Frankly, I only need it when I surf porn sites and there, Microsoft Security Essentials does the trick. As far as I know, you don't even need to pirate that one.
So the FBI makes its own terrorists just to imprison them afterwards... doesn't that sound a lot like how Al Quaeda (or however you write it these days) came to be? First you make them, then you fight them? With the little difference that this time, you shoot them down before they can get all independent and shit.
Frankly, measured to my, completely individual, moral compass, this behaviour lends more credibility to the idea that 9/11 could have been fabricated. Sure, it's on another scale but come on, if the FBI can bring some poor sod who is unhappy with the government to become a radical, what makes us believe that the government, unhappy with the amount of power it has, could NOT become radical?
I'm not saying it happened that way, but this is some food for thought.
While I somewhat agree that this could work, there's also another pitfall: We already have trouble taking people with outrageous ideas seriously... not because their ideas are bad but because they go against established conventions... they go against what we're used to.
Without someone magnitudes more impartial than average people nowadays are to judge such things, how will we stop people from applying this idea of yours to just about anything that does not immediately fit their worldview?
OTOH, there is no right to not be offended. Life is offensive. I agree that it's not a good thing to hurt Breivik's victims even more by making fun of it all but thinking of the big picture... will it dissuade other sociopaths from doing similar things if ridiculing them and their ideals becomes the new status quo?
Does preventing more deaths make adding pain to the already hurt acceptable? Especially when you cannot, ever, be sure that you really prevented deaths or how many?
I sure don't want to have to answer that question.
Seriously, you don't even need annotations. Everyone with enough brain cells to rub together will start rolling their eyes in the first chapter already.
Hitler reinterpreted his whole life to match his ideology to such a degree it just becomes hilariously stupid to read... and boring, by the way.
And frankly, those who lack the necessary brain power to recognize the inherent worth (or lack thereof) of the book will not be dissuaded by annotations, true as they may be.
Please, do correct me if I'm wrong about this, but when I read 'speculation' I don't think 'Waiting for the price to come down to buy the goods'. I think 'buying paper or digital numbers that represent goods'.
Isn't this the same thing with just about any traded object on Wall street? None of those buyers are interested in owning a part of a company, a few bars of gold or a ton of concentrated frozen orange juice. They just want to act as if they did and then sell this facsimile to some other schmuck who wants to act like that... hopefully at a better price than they payed previously.
I mean, this is like children play-acting supermarket, only that the adults afterwards have to actually pay the prices for milk their children have come up with. And THAT is the problem, because so much capital is sunk that way. This capital doesn't really find its way into the market, after all, unless we, the customers, start paying higher prices for our products. The Wall Street does not generate anything of worth. All their gains must be paid and we are the ones to do that.
And therein lies the problem: As long as people are allowed to speculate this way, prices will not go down. After all, prices going down is not good for Wall Street people... unless they're going up much more right after they bought in. There is only one way for prices to go, if you ask Wall Street.
The whole concept just boggles the mind, frankly...
I'm sure you're trying to be funny here, but I'd bet money that a lot of science-fictiony inventions will indeed come out of such private tinkering labs instead of professional ones, once we have the technology to build them;).
So demanding we step back and try to find solutions that actually work, as opposed to asking everyone nicely to go out of their way for their fellow human being or possibly fictional future offspring, is now a reason for sending condescension my way.
Nice to know how much respect I can expect for trying to remain level-headed.
Did it occur to you that "the climate change itself isn't that much of a problem" does not equal "Let's do nothing about pollution and our extremely problematic consumption of resources!"?
Jesus fucking H Christ... Sometimes I understand mass murderers...
Either I misunderstand you or you misunderstood your parent poster:
A LFTR reactor is still powered by Thorium... I believe even more so than this setup India i doing now, since a LFTR only needs a bit of uranium or plutonium to start the chain reaction.
But the really big difference is that the design of a LFTR is much less expensive and less dangerous.
The question remains: What keeps us from building them? The fact that they do not produce waste than can be weaponized? For a nuclear power like India, perhaps that was a factor.
First: Wife's. Second: Well, I stand corrected... it might not be bullshit that Win7 takes 20 gigs... but how is that relevant to my question? My wife does have windows running on such a disk with Office installed and mostly games diverted to a magnetic drive.
A freaking PC. Not a netbook. So why aren't 32 gigs not enough for a netbook?
Also, why are we talking about 32 gigs anyway? There are enough larger SSDs available that are quite affordable, aren't there?
Frankly, on a netbook, how would Win7 be less comfortable on those 32 Gigs? Depending on what use you see for a netbook, of course. For me, it's not a mediaplayer and not a gaming rig. So what would I need more than 32 gigs for, even with Win7? Office does not produce files THAT bloated and my email account isn't that overfilled either.
I think you completely missed his point (or I am missing it and yours, too;)).
I didn't see him saying a God is a more believable solution to our problems and questions. I also didn't see him state that scientists have not admitted they were wrong.
All he said was that many people treat science with the same dogmatic fervour others treat their deities with. And on that count, he's absolutely right.
If you say that religious writings must be questioned because they have been created by humans, then questioning scientific studies must be allowed just as much, because they are human creations as well that can be influenced by other factors than merely wanting to find 'the truth'. Something they just want to find a very specific truth. One must remain wary of that.
On that note, intelligent design, in a true scientists eye, will hold the same merit as the theory of evolution until one of the two is supported by facts and a deeper understanding of the world. Both could, essentially, have a lot of support going, one could pull ahead only to be overtaken by the other again.
The point of science is to NEVER say "Well, we know enough now to not have to question it anymore, AT ALL!"
Sure, you can rest comfortably in the assumption that, with all the evidence, you're probably on the right track, but you simply MUST keep an open mind for new facts and arguments. THAT is science.
As an example, take the Lucas Arts Indiana Jones adventures. In those, the Svastika was colored black, resulting in a misshapen square.
On the other hand, Nazi uniforms in movies are not really censored so go figure. I guess back then Lucas Arts was just very careful and decided to err on the side of caution.
On the other hand, Wolfenstein was on the index I believe, but you decide whether it's because of the brutality or the Svastika;)
Both opinions in TFA are right. The traffic flow, overall, is better but they also lead to many people not really knowing how to behave in them.
We have a lot of them in Switzerland and their number is growing. I feel we have more roundabouts than normal intersections now. Subjectively, of course. And still many people don't know how to behave.
Two factors are important: Build them large enough, so traffic flowing in has a chance to anticipate an open spot. And make people aware of how they work. Tell it on the radio, in TV spots and so on.
In Switzerland, cars in the roundabout have the right of way (interestingly enough, though, if that thing has more than one lane, inner lanes DON'T have right of way, which makes no sense...) and you only signal right when you LEAVE it. OR you signal right if you know you'll be leaving at the next exit.
It works very well, in most cases and I have yet to hear of accidents in them.
Of course we don't... who has the time when he's got to read all those 400 page contracts?!
Incidentally, in Switzerland I've yet to encounter a 400 page contract. My current contract is quite hefty, but I very much doubt that the page-count reaches three digits.
I am at the moment buying a home (which is a much bigger deal for Swiss people than it is form US citizens) and I have yet to accumulate three digits in paperwork (much less contract material).
You're absolutely right, but if I may (ab)use your analogy:
What good does keeping an eye out for trouble, if you start yanking your bike around at any sign of potential trouble just to swerve right into the car that popped out of your blind spot?
Being proactive is great, reacting panicky and thoughtless WILL put you in danger.
They use a readily available media where they reach two thirds of their population. At the same time, they operate another portal, so they do not depend on that private organization.
How could you even ask for more than that? How is this not exactly the right thing to combine independence with available, modern technology?
Jesus, you'd find something to complain about if you could have your cake and eat it, too, methinks.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, I only need it when I surf porn sites and there, Microsoft Security Essentials does the trick. As far as I know, you don't even need to pirate that one.
So the FBI makes its own terrorists just to imprison them afterwards... doesn't that sound a lot like how Al Quaeda (or however you write it these days) came to be? First you make them, then you fight them? With the little difference that this time, you shoot them down before they can get all independent and shit.
Frankly, measured to my, completely individual, moral compass, this behaviour lends more credibility to the idea that 9/11 could have been fabricated. Sure, it's on another scale but come on, if the FBI can bring some poor sod who is unhappy with the government to become a radical, what makes us believe that the government, unhappy with the amount of power it has, could NOT become radical?
I'm not saying it happened that way, but this is some food for thought.
While I somewhat agree that this could work, there's also another pitfall: We already have trouble taking people with outrageous ideas seriously... not because their ideas are bad but because they go against established conventions... they go against what we're used to.
Without someone magnitudes more impartial than average people nowadays are to judge such things, how will we stop people from applying this idea of yours to just about anything that does not immediately fit their worldview?
OTOH, there is no right to not be offended. Life is offensive. I agree that it's not a good thing to hurt Breivik's victims even more by making fun of it all but thinking of the big picture... will it dissuade other sociopaths from doing similar things if ridiculing them and their ideals becomes the new status quo?
Does preventing more deaths make adding pain to the already hurt acceptable? Especially when you cannot, ever, be sure that you really prevented deaths or how many?
I sure don't want to have to answer that question.
Seriously, you don't even need annotations. Everyone with enough brain cells to rub together will start rolling their eyes in the first chapter already.
Hitler reinterpreted his whole life to match his ideology to such a degree it just becomes hilariously stupid to read... and boring, by the way.
And frankly, those who lack the necessary brain power to recognize the inherent worth (or lack thereof) of the book will not be dissuaded by annotations, true as they may be.
Oh, how I wish I could mod you up...
Please, do correct me if I'm wrong about this, but when I read 'speculation' I don't think 'Waiting for the price to come down to buy the goods'. I think 'buying paper or digital numbers that represent goods'.
Isn't this the same thing with just about any traded object on Wall street? None of those buyers are interested in owning a part of a company, a few bars of gold or a ton of concentrated frozen orange juice. They just want to act as if they did and then sell this facsimile to some other schmuck who wants to act like that... hopefully at a better price than they payed previously.
I mean, this is like children play-acting supermarket, only that the adults afterwards have to actually pay the prices for milk their children have come up with. And THAT is the problem, because so much capital is sunk that way. This capital doesn't really find its way into the market, after all, unless we, the customers, start paying higher prices for our products. The Wall Street does not generate anything of worth. All their gains must be paid and we are the ones to do that.
And therein lies the problem: As long as people are allowed to speculate this way, prices will not go down. After all, prices going down is not good for Wall Street people... unless they're going up much more right after they bought in. There is only one way for prices to go, if you ask Wall Street.
The whole concept just boggles the mind, frankly...
I'm sure you're trying to be funny here, but I'd bet money that a lot of science-fictiony inventions will indeed come out of such private tinkering labs instead of professional ones, once we have the technology to build them ;).
Oh, gee, thanks for the ostrich.
So demanding we step back and try to find solutions that actually work, as opposed to asking everyone nicely to go out of their way for their fellow human being or possibly fictional future offspring, is now a reason for sending condescension my way.
Nice to know how much respect I can expect for trying to remain level-headed.
Did it occur to you that "the climate change itself isn't that much of a problem" does not equal "Let's do nothing about pollution and our extremely problematic consumption of resources!"?
Jesus fucking H Christ... Sometimes I understand mass murderers...
He didn't "put it" any way at all, besides disproving the points the original poster made.
It takes only one white crow to disprove that all of them are black. He did just that. With no word did he say that everything was peachy in the US.
Either I misunderstand you or you misunderstood your parent poster:
A LFTR reactor is still powered by Thorium... I believe even more so than this setup India i doing now, since a LFTR only needs a bit of uranium or plutonium to start the chain reaction.
But the really big difference is that the design of a LFTR is much less expensive and less dangerous.
The question remains: What keeps us from building them? The fact that they do not produce waste than can be weaponized? For a nuclear power like India, perhaps that was a factor.
Too bad, a LFTR would have made my day.
First: Wife's.
Second: Well, I stand corrected... it might not be bullshit that Win7 takes 20 gigs... but how is that relevant to my question? My wife does have windows running on such a disk with Office installed and mostly games diverted to a magnetic drive.
A freaking PC. Not a netbook. So why aren't 32 gigs not enough for a netbook?
Also, why are we talking about 32 gigs anyway? There are enough larger SSDs available that are quite affordable, aren't there?
Bullshit. My wive's PC runs on a 32 gig SSD (although userfiles are linked onto a magnetic disk).
You're clearly doing something wrong.
Frankly, on a netbook, how would Win7 be less comfortable on those 32 Gigs? Depending on what use you see for a netbook, of course. For me, it's not a mediaplayer and not a gaming rig. So what would I need more than 32 gigs for, even with Win7? Office does not produce files THAT bloated and my email account isn't that overfilled either.
You truly thought we were an intelligent species? Really, now?
I think you completely missed his point (or I am missing it and yours, too ;)).
I didn't see him saying a God is a more believable solution to our problems and questions. I also didn't see him state that scientists have not admitted they were wrong.
All he said was that many people treat science with the same dogmatic fervour others treat their deities with.
And on that count, he's absolutely right.
If you say that religious writings must be questioned because they have been created by humans, then questioning scientific studies must be allowed just as much, because they are human creations as well that can be influenced by other factors than merely wanting to find 'the truth'. Something they just want to find a very specific truth. One must remain wary of that.
On that note, intelligent design, in a true scientists eye, will hold the same merit as the theory of evolution until one of the two is supported by facts and a deeper understanding of the world. Both could, essentially, have a lot of support going, one could pull ahead only to be overtaken by the other again.
The point of science is to NEVER say "Well, we know enough now to not have to question it anymore, AT ALL!"
Sure, you can rest comfortably in the assumption that, with all the evidence, you're probably on the right track, but you simply MUST keep an open mind for new facts and arguments. THAT is science.
It does boil down to this, yes.
As an example, take the Lucas Arts Indiana Jones adventures. In those, the Svastika was colored black, resulting in a misshapen square.
On the other hand, Nazi uniforms in movies are not really censored so go figure. I guess back then Lucas Arts was just very careful and decided to err on the side of caution.
On the other hand, Wolfenstein was on the index I believe, but you decide whether it's because of the brutality or the Svastika ;)
Not even the US will get away with dropping nukes in the current political, ecological and economical climate.
And there you go: Proof that this is a matter of opinion. I like that my penis has been circumcised even if I didn't have any say in that back then.
Both opinions in TFA are right. The traffic flow, overall, is better but they also lead to many people not really knowing how to behave in them.
We have a lot of them in Switzerland and their number is growing. I feel we have more roundabouts than normal intersections now. Subjectively, of course. And still many people don't know how to behave.
Two factors are important: Build them large enough, so traffic flowing in has a chance to anticipate an open spot. And make people aware of how they work. Tell it on the radio, in TV spots and so on.
In Switzerland, cars in the roundabout have the right of way (interestingly enough, though, if that thing has more than one lane, inner lanes DON'T have right of way, which makes no sense...) and you only signal right when you LEAVE it. OR you signal right if you know you'll be leaving at the next exit.
It works very well, in most cases and I have yet to hear of accidents in them.
Of course we don't... who has the time when he's got to read all those 400 page contracts?!
Incidentally, in Switzerland I've yet to encounter a 400 page contract. My current contract is quite hefty, but I very much doubt that the page-count reaches three digits.
I am at the moment buying a home (which is a much bigger deal for Swiss people than it is form US citizens) and I have yet to accumulate three digits in paperwork (much less contract material).
Frankly, you people are doing it wrong ;).
You're absolutely right, but if I may (ab)use your analogy:
What good does keeping an eye out for trouble, if you start yanking your bike around at any sign of potential trouble just to swerve right into the car that popped out of your blind spot?
Being proactive is great, reacting panicky and thoughtless WILL put you in danger.
They use a readily available media where they reach two thirds of their population. At the same time, they operate another portal, so they do not depend on that private organization.
How could you even ask for more than that? How is this not exactly the right thing to combine independence with available, modern technology?
Jesus, you'd find something to complain about if you could have your cake and eat it, too, methinks.
China or Germany don't have this problem.
You clearly haven't been to Germany in a while...