Yes, but honest news outfits do everything in their power to minimize their bias, rather than reveling in it like Fox and the other NewsCorp properties do.
When "green tech" is really just "tech", then great, let's do it. When it's a quest to make $10 worth of energy for $50, then I propose we let Europeans or Australians take the lead.
All "tech" starts out as "X tech" because X is new. Making $10 of Y for $50 is a necessary step on making $10 of X for $5, especially when Y is made from new technology. You really don't understand the economics of disruptive technology, do you?
For all of the right-wing clowns here who are saying that it is unfair to brand Fox News and the other "fine" Murdoch properties with the tar coming from this story, I have one response: If you buy properties that lie down with dogs and don't clean them up, you shouldn't be surprised when the fleas hop onto you. God knows Rupert's had time to change this paper's editorial policies if he didn't approve of them - he's owned it since 1969.
Since the equipment is manufactured in China, it isn't as if the government couldn't just have the factories supply them with as many gray market units as they need.
or did they push it a week ago and Apple approved it on Thursday?
It doesn't matter. If you choose a distribution channel that has an approval process, you should know enough about its approval timelines to make sure that something like this doesn't happen. This should be no surprise to someone in a time-sensitive market with approval processes like news. This is just gross negligence on the part of the Times.
Besides, if your name is on it, you should take responsibility for it. The Times chose to put up a paywall and issue an app. They chose the distribution channel with all of the approval issues that were involved. They obviously did not test the deployment well enough. They, and they alone, are responsible.
Re:Google maps / mouse scroll wheel annoyance
on
Google's New Design
·
· Score: 1
A lot of graphical-oriented apps use the scroll wheel to zoom. Google is not the first to re-purpose the scroll wheel for this purpose. I'm sure they see driving you crazy as simply an added benefit.
you don't need to regulate every last detail of the domain arguably under your control.
Oddly enough, though, it does make sense if you assume that you will face a court challenge. If you have only partial regulation, the immediate challenge will be based on either that you drew the line in the wrong place or that you did not have the right to draw the line. If you make it a black and white proposition, the argument that you drew the line in the wrong place does not hold and the court must decide solely on the right to regulate. And, once you've been given the right to regulate, you can then re-draw the line where you want to without the pesky "right to regulate" challenge looming.
Now, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but why does not the city not have the right to regulate breeding and sale of animals? We already have local ordinances regulating cruelty with respect to animals that have been upheld. If you are a politician that sees pet ownership as "animal slavery" or the destruction of innocent animal life as a "right to life" issue, should not one try to prevent breeding of excess animals while other ones are being euthanized? Would a local ordinance trying to prevent this not be a good thing?
(Again, note that I am playing devil's advocate here. I actually think that breeding animals is a good thing, with them being so tasty and all...)
I mean, who -doesn't- want to die from easily treatable infections, live their lives in darkness and generally live like we did in the 1700s.
Wow! Way to use a false dichotomy! Nice bit of black and white thinking! I am impressed with your stunning rhetorical skills and wish to subscribe to your newsletter! How about putting 2% of our resources towards cleaning things up? I'm pretty sure that this would not cause us to "live like we did in the 1700s". After that, we're just arguing about the percentage - which is probably why you don't want to have the discussion.
Are you so unschooled that you do not understand that Personification is a fine rhetorical device and has been in use for thousands of years? Even by those who do not worship Gaia? The point being that you can only push the ecosystem so far before its degradation starts having an adverse effect on you. But then, I'm sure that you are intelligent enough to understand this. Because, otherwise, your opening salvo would be an ad hominem attack on the OP, attempting to paint him as irrational, something that I do not believe you have evidence for.
I understand that you believe that your currently impressive quality of life depends, in many ways, on continued assaults upon the Earth's ecosystem and that halting the same might impact your economic status or the quality of life that you now enjoy. However, I believe that you overestimate the impact that reducing mankind's wastefulness would have and, as such, attempt to rationalize the harm you and the other inhabitants of this world cause by using a false comparison with someone who does not have the technology you enjoy - including technology that could be harnessed to clean the world's ecosystems rather than to assault them.
They said in the New Scientist article (linked from TFA) that they cannot show the ads "until the study is finished". I think there's a message about who they think the scientific community is, somewhere in that statement.
In a nutshell, the the exception of a small priest hood, scientific research has been widely regarded as broken, dishonest, politically driven, and jaded, such that it largely serves the priest hood moreso than anyone else.
I assume you mean "with the exception" and "priesthood", but even though it is regarded as broken (and certainly not by all), it is like capitalism - it's the worst system around, except for all the others.
I thank 'the Heartland' for their ability and willingness to take advantage of an environment that is suitable for growing vast quantities of food. Does that mean I need to respect their backward and counterproductive political views? Not for a second. I grew up there. I know how stupid most of those people are.
Just... wow! I love the way the right-wing spin machine (because "American Thinker" is about as neutral as the negative pole of a DC battery) is now trying to blame systemic flooding resulting from anthropogenic climate change as being due to those bad environmentalists. On the other hand, I am happy that this article has been posted so that Slashfolk can see how low the right is willing to go to keep spewing carbon.
Universities grant degrees for people who fulfill the requirements described for the granting of the degree. If you're not willing to do what's required, you have no right to one. If all you want to do is sling code, go to a freaking tech school. If that's not respected as much as an BSCS? There's probably a reason for that.
I'm a guy with a job, a wife, and two kids who went back to get an MSCS at age 50. I wanted one, I did what was required (including a thesis), and got one. My undergrad degree was thirty+ years ago (in Computer Engineering) - again, I wanted it, I did what was required, and... hey! I got the degree! How about that!? Such a deal... The bottom line is that a University is not a Tech School. If you want the respect/prestige/whatever of a University degree, do what's required to get one. If you don't want to, then live with the tech school degree you're entitled to.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing is without bias.
Yes, but honest news outfits do everything in their power to minimize their bias, rather than reveling in it like Fox and the other NewsCorp properties do.
I will give them the most highly educated bunch of whippersnappers the world has ever seen.
Using words like "whippersnappers", I doubt you're going to get them to listen to you at all, let alone teach them anything.
Please phrase your answer in the form of a question
Watson: What is Toronto?
You gotta hang the pork chop around the neck of your ugly baby to get the dog to play with it...
When "green tech" is really just "tech", then great, let's do it. When it's a quest to make $10 worth of energy for $50, then I propose we let Europeans or Australians take the lead.
All "tech" starts out as "X tech" because X is new. Making $10 of Y for $50 is a necessary step on making $10 of X for $5, especially when Y is made from new technology. You really don't understand the economics of disruptive technology, do you?
If lawyers and/or patent trolls are keeping you from inventing, I doubt you are actually inventing anything.
For all of the right-wing clowns here who are saying that it is unfair to brand Fox News and the other "fine" Murdoch properties with the tar coming from this story, I have one response: If you buy properties that lie down with dogs and don't clean them up, you shouldn't be surprised when the fleas hop onto you. God knows Rupert's had time to change this paper's editorial policies if he didn't approve of them - he's owned it since 1969.
Since the equipment is manufactured in China, it isn't as if the government couldn't just have the factories supply them with as many gray market units as they need.
or did they push it a week ago and Apple approved it on Thursday?
It doesn't matter. If you choose a distribution channel that has an approval process, you should know enough about its approval timelines to make sure that something like this doesn't happen. This should be no surprise to someone in a time-sensitive market with approval processes like news. This is just gross negligence on the part of the Times.
Besides, if your name is on it, you should take responsibility for it. The Times chose to put up a paywall and issue an app. They chose the distribution channel with all of the approval issues that were involved. They obviously did not test the deployment well enough. They, and they alone, are responsible.
A lot of graphical-oriented apps use the scroll wheel to zoom. Google is not the first to re-purpose the scroll wheel for this purpose. I'm sure they see driving you crazy as simply an added benefit.
You forgot about the part where the aliens see the nuclear weapons explosions used in the attack and come to earth to capture and eat all humans.
you don't need to regulate every last detail of the domain arguably under your control.
Oddly enough, though, it does make sense if you assume that you will face a court challenge. If you have only partial regulation, the immediate challenge will be based on either that you drew the line in the wrong place or that you did not have the right to draw the line. If you make it a black and white proposition, the argument that you drew the line in the wrong place does not hold and the court must decide solely on the right to regulate. And, once you've been given the right to regulate, you can then re-draw the line where you want to without the pesky "right to regulate" challenge looming.
Now, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but why does not the city not have the right to regulate breeding and sale of animals? We already have local ordinances regulating cruelty with respect to animals that have been upheld. If you are a politician that sees pet ownership as "animal slavery" or the destruction of innocent animal life as a "right to life" issue, should not one try to prevent breeding of excess animals while other ones are being euthanized? Would a local ordinance trying to prevent this not be a good thing?
(Again, note that I am playing devil's advocate here. I actually think that breeding animals is a good thing, with them being so tasty and all...)
I mean, who -doesn't- want to die from easily treatable infections, live their lives in darkness and generally live like we did in the 1700s.
Wow! Way to use a false dichotomy! Nice bit of black and white thinking! I am impressed with your stunning rhetorical skills and wish to subscribe to your newsletter! How about putting 2% of our resources towards cleaning things up? I'm pretty sure that this would not cause us to "live like we did in the 1700s". After that, we're just arguing about the percentage - which is probably why you don't want to have the discussion.
Are you so unschooled that you do not understand that Personification is a fine rhetorical device and has been in use for thousands of years? Even by those who do not worship Gaia?
The point being that you can only push the ecosystem so far before its degradation starts having an adverse effect on you. But then, I'm sure that you are intelligent enough to understand this. Because, otherwise, your opening salvo would be an ad hominem attack on the OP, attempting to paint him as irrational, something that I do not believe you have evidence for.
I understand that you believe that your currently impressive quality of life depends, in many ways, on continued assaults upon the Earth's ecosystem and that halting the same might impact your economic status or the quality of life that you now enjoy. However, I believe that you overestimate the impact that reducing mankind's wastefulness would have and, as such, attempt to rationalize the harm you and the other inhabitants of this world cause by using a false comparison with someone who does not have the technology you enjoy - including technology that could be harnessed to clean the world's ecosystems rather than to assault them.
They said in the New Scientist article (linked from TFA) that they cannot show the ads "until the study is finished". I think there's a message about who they think the scientific community is, somewhere in that statement.
people who love the civil war and collect artifacts from it and do battle re-enactments aren't geeks?
No, they're usually just Johnny Reb traitors waiting to secede again. And we'll let 'em this time. That'll show 'em.
In a nutshell, the the exception of a small priest hood, scientific research has been widely regarded as broken, dishonest, politically driven, and jaded, such that it largely serves the priest hood moreso than anyone else.
I assume you mean "with the exception" and "priesthood", but even though it is regarded as broken (and certainly not by all), it is like capitalism - it's the worst system around, except for all the others.
They read that and completely write Firefox off.
Most of the "alternative browser" folks in our environment are on Chrome by now, anyway.
Small regional banks are pretty good, too. Just watch for signs of being overextended and/or being gobbled up by one of the big boys.
Thank 'the Heartland'.
I thank 'the Heartland' for their ability and willingness to take advantage of an environment that is suitable for growing vast quantities of food. Does that mean I need to respect their backward and counterproductive political views? Not for a second. I grew up there. I know how stupid most of those people are.
Just... wow! I love the way the right-wing spin machine (because "American Thinker" is about as neutral as the negative pole of a DC battery) is now trying to blame systemic flooding resulting from anthropogenic climate change as being due to those bad environmentalists. On the other hand, I am happy that this article has been posted so that Slashfolk can see how low the right is willing to go to keep spewing carbon.
Universities grant degrees for people who fulfill the requirements described for the granting of the degree. If you're not willing to do what's required, you have no right to one. If all you want to do is sling code, go to a freaking tech school. If that's not respected as much as an BSCS? There's probably a reason for that.
I'm a guy with a job, a wife, and two kids who went back to get an MSCS at age 50. I wanted one, I did what was required (including a thesis), and got one. My undergrad degree was thirty+ years ago (in Computer Engineering) - again, I wanted it, I did what was required, and... hey! I got the degree! How about that!? Such a deal... The bottom line is that a University is not a Tech School. If you want the respect/prestige/whatever of a University degree, do what's required to get one. If you don't want to, then live with the tech school degree you're entitled to.
People who harp on "the point" of copyright while ignoring the reality of its use are the useful idiots for those who exploit it.
Because nothing says increase due diligence by patent examiners like "ease the lengthy backlog in patent applications".
...especially since parody so often relies on the meat of source material.
And no matter what you say about Lady Gaga, she had some meat for source material.