"It could be said that the public's opposition to nuclear power"
The issue with nuclear power isn't that its without risk. Rather, that our containment capabilities mitigate those risks to the point that the benefits far outweigh the probability of an accident. This is different that GM and possibly nanotech. We're not turning radiation out into our landfills and waterways. With GM we're consuming it. And since so much of what happens in our bodies happens over time its easy to see no issue within say a year or two and think, "Hey, this shit is harmless!" Only to find when we're 40-50 or older that it has caused some degradation, disease, or death. By then plausible deniability gives scientists an out: "We can't say conclusively that this disease didn't occur from some other factors." Sometimes scientists are sheeple to.
So there is no higher being and we're all insignificant beings on an insignificant planet, cosmically speaking. That was then. Now we, the insignificant on the insignificant, has been observing the more significant and thus have shortened the life of the significant. Rather shocking that an "I, for one, welcome our universe-curtailing overlords" wasn't FP. Then again they are us.
I was wondering the same thing. The hacker would not only have to infect a PC on the network, it would have to be on the voice span. That's something that is not likely since you generally separate your user segment and your voice segment. The two only share WAN pipes to move from one network to another. Then again, this is a proof of concept.
Okay first this guy makes an assumption then proceeds to base his premise on the idea that his first assumption was true. He also poorly constructs his title by saying email is "dead" but says the younger generation can't imagine life with "email only." Okay, so they are using email but are using these other means too? duh! Oh and lets assume the older generation isn't using Facebook. I have no idea whether they are or not but it bears looking into.
If the younger generation is augmenting email with Facebook and MySpace then email is alive and kicking. This is a poorly written and poorly argued article from an logic standpoint. Furthermore he appears to base his initial assumption on the fact that people aren't using Yahoo! mail and Hotmail. Well, Hotmail sucks...period. Yahoo! is a spam magnet. So it's not so much that people are abandoning email its just that the younger generation has little tolerance for spam and sucky email interfaces.
OTOH why can't they see clear to abandon MySpace given how poorly most pages there are constructed? Now that is a puzzle.
I disagree. The idea that the world can just turn around and forget America's segment/s is a valid one. In the long run its not in their best interest. This isn't about making the internet better, it's about resting control away from the U.S. for the pure sake of it. America not only doesn't have to play along, it shouldn't. The U.N. is simply a corrupt and impotent body and to place a large chunk of the U.S. and world's economic infrastructure in it's control is abject stupidity. The only purpose the U.N. serves is that it provides a convenient place for us to spy on leaders of other nations. Were it not for that, I'd advocate booting them out of New York. That's prime Manhattan real estate going to waste to provide a place for our enemies to pontificate idiotic ideas like this one.
Just clinging to that Clinton legacy (well spun, I might add) aren't we? Remember there were PLENTY of document scandals and privacy hacks under Clinton. I'd have more respect for people if they made this less about who's in power and more about the activity involved. Once someone starts the conversation with "typical Bush administration" this or "Clinton cover-up" that we pretty-much fail to stand on the pillar of truth. It becomes an "us and them" scenario and the jig is up.
I find it interesting that people will defend Hillary on this matter myself. You're right, she is a socialist and simply wants to pull money from the rich and redistribute it to the "poor." The Democrat Party has been moving in this direction for 40 years. It's quite impressive, really. The rich already pay far more than their "fair share" of the tax base. But socialists in this country can bank on the ignorant not following the numbers seasoned with a little old fashioned class-envy. By catering to the envy of the poor you ensure a voter base. This is where they derive power. The flaw in this is that census data has proven out for years that the poor don't get poorer (despite the mantra). They generally move up the scale time and again. Eventually they start making a decent living and start noticing what the government wants to take from them. Then this base is lost and the cycle continues. But I digress. The very idea of confiscating profits from those already driving the economy should frighten every American no matter what "side of the aisle" you're on. If they can take Exxon's profits, they can take Joe's Bait Shop's too.
Glad your friend was okay!
I would challenge you to ask yourself why this didn't get the kind of coverage it should have. Yes, CCN covered it and some commentators. It didn't get the kind of national coverage it should have, only blurbs. That doesn't negate or cheapen it at all. I generally don't trust the media to distribute information, especially like this. It's easy to authenticate and could be followed up on easily. What's more it strikes at the core of Free Speech.
I'm a conservative. That doesn't mean I agree with everything this administration does. It doesn't mean I think everyone else should die. It doesn't mean anything more than I am a strict constitutionalist. That said I long for the days when both parties kept each other in check and often complimented each other in the things I agreed with. This administration has taking liberty with our privacy and individual rights and I don't like that. They should be challenged. The problem today is that rather than do that the parties on both sides latch on to these things as power-plays. And we the people suffer for it. We're asked to choose our sides and are expected to have this fierce loyalty.
So I'm getting off track too. I'd just say look at many sources. The media is the third party with their own agendas for and against. It's incumbent on us to try to mine the gems of truth as they come as they are not always apparent.
+1
Too many people have picked their sides in this growing civil war and could care less about the truth because it might be reported on a conservative or liberal source. What's laughable is many then claim to be "moderate." "Oh I'm not a Democrat or Republican. I just want the truth!" Yeah right. This is getting out of hand. If I'm for lower taxes I have to choose Republican. If I'm for gay rights I have to be Democrat. Oh and if I'm gay and a Republican I risk being outed by gay Democrats. What is it that we want? Split the country? Looks like we could be headed that way.
Dude this was carried nationally. It's not only true there are a lot of sordid details on this. Not only was in print, administrators would interview students to gage their responses. It was only after a student basically told them "it's none of your business when I realized my sexual identity" that this started coming to light. Look, FIRE may be a conservative organization but if you read the cases they bring to light they are largely things ANY Free Speech lover can get behind. In this case, the University attempted to defend not only the above "definition" but the entire program only to shit-can it later.
Just as not every left-leaning source can be discounted neither can every conservative source. Truth often comes from sources we don't particularly agree with. This is how minds are changed.
This is truly sad. A university is shouldn't be asked to participate in corporate shenanigans like this.
What they should be doing is pulling funding from universities like U of Delaware for requiring students to adopt the idea that all whites are racists (among other things). Link:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58426 They've since stopped this program but why aren't heads rolling over this?
I disagree there. I think people are ready to move on to other media. Try as I might, my CD's won't slide comfortably into my iPod but mp3's fit nicely. As for culture being free what exactly are you saying? Performers should perform for the benefit of mankind? They shouldn't be paid? Or should they be paid by the collective? Hate to break it to you but socialist ideals like this fly in the face of human tendencies. We want to compete and excel based on our performance. That said, there is an argument for free distribution and pay per performance. This is essentially what The Dead opted into. They didn't care about bootlegs because ultimately it fueled concert revenue which they kept the lion's share of.
Hmmm I thought I saw him drag-n-drop it on the promo video. I don't currently have Time Machine turned on so I can't verify. OTOH, it's hardly like this guy's argument still holds much weight. Not a European Swallow, that's my point!:p
It's not just a goofy-3d-zooming-thingy. You can zoom through space, find the image you want, then drag-n-drop items right through the goofy-3d-zooming-thingy. That makes it a cool-as-shit-goofy-3d-zooming-thingy that's also functional. BTW: tell your Mom to type "cp/mnt/backup/11-01-07/path/to/file/file ~/" and she'll probably wash your mouth out with soap! Tell her to find what she deleted and drag it to her desktop and Mommy will bake you brownies! Mmmmm...brownies!
Suppose the request comes about by the first customer hogging more than his share of bandwidth?
How can he? If he buys 1.5Mbps down and 512Kpbs up how can he take more than that? Right now ISP's are saying if he takes his 1.5Mbps he's taking more than his share. I say no, he's taking what he paid for.
"Symbian has suggested that Google is not experienced enough or capable of fully developing a workable mobile platform"
Ummm....does this guy realize Google can walk into his office and double his developers' salaries and be "capable" in about 24hrs?
Very similar to this story http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/28/0555258/ but like it neglects to mention that big comm companies hold up a lot of the progress with litigation threats. This article does make a good case for cost for big cities. Most large cities probably have a customer base already getting broadband, true. But what about Podunk USA that has little choice? Why hold the threat of a lawsuit over them when they have no choices?
Slashdot Mirror
So a $3200.00 limited use PC. This should be called the Sony ID-10-T PC.
"It could be said that the public's opposition to nuclear power"
The issue with nuclear power isn't that its without risk. Rather, that our containment capabilities mitigate those risks to the point that the benefits far outweigh the probability of an accident. This is different that GM and possibly nanotech. We're not turning radiation out into our landfills and waterways. With GM we're consuming it. And since so much of what happens in our bodies happens over time its easy to see no issue within say a year or two and think, "Hey, this shit is harmless!" Only to find when we're 40-50 or older that it has caused some degradation, disease, or death. By then plausible deniability gives scientists an out: "We can't say conclusively that this disease didn't occur from some other factors." Sometimes scientists are sheeple to.
So there is no higher being and we're all insignificant beings on an insignificant planet, cosmically speaking. That was then. Now we, the insignificant on the insignificant, has been observing the more significant and thus have shortened the life of the significant.
Rather shocking that an "I, for one, welcome our universe-curtailing overlords" wasn't FP. Then again they are us.
I was wondering the same thing. The hacker would not only have to infect a PC on the network, it would have to be on the voice span. That's something that is not likely since you generally separate your user segment and your voice segment. The two only share WAN pipes to move from one network to another. Then again, this is a proof of concept.
+1 I long for the days such idiots were run out of town and warned not to return. Now they control the education system.
Okay first this guy makes an assumption then proceeds to base his premise on the idea that his first assumption was true. He also poorly constructs his title by saying email is "dead" but says the younger generation can't imagine life with "email only." Okay, so they are using email but are using these other means too? duh! Oh and lets assume the older generation isn't using Facebook. I have no idea whether they are or not but it bears looking into.
If the younger generation is augmenting email with Facebook and MySpace then email is alive and kicking. This is a poorly written and poorly argued article from an logic standpoint. Furthermore he appears to base his initial assumption on the fact that people aren't using Yahoo! mail and Hotmail. Well, Hotmail sucks...period. Yahoo! is a spam magnet. So it's not so much that people are abandoning email its just that the younger generation has little tolerance for spam and sucky email interfaces.
OTOH why can't they see clear to abandon MySpace given how poorly most pages there are constructed? Now that is a puzzle.
Okay so that's one for you and uh...wow I better get on the stick!
Ass!
I disagree. The idea that the world can just turn around and forget America's segment/s is a valid one. In the long run its not in their best interest. This isn't about making the internet better, it's about resting control away from the U.S. for the pure sake of it. America not only doesn't have to play along, it shouldn't. The U.N. is simply a corrupt and impotent body and to place a large chunk of the U.S. and world's economic infrastructure in it's control is abject stupidity. The only purpose the U.N. serves is that it provides a convenient place for us to spy on leaders of other nations. Were it not for that, I'd advocate booting them out of New York. That's prime Manhattan real estate going to waste to provide a place for our enemies to pontificate idiotic ideas like this one.
"Dude, the sky sure is a pretty shade of blue!"
"Uh, we're indoors. You're brain just BSOD'd!"
Just clinging to that Clinton legacy (well spun, I might add) aren't we? Remember there were PLENTY of document scandals and privacy hacks under Clinton. I'd have more respect for people if they made this less about who's in power and more about the activity involved. Once someone starts the conversation with "typical Bush administration" this or "Clinton cover-up" that we pretty-much fail to stand on the pillar of truth. It becomes an "us and them" scenario and the jig is up.
I find it interesting that people will defend Hillary on this matter myself. You're right, she is a socialist and simply wants to pull money from the rich and redistribute it to the "poor." The Democrat Party has been moving in this direction for 40 years. It's quite impressive, really. The rich already pay far more than their "fair share" of the tax base. But socialists in this country can bank on the ignorant not following the numbers seasoned with a little old fashioned class-envy. By catering to the envy of the poor you ensure a voter base. This is where they derive power. The flaw in this is that census data has proven out for years that the poor don't get poorer (despite the mantra). They generally move up the scale time and again. Eventually they start making a decent living and start noticing what the government wants to take from them. Then this base is lost and the cycle continues. But I digress. The very idea of confiscating profits from those already driving the economy should frighten every American no matter what "side of the aisle" you're on. If they can take Exxon's profits, they can take Joe's Bait Shop's too.
Examples?
And to think I discouraged my daughter from becoming a masseuse because I thought guys would think she's easy!
Glad your friend was okay!
I would challenge you to ask yourself why this didn't get the kind of coverage it should have. Yes, CCN covered it and some commentators. It didn't get the kind of national coverage it should have, only blurbs. That doesn't negate or cheapen it at all. I generally don't trust the media to distribute information, especially like this. It's easy to authenticate and could be followed up on easily. What's more it strikes at the core of Free Speech.
I'm a conservative. That doesn't mean I agree with everything this administration does. It doesn't mean I think everyone else should die. It doesn't mean anything more than I am a strict constitutionalist. That said I long for the days when both parties kept each other in check and often complimented each other in the things I agreed with. This administration has taking liberty with our privacy and individual rights and I don't like that. They should be challenged. The problem today is that rather than do that the parties on both sides latch on to these things as power-plays. And we the people suffer for it. We're asked to choose our sides and are expected to have this fierce loyalty.
So I'm getting off track too. I'd just say look at many sources. The media is the third party with their own agendas for and against. It's incumbent on us to try to mine the gems of truth as they come as they are not always apparent.
+1
Too many people have picked their sides in this growing civil war and could care less about the truth because it might be reported on a conservative or liberal source. What's laughable is many then claim to be "moderate." "Oh I'm not a Democrat or Republican. I just want the truth!" Yeah right. This is getting out of hand. If I'm for lower taxes I have to choose Republican. If I'm for gay rights I have to be Democrat. Oh and if I'm gay and a Republican I risk being outed by gay Democrats. What is it that we want? Split the country? Looks like we could be headed that way.
Dude this was carried nationally. It's not only true there are a lot of sordid details on this. Not only was in print, administrators would interview students to gage their responses. It was only after a student basically told them "it's none of your business when I realized my sexual identity" that this started coming to light. Look, FIRE may be a conservative organization but if you read the cases they bring to light they are largely things ANY Free Speech lover can get behind. In this case, the University attempted to defend not only the above "definition" but the entire program only to shit-can it later.
Just as not every left-leaning source can be discounted neither can every conservative source. Truth often comes from sources we don't particularly agree with. This is how minds are changed.
This is truly sad. A university is shouldn't be asked to participate in corporate shenanigans like this.
What they should be doing is pulling funding from universities like U of Delaware for requiring students to adopt the idea that all whites are racists (among other things). Link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58426
They've since stopped this program but why aren't heads rolling over this?
I disagree there. I think people are ready to move on to other media. Try as I might, my CD's won't slide comfortably into my iPod but mp3's fit nicely. As for culture being free what exactly are you saying? Performers should perform for the benefit of mankind? They shouldn't be paid? Or should they be paid by the collective? Hate to break it to you but socialist ideals like this fly in the face of human tendencies. We want to compete and excel based on our performance.
That said, there is an argument for free distribution and pay per performance. This is essentially what The Dead opted into. They didn't care about bootlegs because ultimately it fueled concert revenue which they kept the lion's share of.
Without pics you weren't IN my insides!
Let's not fuss and fight over who ratified who! Can we all agree the tax system sucks!?
Hmmm I thought I saw him drag-n-drop it on the promo video. I don't currently have Time Machine turned on so I can't verify. OTOH, it's hardly like this guy's argument still holds much weight. Not a European Swallow, that's my point! :p
It's not just a goofy-3d-zooming-thingy. You can zoom through space, find the image you want, then drag-n-drop items right through the goofy-3d-zooming-thingy. That makes it a cool-as-shit-goofy-3d-zooming-thingy that's also functional. BTW: tell your Mom to type "cp /mnt/backup/11-01-07/path/to/file/file ~/" and she'll probably wash your mouth out with soap! Tell her to find what she deleted and drag it to her desktop and Mommy will bake you brownies! Mmmmm...brownies!
Suppose the request comes about by the first customer hogging more than his share of bandwidth?
How can he? If he buys 1.5Mbps down and 512Kpbs up how can he take more than that? Right now ISP's are saying if he takes his 1.5Mbps he's taking more than his share. I say no, he's taking what he paid for.
"Symbian has suggested that Google is not experienced enough or capable of fully developing a workable mobile platform"
Ummm....does this guy realize Google can walk into his office and double his developers' salaries and be "capable" in about 24hrs?
Very similar to this story http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/28/0555258/ but like it neglects to mention that big comm companies hold up a lot of the progress with litigation threats. This article does make a good case for cost for big cities. Most large cities probably have a customer base already getting broadband, true. But what about Podunk USA that has little choice? Why hold the threat of a lawsuit over them when they have no choices?