Whenever some pundit starts a statement with "Most Americans believe that... ", you can translate it to mean "I believe, and I'm about to try to convince you and anyone listening, that..."
Then why is this a "leak"? One, who may have access to sensitive information, does not have the unilateral authority to declassify that information for any arbitrary reason (e.g., they fundamentally disagree with its intended use). Legitimate whistle-blowers are fine (and necessary) but I'm troubled that people just anonymously release Government secrets because of political orientation. That's sometimes the difference between mere espionage and treason.
Of course, if this is deliberate DISinformation, never mind.
The people charged with our defense and national security are *supposed* to be uneasy,...lay awake nights,... constantly wonder if all they've done is enough. That way, the rest of us don't have to.
Many LEO satellites are visible to the naked eye, and certainly with only a little optical assistance. Spotting one and speculating what it's doing are two different things. But maybe it's time to employ a little stealth for satellites too.
I've never felt very strongly about any Presidential candidate, or any politician for that matter. But every candidate has a small % of avid, fervent, even whacko followers. With Ron Paul, he has so few followers to begin with, they're all whackos.
I think we are now at the inflection point for HD TVs. Last I heard, we (in the US) were at about 24% penetration. In the next year, that will invert. HDTV adoption is about to accelerate. But Joe and Flo Shmo Wal-mart shopper, don't know anything about HDDVD or Blu-Ray. Until the two formats reconcile or players converge to interchangeability, most people won't bother. Well, at least until they put a standard DVD in their player and see how much worse it looks that even their 1080i broadcasts.
Hmm... Why would online ad revenue profit margins skyrocket?
Two interrelated reasons: 1) There are only fixed costs associated with online delivery, and they are very low. After you reach your first reader, whether you reach your 2nd reader or your 2nd billion readers, your costs never change. The fixed costs of print (presses, pressmen, plants, etc.) are much greater than online production. 2) On line production has no recurring costs. The recurring costs for print (newsprint, ink, delivery, transportation, etc.) are really what's skyrocketing today, and will kill print media.
Of course, print eyeballs are like gold compared to online eyeballs (say, cellulose).
I guess we just need ban more stuff. If that doesn't work after another 20-30 years, it will be scientific proof that we still haven't banned enough stuff.
This is like the kick I get out of (mostly ignorant, closed-minded, but well-meaning) people who buy cars only from US automakers. Most GMs and Fords are final-assembled in Canada or Mexico. Hondas are assembled in Alabama. Toyotas are assembled in California. Hyundais are assembled in Georgia. I dare you to figure out what % of any manufacturer's major components (engines, trannys, etc.) are made where.
I do right by me. The best product, as best I can determine, at the best price. Keep it simple.
"Ever since they embraced the Net, they've been creating speedbumps, potholes and tollbooths. In my estimation they have set the computing world back at least a decade from where it could have been without them."
That's what happens when most of the computing industry can only move as fast as one company. Fortunately, the Web has advanced at light speed because literally millions of companies and individuals contributed (and nobody, not even Microsoft, could stop it). Craig "Mundane" is apparently a real chip off the ol' steaming pile of flaming dog shit.
... if you even have any. No matter how sound the research, if you immediately follow it with conjecture about how it relates to George Bush's decision-making process (or lack thereof) it leads me to believe you have an agenda (and you're just masking it by throwing in the Kerry thing). Leave out the conjecture altogether.
Another way to blow your scientific credibility: use today's weather as an example of how the global climate [is | is not] changing. I can see it coming from the corner grocer (as in, on a cold day we hear "Weahs da global wawmin'?"), but I can;t believe how much of it I hear from actual scientists (although, many are not climatologists).
"... We blew it with Windows 98, but trust us with Windows XP. This is it!!"
Doesn't someone from Microsoft say something like that every time the come out with a new OS? "This is the ultimate!! That stuff we sold you the last time - that's dreck."
No matter what the nature of the classified information, no matter what your political opinion of the current regime, NO ONE PERSON HAS THE UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO DECLASSIFY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
When I first read the/. headline, I thought it was about Technical Writers. I couldn't understand why tech writers would have objections to the GPLv3. Yes, I admit to being a tech-knuckle writer, and with few exceptions we are among the most vile and contemptible occupants on the planet, and are rightly regarded as such.
But confusing us with freelance writers of technology articles, well that's just cruel.
What does this have to do with what most/.ers are interested in? Or did I miss it when/. declared itself just another tool of the political left. We already know that it is, but you don't have to be as obvious about you bias as FOX or the NY Times (which is where I go to read this kind of crap; and I never go there; hence, I don't read this kind of crap).
"Shame on all those who praised and continue to praise the OOXML formula specification without actually reading it."
Reminds me of something I once heard a congressman rationalize in reference to a bill he just voted for containing several lame provisions (many with which he did not even agree): "Do you have any idea what reading a bill like that would entail?" I do. It would entail you doing your fucking job.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever some pundit starts a statement with "Most Americans believe that ... ", you can translate it to mean "I believe, and I'm about to try to convince you and anyone listening, that ..."
See also, sig.
Then why is this a "leak"? One, who may have access to sensitive information, does not have the unilateral authority to declassify that information for any arbitrary reason (e.g., they fundamentally disagree with its intended use). Legitimate whistle-blowers are fine (and necessary) but I'm troubled that people just anonymously release Government secrets because of political orientation. That's sometimes the difference between mere espionage and treason.
Of course, if this is deliberate DISinformation, never mind.
" ... will have 72 wireless access points to allow out-of-towners to use their laptops to navigate the Google Earth version of the city."
Now, I don't have to go there at all. WHEW!!
The people charged with our defense and national security are *supposed* to be uneasy, ...lay awake nights, ... constantly wonder if all they've done is enough. That way, the rest of us don't have to.
Many LEO satellites are visible to the naked eye, and certainly with only a little optical assistance. Spotting one and speculating what it's doing are two different things. But maybe it's time to employ a little stealth for satellites too.
I've never felt very strongly about any Presidential candidate, or any politician for that matter. But every candidate has a small % of avid, fervent, even whacko followers. With Ron Paul, he has so few followers to begin with, they're all whackos.
But usually, they are exactly what they appear.
I think we are now at the inflection point for HD TVs. Last I heard, we (in the US) were at about 24% penetration. In the next year, that will invert. HDTV adoption is about to accelerate. But Joe and Flo Shmo Wal-mart shopper, don't know anything about HDDVD or Blu-Ray. Until the two formats reconcile or players converge to interchangeability, most people won't bother. Well, at least until they put a standard DVD in their player and see how much worse it looks that even their 1080i broadcasts.
... I'd prefer NOT to know about it than to know about it.
So I'm happy.
Hmm ... Why would online ad revenue profit margins skyrocket?
Two interrelated reasons:
1) There are only fixed costs associated with online delivery, and they are very low. After you reach your first reader, whether you reach your 2nd reader or your 2nd billion readers, your costs never change. The fixed costs of print (presses, pressmen, plants, etc.) are much greater than online production.
2) On line production has no recurring costs. The recurring costs for print (newsprint, ink, delivery, transportation, etc.) are really what's skyrocketing today, and will kill print media.
Of course, print eyeballs are like gold compared to online eyeballs (say, cellulose).
It's a design that integrates multiple, previously existing technologies/features/products/etc.
But, if the design is patentable, I suppose it's an invention; I just don't hold with it.
I wonder who Elliot Spitzer will sue when unemployment goes to 23% in NY.
Oh that's right, he'll be in jail.
I guess we just need ban more stuff. If that doesn't work after another 20-30 years, it will be scientific proof that we still haven't banned enough stuff.
This is like the kick I get out of (mostly ignorant, closed-minded, but well-meaning) people who buy cars only from US automakers. Most GMs and Fords are final-assembled in Canada or Mexico. Hondas are assembled in Alabama. Toyotas are assembled in California. Hyundais are assembled in Georgia. I dare you to figure out what % of any manufacturer's major components (engines, trannys, etc.) are made where.
I do right by me. The best product, as best I can determine, at the best price. Keep it simple.
"Ever since they embraced the Net, they've been creating speedbumps, potholes and tollbooths. In my estimation they have set the computing world back at least a decade from where it could have been without them."
That's what happens when most of the computing industry can only move as fast as one company. Fortunately, the Web has advanced at light speed because literally millions of companies and individuals contributed (and nobody, not even Microsoft, could stop it). Craig "Mundane" is apparently a real chip off the ol' steaming pile of flaming dog shit.
... if you even have any. No matter how sound the research, if you immediately follow it with conjecture about how it relates to George Bush's decision-making process (or lack thereof) it leads me to believe you have an agenda (and you're just masking it by throwing in the Kerry thing). Leave out the conjecture altogether.
Another way to blow your scientific credibility: use today's weather as an example of how the global climate [is | is not] changing. I can see it coming from the corner grocer (as in, on a cold day we hear "Weahs da global wawmin'?"), but I can;t believe how much of it I hear from actual scientists (although, many are not climatologists).
"Quick! Where's McCarthy when we need him?"
Charlie or Joe?
Can you imagine what you'd think if you fired into the ground and light came out?
" ... We blew it with Windows 98, but trust us with Windows XP. This is it!!"
Doesn't someone from Microsoft say something like that every time the come out with a new OS? "This is the ultimate!! That stuff we sold you the last time - that's dreck."
Some geek posts pictures of his girlfriend in a see-thru blouse along side some gear, and it becomes news on /.
No matter what the nature of the classified information, no matter what your political opinion of the current regime, NO ONE PERSON HAS THE UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO DECLASSIFY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
That's just the way it is.
... because we don't have to chop wood to stay warm or run from the saber-tooth tigers.
When I first read the /. headline, I thought it was about Technical Writers. I couldn't understand why tech writers would have objections to the GPLv3. Yes, I admit to being a tech-knuckle writer, and with few exceptions we are among the most vile and contemptible occupants on the planet, and are rightly regarded as such.
But confusing us with freelance writers of technology articles, well that's just cruel.
What does this have to do with what most /.ers are interested in? Or did I miss it when /. declared itself just another tool of the political left. We already know that it is, but you don't have to be as obvious about you bias as FOX or the NY Times (which is where I go to read this kind of crap; and I never go there; hence, I don't read this kind of crap).
This seems like an extraordinary chance to find hard evidence on what caused their extinction.
I thought we already knew that. Dick Cheny's farts containing greenhouse gases resulting in global warming.
"Shame on all those who praised and continue to praise the OOXML formula specification without actually reading it."
Reminds me of something I once heard a congressman rationalize in reference to a bill he just voted for containing several lame provisions (many with which he did not even agree): "Do you have any idea what reading a bill like that would entail?" I do. It would entail you doing your fucking job.