how can they tell who is who?
Sure, but where are you going to go (other than the UK) for fine dining? Hmmmm??
Ahhh the UK, where even salt is considered too spicy. Oh and remember, if in doubt, boil it until it's an even gray color.
You really should learn some socioeconomics.
And perhaps you should look at history, because what I am saying is that this is NOTHING NEW. 99% of the wealth has ALWAYS been in the hands of less than 1% of the population. Be it the emperor or the King and his friends, or the heads of large corporations. Or the small group of elite politicians in the so called "communist" states. You are just kidding yourself if you think it was ever any other way.
As production increases, the rich benefit most. Yeah, so the rich get richer. The poor are still slaves - if not whipped to death nowadays, they are simply enslaved by credit, mortgages, fees, etc. But the poor today have public transport (and even vehicles). The poor today are allowed to "own" their property. They are allowed to travel, and they are allowed to do anything that the rich can do, provided they can afford it. Now if they can't manage the little money they have and try to live beyond their means, then it's their own damned fault if they end up in a huge mess. A fool and his money are soon parted - be he RICH or POOR alike.
Somebody else might say the rich are currently stealing from the poor.
No, the rich EXPLOIT the poor. Because they set the terms for the labor force and if the workers don't like it, we'll just find more workers elsewhere. Yes sometimes this exploitation is even abusive - when the labor force (or the envronment, etc) is harmed. Then it can be considered "theft". This is where governments have to regualte, to prevent abuse by the wealthy. But if the labor force wants a full share in the profits, then they should be forced to swallow the RISKS of the investment/business as well. After all it's only fair, no?
However nationalizing corporations (a la Hugo Chavez), banks (Britain under Labour?) and the private holdings of wealthy families (a la Soviet Union, China and any other communist country you care to mention: this is outright theft.
Even those 5000 is not under the exclusive control of the executive branch.
Are you sure? After all, everything ELSE seems to be...
we might see some kind of subconscious magical thinking whereby he thinks that defending the ultra-rich will somehow make him ultra-rich.
No I'm just a realist. Even under a "socialist" economy, where you steal from the rich and give to the poor, the political elite - those who actually control who get what, will be FAR richer than you. Remember the Soviet Union? The place where shortages existed in everything from bread to clothing? Ahh, but if you were a high ranking party member, there was a SPECIAL store you could go to, where they had everything in stock. No politburo member ever had to wait in line for anything.
There will always be rich, and there will always be poor in ANY society. Also my financial situation is none of your business, but you are WAY off...
What exactly gave you the impression they were jokers?
What planet have you been living on for the past few years? If you wish to call the Bush administration an intellectual elite, I guess that's your right. The polls, however, are starting to support the "joker" category.
and the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
This has been the case since the first man beat up his neighbor and forced him to become his slave. This rich will ALWAYS be richer, but the poor increase their standard of living. Today being "poor" in the West means having a small tv, and a second hand car, a used fridge and electricity, and a menial job. 200 years ago it meant starvation, and it still does in some places. Your point is?