Why does Slashdot even make the claim any more? I'm notice less and less factually based news here. It's a soapbox and a spotlight where people can stand up and rant under the guise of news. You just can't take this site seriously anymore. I mean really... "I just won't talk about the subject, I'll tell you my politcial and social-economic views all the while I clue you in as to why i became an evil genius in the first place, not to mention why you're a moron for thinking otherwise"
"Latest IE Hole Lets Gopher Root You" -Good article. Concise, to the point and leaving the rants to the users forums. Unless it's an editorial, that's the way it ought to be. Time for a slogan change: Rants for nerds. Opinions that have no bearing on real life whatsoever. And if you come on a good day, maybe some stuff that might matter.
News: 1a : a report of recent events b : previously unknown information 2a : material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast b : matter that is newsworthy
Editorial : a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article.
Rant 1: to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2: to scold vehemently.
These silly treaties are all about trust. I trust my competitor not launch a nuclear strike because niether of us have a nuclear missile defense. I won't take nuclear weapons into space because I trust my competitor to do the same and it would ruin the purely scientific and exploratory nature of space. I trust the neighborhood bully not to knock me silly while my back is to him because we both have fists and could seriously hurt one another. These treaties also hinge upon their signers being thinking, rational people capable of looking at the "correct" big picture, the correct big picture being peace in our time. Hitler signed lots of treaties. So did Stalin. Listen and listen good: YOU CAN NOT BASE YOUR COUNTRY'S SAFTEY AND SURVIVAL ON THE SUPPOSIVE GOODWILL OF THE COMPETITION. Your country. My country. This treaty and every one like it assumes everybody will play by the rules, nice and orderly. No punches below the belt, sir, Thank you. The "rules" are ALWAYS broken in war; If not in the first strike then in what follows. Why will Pakistan use nuclear weapons in a fight with India? Because they know they can't win a war by India's rule book. They've said so themsleves, India has a superior conventional force than us so the only way we can defend our soverignty is by going nuclear. The rules and treaties say that's a no-no. Watch them care as the enemy advances across their boarders. Watch them say "We're good and decent people. No nukes. Let them conquer us." These assnine treaties are oblivious to human nature and in the end they're going to cost more lives than they save because there are idiots in power and these morons don't care about your defunct treaties or feelings
Pop Quiz- Would any major country allow the UN to intervene in it's domestic policy involuntarily? If they didn't want UN involvement, it wouldn't happen because nobody truly respects the UN as a soverign force and very few nations would be willing to give up their soverignty to the UN. Sure, the smaller dissenting members could be beaten into submission, but would larger members like the UK, USA, Russian Federation, France, China, Canada, etc, etc, secede authority to them? Say it with me: "Hell no." Basically, none of the UN's member countries actually respect the UN unless it's to their benefit. The only way to make the UN a potent force would be to give it total autonomous authority with a force that could do substantial damage to any of it's members. It would have to be a entity all it's own, it's peoples severing all ties of loyalty to their countries of origin and said countries would have to surrender their soverignty to the UN body. This is it's ultimate goal, but it's one that will never happen for the UN. Maybe in the far flung future under another organization, but the UN is a failure for the most part. As it is, the only countries it has lasting effects on are 3rd world heaps. It's true on Earth and space won't change that one bit.
So much for that "universe of infinite possibilities"... Hell, we can calculate it all out! *A star winks out of existance* Oops. Forgot to carry the two. Is this guy really that naive to think he can accurately do something like that? What's his error factor? +/- 3^8 ?? It's almost like... Like... Like predicting a pattern of (dare I say "global") warming using a sliver of history as an example!
Which leads me to the perfect segway... 2002-06-03 19:25:40 Bush Administration Global Warming Turnabout (articles,news) (rejected) [TOTAL REJECTED TO DATE: 9/9]..Basically, said admin has reversed it's policy on Global warming. Hey, Kyoto and U-571 mad news here... What's up?
"The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 53,000 square miles of tropical forests (rain forest and other) were destroyed each year during the 1980s"
Ok, given the amount of current rainforest coverage from this page (totalling up to approx. 733594 Square miles; converted from kilometers), we should actually run out of rainforest in 50 years ^__^ Of course, everybody I talk to seems to have a different number and it's always changing and or highly exaggerated. Speaking of which, weren't we supposed to have run out of forest already? And finally, to the ire of all the tree hugging weenies out there, the rainforests as we know them are pretty young geologically. What entitles you to one? Hell, it probably the only source of income a lot of these families have over there. It's that whole trees/animals over people that just rubs me the wrong way. the same mentality that says it's OK to abort a child but you'll get slapped with a lawsuit and jail time for poaching a condor egg. Yeah, you go there Eco-warrior boy.
I know I'm ranting now and I would like to see the rainforest conserved, but there's more than just trees and frogs to consider here, Ok? It's not as cut and dry as everybody would make it out to be.
Is that all it takes to become a wonder of the world? Heck, I'll just go and encase my arse in glass and display it for public admiration. I'd charge admittance to... Nah, that one was too easy.
Kinda what we do when we Slashdot a site to death?
Re:Uh...ninth wonder of the world.
on
Project Eden
·
· Score: 1
The Coral Castle is a wonder of the world? How'd that happen...? Sure, it's unique but I can find any number of unique structures anywhere in the US, let alone the world. How about Crazy Horse Memorial, using the entire mountain as a canvas?
People seem to forget technology is the great equalizer when it comes to limited resources. It's why we won't run out of oil in 2010 and why crowding won't remain a problem. It's using what you have more effciently, not basing your results on a static idiology when the world you live is in a dynamic progression.
The article brings up some interesting points but over-complicates the issue buy large magnitudes. Personally, once you cross into the digital realm, your copywrite is largely dependent on everybody else's good will as whatever you do can be easily dissected and reproduced. If you or time makes your format harder to use than everybody elses, it will become open source whether you like it or not (assuming popularity). This is true for all formats, including everybodies whipping boy, Microsoft. The Parent here is right. Market does drive these issues and should/will continue to because it's self regulating.
"Chinese peasants have been encouraged to make money as private citizens, completely independent of the government"
My ass they've been encouraged to do anything but live in fear of the government in which they live under. You just stated the total anti-thesis of communist society, which undeniably China is. Let's look at their consitution, shall we? (all definitions list from here on are from Mirriam-Webster)
Article 1 The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.
Socialism 2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
Democratic 1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy 1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority. b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
dictatorship 3a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state
...led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.
I haven't even gotten past Artical 1 of their constitution and it's so riddled with inconsistencies and bullshit it's pathetic. Oh, China is led by those peasants encouraged to make money alright. Heh. Let's continue.
Article 2 All power in the People's Republic of China belongs to the people. The National People's Congress and the local people's congresses at various levels are the organs through which the people exercise state power. The people administer state affairs and manage economic, cultural and social affairs through various channels and in various ways in accordance with the law.
While it's true that the power does belong to the people, China is certainly doing their damned best to keep them from excercising it. The "people" this artical mentions is a very small group of individuals obviously cut off from reality. I'll skip artical 3 because it simply mentions governmental power distribution. Look at it on your own time.
Artical 4 All nationalities in the People's Republic of China are equal. Bullshit. The state protects the lawful rights and interests of the minority nationalities and upholds and develops a relationship of equality, unity and mutual assistance among all of China's nationalities. Bullshit Discrimination against and oppression of any nationality are prohibited; HA!!!! any act which undermines the unity of the nationalities or instigates division is prohibited. The state assists areas inhabited by minority nationalities accelerating their economic and cultural development according to the characteristics and needs of the various minority nationalities. Regional autonomy is practiced in areas where people of minority nationalities live in concentrated communities; in these areas organs of self-government are established to exercise the power of autonomy. Bullshit All national autonomous areas are integral parts of the People's Republic of China. All nationalities have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages and to preserve or reform their own folkways and customs. Bull LeShit.
Most constitutions attempt to be true to their writing. This one is a stack of lies and I'm only 4 articals deep. If the Chinese people were given as much leeway as you and their constitution claimed, I doubt they'd have the atrocious human rights record they do or that the rest of the world would have as many issues as they do with them. News flash: It ain't just America. What Mr. Xiaoping said and what actually happened are two way different things. The long and short of it is that free enterprise is happening right now and the government is stepping in to squash it. You can claim public saftey from toxic waste, but then I have to wonder why these peasants are doing it in the first place, risking their lives to recycle this crap. Greed? Somehow, I doubt it.
Ok, it was a grin and not a hard-on, but face it; Computers are cool these days. to be a true nerd you have to say "Linux rules!" with a strait face ^__^
Lets say you have a broke VCR. Your friend finds out and offers to buy it. Is this a bad thing? Not yet. Most people would shrug their shoulders and say sure, why not? Your buddy gives you $20 for the thing and the he trots home a happy camper. Later that week you happen to mosey by his house and glimps him at work in his garage, VCR parts strewn everywhere, buckets of chemicals, the works. "What the hell are you doing!?" you ask. "Do you know how many valuble components and metals can be salvaged from a busted VCR!?!?" he proudly proclaims.
The point: Are you now responsible for your friends actions? If he suffers a chemical burn trying to extract the copper off a circuit board, is that your fault? Are you going to offer to pay his medical bill because you very indirectly aided in his injury? Repeat after me: "No, No and No". And that's what's happening here. These guys aren't getting wholesale barrels of toxic waste, they're buying broken stuff that we've thrown away. What they do with it is their business. Even that VCR has enough toxic chemicals to make somebody sick if not handled (ie; diassembled/melted down) correctly. You buy potentially toxic crap all the time, the only difference is that it works. So is it the department store's problem if you get a wild hair up your ass and decide to take apart the monitor you're reading this post on, landing some phospherous poisoning in the process? No. In most cases, I'm betting the serious health risk only becomes one after the customers perform their voodoo disassembly on it, not because this guy is intentionally selling razor blade laced candy.
"Where I live the trash man charges $20 to haul one away. Multiply that by the 310 million monitors that will be trashed by 2004 and getting rid of them is not only a big headache, it is a big business. Building CRTs is toxic, too, which is why it is mainly done these days in Asia"
Was this coincidence or is it the "toxic parts in Asia" theme day? At any rate, this is cool technology, the gateway to true web browsing via cell phone. Look at the lens on the phone, and BAM! Surfin' away in full 27" high resolution glory. Forgive me if I display my pessimism here, but we won't be seeing something this cool for a while. Your friend the LCD will be with us for a while simply because it doesn't cost a fraction of $10,000 a shot.
Then why are you still here? And why wasn't this thread been modded as off-topic? I've already debated the Kyoto treaty enough, but it's not the topic here. That's the reason you should be modded down, not because of your busted-ass opinion. Time to move on.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess if you consider the rants news... or reviews on bad, year old movies news, or... Aw hell. Nevermind. It's like talking to a wall.
Flame on!
Why does Slashdot even make the claim any more? I'm notice less and less factually based news here. It's a soapbox and a spotlight where people can stand up and rant under the guise of news. You just can't take this site seriously anymore. I mean really... "I just won't talk about the subject, I'll tell you my politcial and social-economic views all the while I clue you in as to why i became an evil genius in the first place, not to mention why you're a moron for thinking otherwise"
"Latest IE Hole Lets Gopher Root You" -Good article. Concise, to the point and leaving the rants to the users forums. Unless it's an editorial, that's the way it ought to be. Time for a slogan change: Rants for nerds. Opinions that have no bearing on real life whatsoever. And if you come on a good day, maybe some stuff that might matter.
News: 1a : a report of recent events b : previously unknown information 2a : material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast b : matter that is newsworthy
Editorial : a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article.
Rant 1: to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2: to scold vehemently.
These silly treaties are all about trust. I trust my competitor not launch a nuclear strike because niether of us have a nuclear missile defense. I won't take nuclear weapons into space because I trust my competitor to do the same and it would ruin the purely scientific and exploratory nature of space. I trust the neighborhood bully not to knock me silly while my back is to him because we both have fists and could seriously hurt one another. These treaties also hinge upon their signers being thinking, rational people capable of looking at the "correct" big picture, the correct big picture being peace in our time. Hitler signed lots of treaties. So did Stalin. Listen and listen good: YOU CAN NOT BASE YOUR COUNTRY'S SAFTEY AND SURVIVAL ON THE SUPPOSIVE GOODWILL OF THE COMPETITION. Your country. My country. This treaty and every one like it assumes everybody will play by the rules, nice and orderly. No punches below the belt, sir, Thank you. The "rules" are ALWAYS broken in war; If not in the first strike then in what follows. Why will Pakistan use nuclear weapons in a fight with India? Because they know they can't win a war by India's rule book. They've said so themsleves, India has a superior conventional force than us so the only way we can defend our soverignty is by going nuclear. The rules and treaties say that's a no-no. Watch them care as the enemy advances across their boarders. Watch them say "We're good and decent people. No nukes. Let them conquer us." These assnine treaties are oblivious to human nature and in the end they're going to cost more lives than they save because there are idiots in power and these morons don't care about your defunct treaties or feelings
Slashdot isn't a news site... It's editorials all the way. Some fact mixed in with a ass-ton of bias and opinion.
"Editorials for Nerds. Stuff that is 60% irrelevant, 30% biased, 10% matters."
Pop Quiz- Would any major country allow the UN to intervene in it's domestic policy involuntarily? If they didn't want UN involvement, it wouldn't happen because nobody truly respects the UN as a soverign force and very few nations would be willing to give up their soverignty to the UN. Sure, the smaller dissenting members could be beaten into submission, but would larger members like the UK, USA, Russian Federation, France, China, Canada, etc, etc, secede authority to them? Say it with me: "Hell no." Basically, none of the UN's member countries actually respect the UN unless it's to their benefit. The only way to make the UN a potent force would be to give it total autonomous authority with a force that could do substantial damage to any of it's members. It would have to be a entity all it's own, it's peoples severing all ties of loyalty to their countries of origin and said countries would have to surrender their soverignty to the UN body. This is it's ultimate goal, but it's one that will never happen for the UN. Maybe in the far flung future under another organization, but the UN is a failure for the most part. As it is, the only countries it has lasting effects on are 3rd world heaps. It's true on Earth and space won't change that one bit.
No shit.
No way, dude. That was MY hilarious joke.
So much for that "universe of infinite possibilities"... Hell, we can calculate it all out! *A star winks out of existance* Oops. Forgot to carry the two. Is this guy really that naive to think he can accurately do something like that? What's his error factor? +/- 3^8 ?? It's almost like... Like... Like predicting a pattern of (dare I say "global") warming using a sliver of history as an example!
..Basically, said admin has reversed it's policy on Global warming. Hey, Kyoto and U-571 mad news here... What's up?
Which leads me to the perfect segway...
2002-06-03 19:25:40 Bush Administration Global Warming Turnabout (articles,news) (rejected) [TOTAL REJECTED TO DATE: 9/9]
"The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 53,000 square miles of tropical forests (rain forest and other) were destroyed each year during the 1980s"
Ok, given the amount of current rainforest coverage from this page (totalling up to approx. 733594 Square miles; converted from kilometers), we should actually run out of rainforest in 50 years ^__^ Of course, everybody I talk to seems to have a different number and it's always changing and or highly exaggerated. Speaking of which, weren't we supposed to have run out of forest already? And finally, to the ire of all the tree hugging weenies out there, the rainforests as we know them are pretty young geologically. What entitles you to one? Hell, it probably the only source of income a lot of these families have over there. It's that whole trees/animals over people that just rubs me the wrong way. the same mentality that says it's OK to abort a child but you'll get slapped with a lawsuit and jail time for poaching a condor egg. Yeah, you go there Eco-warrior boy.
I know I'm ranting now and I would like to see the rainforest conserved, but there's more than just trees and frogs to consider here, Ok? It's not as cut and dry as everybody would make it out to be.
Damn. You're good.
Is that all it takes to become a wonder of the world? Heck, I'll just go and encase my arse in glass and display it for public admiration. I'd charge admittance to... Nah, that one was too easy.
Tourism killing world's eighth wonder!
Kinda what we do when we Slashdot a site to death?
The Coral Castle is a wonder of the world? How'd that happen...? Sure, it's unique but I can find any number of unique structures anywhere in the US, let alone the world. How about Crazy Horse Memorial, using the entire mountain as a canvas?
"Multipath increases capacity, Repeating increases capacity, Motion increases capacity, Repeating reduces energy (safety), Distributed computation increases battery life, Channel sharing decreases latency and jitter."
People seem to forget technology is the great equalizer when it comes to limited resources. It's why we won't run out of oil in 2010 and why crowding won't remain a problem. It's using what you have more effciently, not basing your results on a static idiology when the world you live is in a dynamic progression.
It already was a waste of time and money here in the US. Say it with me: "Biosphere 2"
" Eden's Origins: The Eden Project was the brainchild of Tim Smit, now the chief executive of Eden."
No, Project Eden's origins were here with Biosphere 2. Great. Just what the world needs; Another Disney Land with trees instead of mice and rides.
The article brings up some interesting points but over-complicates the issue buy large magnitudes. Personally, once you cross into the digital realm, your copywrite is largely dependent on everybody else's good will as whatever you do can be easily dissected and reproduced. If you or time makes your format harder to use than everybody elses, it will become open source whether you like it or not (assuming popularity). This is true for all formats, including everybodies whipping boy, Microsoft. The Parent here is right. Market does drive these issues and should/will continue to because it's self regulating.
Nah, I just can't stand the hypocrisy here, thanx ^__^
"Do you live in china? Do you know anyone who lives in china? Have you ever talked to anyone who was from china?"
Live? Nah. As to the latter questions; yes and yes. I've stepped foot on it. Can you say the same?
"Chinese peasants have been encouraged to make money as private citizens, completely independent of the government"
...led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.
My ass they've been encouraged to do anything but live in fear of the government in which they live under. You just stated the total anti-thesis of communist society, which undeniably China is. Let's look at their consitution, shall we? (all definitions list from here on are from Mirriam-Webster)
Article 1
The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.
Socialism 2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
Democratic 1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy 1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority. b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
dictatorship 3a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state
I haven't even gotten past Artical 1 of their constitution and it's so riddled with inconsistencies and bullshit it's pathetic. Oh, China is led by those peasants encouraged to make money alright. Heh. Let's continue.
Article 2
All power in the People's Republic of China belongs to the people. The National People's Congress and the local people's congresses at various levels are the organs through which the people exercise state power. The people administer state affairs and manage economic, cultural and social affairs through various channels and in various ways in accordance with the law.
While it's true that the power does belong to the people, China is certainly doing their damned best to keep them from excercising it. The "people" this artical mentions is a very small group of individuals obviously cut off from reality. I'll skip artical 3 because it simply mentions governmental power distribution. Look at it on your own time.
Artical 4
All nationalities in the People's Republic of China are equal. Bullshit. The state protects the lawful rights and interests of the minority nationalities and upholds and develops a relationship of equality, unity and mutual assistance among all of China's nationalities. Bullshit Discrimination against and oppression of any nationality are prohibited; HA!!!! any act which undermines the unity of the nationalities or instigates division is prohibited. The state assists areas inhabited by minority nationalities accelerating their economic and cultural development according to the characteristics and needs of the various minority nationalities. Regional autonomy is practiced in areas where people of minority nationalities live in concentrated communities; in these areas organs of self-government are established to exercise the power of autonomy. Bullshit All national autonomous areas are integral parts of the People's Republic of China. All nationalities have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages and to preserve or reform their own folkways and customs. Bull LeShit.
Most constitutions attempt to be true to their writing. This one is a stack of lies and I'm only 4 articals deep. If the Chinese people were given as much leeway as you and their constitution claimed, I doubt they'd have the atrocious human rights record they do or that the rest of the world would have as many issues as they do with them. News flash: It ain't just America. What Mr. Xiaoping said and what actually happened are two way different things. The long and short of it is that free enterprise is happening right now and the government is stepping in to squash it. You can claim public saftey from toxic waste, but then I have to wonder why these peasants are doing it in the first place, risking their lives to recycle this crap. Greed? Somehow, I doubt it.
This one is mainly to the haters in this thread who seem to think the US bares the sole burden of this junk "problem".
"Beijing has announced a clampdown on the import of electronic junk from the US and other developed countries..."
No chance yours could be one of those now, is there? Riiiighhht....
Ok, it was a grin and not a hard-on, but face it; Computers are cool these days. to be a true nerd you have to say "Linux rules!" with a strait face ^__^
Lets say you have a broke VCR. Your friend finds out and offers to buy it. Is this a bad thing? Not yet. Most people would shrug their shoulders and say sure, why not? Your buddy gives you $20 for the thing and the he trots home a happy camper. Later that week you happen to mosey by his house and glimps him at work in his garage, VCR parts strewn everywhere, buckets of chemicals, the works. "What the hell are you doing!?" you ask. "Do you know how many valuble components and metals can be salvaged from a busted VCR!?!?" he proudly proclaims.
The point: Are you now responsible for your friends actions? If he suffers a chemical burn trying to extract the copper off a circuit board, is that your fault? Are you going to offer to pay his medical bill because you very indirectly aided in his injury? Repeat after me: "No, No and No". And that's what's happening here. These guys aren't getting wholesale barrels of toxic waste, they're buying broken stuff that we've thrown away. What they do with it is their business. Even that VCR has enough toxic chemicals to make somebody sick if not handled (ie; diassembled/melted down) correctly. You buy potentially toxic crap all the time, the only difference is that it works. So is it the department store's problem if you get a wild hair up your ass and decide to take apart the monitor you're reading this post on, landing some phospherous poisoning in the process? No. In most cases, I'm betting the serious health risk only becomes one after the customers perform their voodoo disassembly on it, not because this guy is intentionally selling razor blade laced candy.
"Where I live the trash man charges $20 to haul one away. Multiply that by the 310 million monitors that will be trashed by 2004 and getting rid of them is not only a big headache, it is a big business. Building CRTs is toxic, too, which is why it is mainly done these days in Asia"
Was this coincidence or is it the "toxic parts in Asia" theme day? At any rate, this is cool technology, the gateway to true web browsing via cell phone. Look at the lens on the phone, and BAM! Surfin' away in full 27" high resolution glory. Forgive me if I display my pessimism here, but we won't be seeing something this cool for a while. Your friend the LCD will be with us for a while simply because it doesn't cost a fraction of $10,000 a shot.
Then why are you still here? And why wasn't this thread been modded as off-topic? I've already debated the Kyoto treaty enough, but it's not the topic here. That's the reason you should be modded down, not because of your busted-ass opinion. Time to move on.