Hollings says the reason broadband isn't as popular today as it should have been is because media giants are afraid to provide large quantities of digital content to the masses over it.
I knew that whole, "I would use it but I can't get broadband service in my area" argument was a ruse.
To answer your question: This is more of the same trickle down nonsense that has been dragging this country down for decades. But more specifically, entertainment is the future of America's economy. Ensuring it's success will be a boone to us all. Just you wait!
I was getting really tired of jokes in the "such and such is reliable so it must not be running on Windows" vein. But then you came along and suddenly the whole premise seems fresh as a spring day!
On slashdot, the ad is always in the same space, and that space is clearly designated from the site content. The problem with Google is that the adds don't consistently appear, but when they do it is in a spot where you are expecting legitimate results. It's obvious that they are hoping that people will click on them by accident. It wouldn't take much to fence them off in a designated area.
What difference does it make if the "ads" are lined up with the legit results. To be fair, Google highlights them differently, but they are walking a fine line. There is still an element of manipulation there.
Your comments are very insensitive to lazy idiots who want to pretend that they have a broader perspective than what is presented on the mainstream outlets, but still want to get all their information from an equally narrow selection of sources.
This theory depends on the terrorists having a sense of irony and a familiarity with American Culture.
Good points. We know that terrorists are all lunatics who are incapable of reason, let alone irony. Moreover, they would never be able to grasp something as arcane as American Culture.
If the system stores a directory at the beginning of the tape, followed by a lead-out and then data
Easier said than done, especially for tapes that are sold as blank and filled with random data by the consumer. This scheme would cut down on access time, but complicate the hell out of the recording process (as well as slowing it down).
Here's a scheme that might appeal to these studios: VCRs without a rewind button! (And new, proprietary tapes).
This would allow the renter (or purchaser) to watch movies only once. In the case of rented movies, the rental outlet would have a machine that could rewind them. In the case of a purchaser, well, they are screwed.
Perhaps I did not answer your arguments to your satisfaction. Yet, is this possible? How does one argue to a person who demands physical proof of Evolution, yet accepts the existence of God without a shred of physical proof? How does one change the mind of a person for whom omnipotence is plausible, yet Convergence is not?
The fact is that the Universe is a place unfathomable by the human mind. Considering it's scale on all dimensions, it is hardly surprising that not everything makes sense, or appears as we think it should. We can only put together what few pieces we find.
Again, considering the scale of the Universe and the forces at work within it (the few that we can wrap out feeble minds around), it is a laughable conceit to imagine that we, as humans, play any central role in it.
Holes in the archeological record are to be expected by any reasonable person. Considering the scale of history, there is no reason to assume that there is an extant complete record.
Convergance is also acceptable to any reasonable person. Organisms that are forced to contend with similar environmental factors are bound to develop similar traits.
Ah, so you believe in entropy, yet not in evolution? How convenient to be able to consign the workings of the universe to scientific thoery on one hand, and to God on the other.
Of course the point of Genesis is not to beffudle science. It is to provide easy answers to those frightened of the unknown.
Yet another hallmark of the religious argument: to demand conclusisve proof of your detractor, while resting your own argument on the hear-say dogma of your creed. You can't be convinced of evolution, convergence is too implausible for you to swallow and you are suspicious of anything that does not conform to the fundamental law of Entropy. Yet, you accept Creation or Intelligent Design for which there is no positive proof, you beleive that some super-being created you and the world around you, and "God remains Holy and Just and Loving" strikes you as a profound statement.
"Intelligent Design" is just an attempt to layer a scientific veneer on the same old superstitious mumbo-jumbo. By the same turn, the idea that Creationists are a subset of some larger movement of counter-evolutionaries is an attempt to legitimize Creationism by pretending that it's not only religious zealots who cling to these tall tales. (How ironic is it that Creationists cook up excuses that only the faithful are credulous enough to fall for?)
It amazes me that Creationists have the nerve to nitpick the evidence of Evolution, and at the same time base their entire counter argument on a fairy-tale, for which there is not one shred of evidence.
the challenge in not being met because they have shown nothing that a creationist can't use to prove that the life was designed.
I'll grant that evolution has not, and may never be, proven. It never will be to the type with a vested interest in beleiving otherwise. One could reject all scientific theory and consign the workings of the universe (gravity, lightning, rain) to some "creator", if one's head is sufficiently clouded by superstition.
But, as they say, "you can't please all of the people all of the time." In this respect, your right, the challenge is not being met. Convincing beleivers of Creationism is probably a pretty low priority for these scientists. They are simply furthering their studies.
While it is true that IBM has never shown any slack in pumping out good quality computers, one must remember that the average consumer is more interested in something that looks good. PC's with rounded, curvy, colorful (or black or silver) exteriors are leading the market, and the other manufacturers out there are capitalizing on this.
But basically, I'm saying that these animals aren't exactly commonplace.
I saw koalas on several occasions at the Taronga Zoo in Sydeny. Unless you are likely to be enraptured by a motionless lump of gray fur, don't bother visiting them. From what I've heard, they have pretty nasty temperments too. Now, a platypus is an animal worth seeing.
So, all he has to do is sacrifice is livelihood by ratting out his employer? When is are the Miranda Rights going to be officially changed to "Your money or your life."
Presumably, they would have to move to maximise efficiency as the moon moves in relation to the sun. Anything that moves will have to be maintained. The more remote the location of said maintenance must take place is, the more difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
Uniting
And
Strengtheing
Corporate
Hegemony
Utilizing
Misguided
Protection
Schemes.
Hollings says the reason broadband isn't as popular today as it should have been is because media giants are afraid to provide large quantities of digital content to the masses over it.
I knew that whole, "I would use it but I can't get broadband service in my area" argument was a ruse.
To answer your question: This is more of the same trickle down nonsense that has been dragging this country down for decades. But more specifically, entertainment is the future of America's economy. Ensuring it's success will be a boone to us all. Just you wait!
"True stupidity recognizes no superior."
"that seems to pop up every now and then."
I've got it on a t-shirt, under a picture of a PS1 controller.
By the way, spamassassin is really really good. . .If you get a chance, try spamassassin.
Thanks for this unsolicited testimonial. Or should I say unsolicited unsolicited testimonial.
Wow!
I was getting really tired of jokes in the "such and such is reliable so it must not be running on Windows" vein. But then you came along and suddenly the whole premise seems fresh as a spring day!
Kudos!
On slashdot, the ad is always in the same space, and that space is clearly designated from the site content. The problem with Google is that the adds don't consistently appear, but when they do it is in a spot where you are expecting legitimate results. It's obvious that they are hoping that people will click on them by accident. It wouldn't take much to fence them off in a designated area.
What difference does it make if the "ads" are lined up with the legit results. To be fair, Google highlights them differently, but they are walking a fine line. There is still an element of manipulation there.
Your comments are very insensitive to lazy idiots who want to pretend that they have a broader perspective than what is presented on the mainstream outlets, but still want to get all their information from an equally narrow selection of sources.
Shame on you.
This theory depends on the terrorists having a sense of irony and a familiarity with American Culture.
Good points. We know that terrorists are all lunatics who are incapable of reason, let alone irony. Moreover, they would never be able to grasp something as arcane as American Culture.
If the system stores a directory at the beginning of the tape, followed by a lead-out and then data
Easier said than done, especially for tapes that are sold as blank and filled with random data by the consumer. This scheme would cut down on access time, but complicate the hell out of the recording process (as well as slowing it down).
Here's a scheme that might appeal to these studios: VCRs without a rewind button! (And new, proprietary tapes).
This would allow the renter (or purchaser) to watch movies only once. In the case of rented movies, the rental outlet would have a machine that could rewind them. In the case of a purchaser, well, they are screwed.
Well, I think we're at the point where we agree to dissagree.
Agreed. (heh)
Perhaps I did not answer your arguments to your satisfaction. Yet, is this possible? How does one argue to a person who demands physical proof of Evolution, yet accepts the existence of God without a shred of physical proof? How does one change the mind of a person for whom omnipotence is plausible, yet Convergence is not?
The fact is that the Universe is a place unfathomable by the human mind. Considering it's scale on all dimensions, it is hardly surprising that not everything makes sense, or appears as we think it should. We can only put together what few pieces we find.
Again, considering the scale of the Universe and the forces at work within it (the few that we can wrap out feeble minds around), it is a laughable conceit to imagine that we, as humans, play any central role in it.
Holes in the archeological record are to be expected by any reasonable person. Considering the scale of history, there is no reason to assume that there is an extant complete record.
Convergance is also acceptable to any reasonable person. Organisms that are forced to contend with similar environmental factors are bound to develop similar traits.
Ah, so you believe in entropy, yet not in evolution? How convenient to be able to consign the workings of the universe to scientific thoery on one hand, and to God on the other.
Of course the point of Genesis is not to beffudle science. It is to provide easy answers to those frightened of the unknown.
Yet another hallmark of the religious argument: to demand conclusisve proof of your detractor, while resting your own argument on the hear-say dogma of your creed. You can't be convinced of evolution, convergence is too implausible for you to swallow and you are suspicious of anything that does not conform to the fundamental law of Entropy. Yet, you accept Creation or Intelligent Design for which there is no positive proof, you beleive that some super-being created you and the world around you, and "God remains Holy and Just and Loving" strikes you as a profound statement.
"Intelligent Design" is just an attempt to layer a scientific veneer on the same old superstitious mumbo-jumbo. By the same turn, the idea that Creationists are a subset of some larger movement of counter-evolutionaries is an attempt to legitimize Creationism by pretending that it's not only religious zealots who cling to these tall tales. (How ironic is it that Creationists cook up excuses that only the faithful are credulous enough to fall for?)
It amazes me that Creationists have the nerve to nitpick the evidence of Evolution, and at the same time base their entire counter argument on a fairy-tale, for which there is not one shred of evidence.
the challenge in not being met because they have shown nothing that a creationist can't use to prove that the life was designed.
I'll grant that evolution has not, and may never be, proven. It never will be to the type with a vested interest in beleiving otherwise. One could reject all scientific theory and consign the workings of the universe (gravity, lightning, rain) to some "creator", if one's head is sufficiently clouded by superstition.
But, as they say, "you can't please all of the people all of the time." In this respect, your right, the challenge is not being met. Convincing beleivers of Creationism is probably a pretty low priority for these scientists. They are simply furthering their studies.
it's funny how it's been adopted by scientists.
Why is it funny? It was a challenge, which is now being met.
Leaves a lot to be desired...
Or,
"Leaves, a lot to be desired."
While it is true that IBM has never shown any slack in pumping out good quality computers, one must remember that the average consumer is more interested in something that looks good. PC's with rounded, curvy, colorful (or black or silver) exteriors are leading the market, and the other manufacturers out there are capitalizing on this.
Black, did you say?
If you're going to be a pedant, at least be original.
Blinky Bill, they ain't. And don't get me started on the giant spiders. . .
But basically, I'm saying that these animals aren't exactly commonplace.
I saw koalas on several occasions at the Taronga Zoo in Sydeny. Unless you are likely to be enraptured by a motionless lump of gray fur, don't bother visiting them. From what I've heard, they have pretty nasty temperments too. Now, a platypus is an animal worth seeing.
So, all he has to do is sacrifice is livelihood by ratting out his employer? When is are the Miranda Rights going to be officially changed to "Your money or your life."
Presumably, they would have to move to maximise efficiency as the moon moves in relation to the sun. Anything that moves will have to be maintained. The more remote the location of said maintenance must take place is, the more difficult.