I don't understand why the "get away from it all" types would be so upset about this, it greatly enhanses the experience of a park. Think of how much more intereactive it makes the whole experience. You see a deer, you take a picture, upload it to your friends so they can check it out. You see some other form of wildlife...or plant and you pull up wikipedia to try and figure otu what it is.
I work for the texas state park and let me tell you how not happy people really are about this new service. What the article did not report was that we recieved a petition from 500 "naturalists" saying how strongly they object to this.
Naturally, we did what any good goverment body would do when handed a petition, we threw it away.
Bottem line is that technology is good and that this is going to make our lives and everyone else who uses the park but is not crazy, lives easier.
I find it hard to believe that they would not have issued warnings or other things of that nature if the issue was that bandwidth and all of that was becoming too expensive. Suprnova was incredibly popular with teh torrent community and they had to know that people would come to their aid.
I think it is possible that Suprnova and a number of these other sites reached an agreement with the MPAA or whoever was threating to sue them that they just disappear quiety into the night and they can save them self from a lawsuit.
It strikes me as odd that they would not heve mentioned it, but I can easily see the reason for this. If your the MPAA you have two options, either make an example of these sites so people are too scared to fuck with them, or just make them go bye bye. I think the first won't discourage enough people, because the law is on suprnova's side, so a number of people would rise up just to defy the MPAA and take up the cause. However, if the MPAA were to tell suprnova that in order to avoid a lawsuit they need to tell people that the site was just too much work, it prevents them from being martyrs and other people won't be so quick to jump in and fill the vacum left.
No. It is because they don't want to offend anyone, it works, AND they don't want to add any ammo to their opponents. Most legislators have records that can be easily twisted anyway....
Also, speaking as someone who works in politics for a living, I can say that you adn the parent are wrong. The reason politicans sound so canned and alre found always repeating the same thing is because they are trying to get out their message. The message of a campaign is very carefully crafted by professionals who believe that their message is the best way to appeal to voters. They aren't trying to avoid offending others, they are trying to get you to remember what they have to say through repetition.
If he had stated that he took the inititiative in creating the legislation that funded the creation of the internet and that was twisted, I would agree with you. But he didn't.
Actually he did say that he took the initiative. He never used the word invented. Thanks for playing.
Re:I love Apple, but fuck the south!
on
NeXTSTEP To Mac OS X
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
way to steal someone elses rant...
www.fuckthesouth.com
Like it or not, modern day politics is a game for professionals. In open source technology related things, people who don't know what they are doing stay out of it. In politics though, everyone thinks they know what they are doing and everyone has an opinion.
Um. My site results change in the standard google index every couple of weeks. They are saying that the images hasn't been updated in 7 months. My question is, why the disparity between the regular index and the image index.
Anyone have any ideas why they would be updating their image index so infrequently? Could it be because of the size of the files they are dealing with?
First of all, I have to say, anyone who signs their posts is a real jackass. You sound like a 50 year old guy who is just bitching because things are not as pure as they were when you were a kid. Get a Grip and turn the fucking hearing aid down, thats why the TV is so loud.
Alright, enough Ad Hominem attacks. Time to actually respond to what you said.
First of all, guess what, most TVs are not really that loud. I would say that 80% are muted to begin with and the rest are low. You will find the occasional TV that is turned up too high, but suprise, there is a less assine way to deal with that too...get off your ass and turn the volume down, or ask someone who works there if they would mind turning down the volume.
If you have a problem your recourse is to complain to the managment, not to take matters into your hands. Because as public of a place as you'd like think it is, those TVs are still owned by someone else and probably watched by more people then you think they are.
In a doctors office, maybe someone isn't actively watching it, but they are listening to it. Maybe its helping take their mind off of whatever they are afraid of. Maybe they are really sick and can't cocentrate enough to read a magazine so they just slouch in the chair, close their eyes and listen to whatever is happening on the TV. As far as the minority outweighing the majority your probably wrong on that one too. If you did a blind poll of those in the room, odds are that TV is staying on. People are just afriad to speak up.
If you don't like it then you can go some place else. Only 1 of my doctors have a TV in their waiting room. Find a new doctor or complain to your doctor about it. It is the owners right to put them on their property, it is your right not to shop or go there.
A lot of doctors like the noice that a TV creates. Remember, doctor's offices are places for people to be able to discuss their problems openly. A little bit of noice polution makes it a lot harder for others to hear.
That is why you will notice a lot of little noice generators around doctor's offices. But a TV is far more effective.
What good purpose does this device serve? If you don't own a particular TV, and it's not on your property, what right do you have to turn it off?
I totaly agree with this. Guess what folks, you are not the only people in the world. Those TVs in Best Buys? Lets think for half a second why they might be on...people who want to buy a TV tend to want to see the quality of it before they purchase it.
What about the TVs in Cafe's or airports or other random places? Maybe you have a friend to chat to, but what about that lonely person behind you sitting all alone? Maybe she would like to be distracted while she eats her lunch. Maybe the employee at the local video store would like to watch the TV since its slow that night and they don't have much else to do.
The bottem line is, your not walking around the park and having MTV blaring at you. When you run into these tv's its because the owner of that establishment has decided that for one reason or another they want it there. Sure, you don't have to be subjected to the TV, but your recourse is to leave the establishment, not turn off the TV. Or talk to the manager about it. But you are not the only person that lives in the world, you will not find everything convienent.
There is such a knee jerk reaction on slashdot when they hear the word Goverment. Goverment is not always a bad thing, in fact I contend that most of the time it is not. I am very glad the goverement is going to put some regulations on this. We're not talking about going out back and hitting a tether ball around, we're talking about launching a huge fucking missle into space.
Aside from the safety concerns above the craft, there are also major concerns for those around a launch site and for the enviorment in general. Rocket fuel is really nasty stuff. I remember the warnings after Columbia went bang sent out to people informing them that getting near peices of the reckage could be very hazerdous for their health. What happens when one of the crafts goes bang over some city or populated area? And what is to stop them from taking off on the outskirts of populated areas to begin with? Sure they arn't now, but no regulations exist on the books to ensure that they don't.
This is the job of goverment, this above all else is what I want them to regulate. They are not going to put a wet blanket on this new emerging industry, but they are going to make sure that as we move forward it is in a safe and non-reckless fashion.
Man, as technology improves it keeps bringing us closer and closer to the technology displayed in movies over the last 20 years.
A pretty neat application of this would be the ability to create almost that robocop type view of the world with specialy designed contacts or something like that. You walk around and have infomation fed to you about the various objects you see in your reality,
No, I don't want Hillary to win in 2008, I just don't see anything standing in her way, and that troubles me. I'm a "small-l" libertarian, and for the most part the Republican Party has been friendlier to my "ilk" than the Democrats, at least for the past 20 years or so. But, I don't see any Republican or Democratic candidate (with any credibility or electablility) that holds my conservative fiscal views. Since I know no one will represent me, I can look at "both sides" with an equally jaundiced eye.
Just because there isn't anyone out there now, doesn't mean one rise up over the next 3 years. The repulican party has a lot of stars waiting in the wings (as does the democratic party for that matter) to be trotted out almost as soon as this election is over.
Expect within a couple of months after the election to see the republicans starting to put forward their nominees for '08. They have plenty of time to build up all sorts of name recognition. Dubya came out of nowhere. All of a sudden he just rose up and everyone was touting him as the next big thing.
Looking towards '08 right now start thinking Judd Gregg, think Rick Santorum (if he were elected by the way I would flee to Canada), think Frist perhapse and don't forget about what has been kicked around a lot, Jeb Bush (who is actually the better of the bush brothers). Don't think for a second that just because there are no major republican stars shinning at the moment that they won't have someone of stature to run against Hillary. Worst case scenerio they can always drag out Mcain, who may not be their favorite person in the world, but would sure as hell give any democratic canidate a run for their money.
On that note there are plenty of potential contenders against Hillary too. The most obvious being Edwards, but also you've got Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, Joseph Biden, Russ Feingold, Bob Kerry (that'd be pretty funny, Jeb Bush v. Bob Kerry), and Ed Rendell.
If Bush wins on Nov. 2nd I think it is way too early as to start making predications for '08. It should be a very interesting couple of years.
I think a more logical idea would be to up the ante and create the x^2 prize or the O prize. Make a new prize for the first to acheive orbit, to make an orbit or two around the world. That would have real world impacts.
That is somewhat counter-intuitive:
When will we see a nationwide campaign encouraging people not to vote if they don't care? Or what about people who just don't have the time to do the homework? I know too many people who vote based purely on party or distant relationship than on merit.
Voting based on party is not nessasarily a bad thing. A party designation allows the less then informed citizen to have an idea on where a canidate stands on a given set of issues. No, it doesn't give you a detailed idea of the policies they would implement, but most people don't know that anyway.
People vote base on a number of consicuous and unconscience clues. Be it from the way the canidate holds himself, to the way the canidate looks, to the general impression they get of him, whether they trust the canidate or not. Is this the ideal way to elect a president or canidate for another office (which is most of the time chosen based on who the incumbent is), no of course not. But it is the way the situation is and it is the way things have been since the system began.
I thought we were in a democracy not a republic. I would hold that anything that gets people interested in politics would be good.
No, we're in a republic. If we were in a democracy the electorate would vote directly for issues (tax cuts, raises, laws, etc). Instead, we vote for a series of people who make those decisions for us.
Yeah.
the first car crash really did in the car industry.
the first bus crash ended children's transportation to school.
the only way you could be right is for space travel to remain in the confines of government only trip[s
Your right, September 11th did nothing to hurt the airline industry. While a crash on spaceship1 may not be a terrorist event, it will still be very high profile. The bottem line is the above things you mentioned are nessesities, not luxuries. A jaunt in space is not something people need to do in order to get to work. It's a fun excursion, but one that people will not avail themselves of if they believe it is too muh of a risk.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why the "get away from it all" types would be so upset about this, it greatly enhanses the experience of a park. Think of how much more intereactive it makes the whole experience. You see a deer, you take a picture, upload it to your friends so they can check it out. You see some other form of wildlife...or plant and you pull up wikipedia to try and figure otu what it is.
I say bravo to texas!
I work for the texas state park and let me tell you how not happy people really are about this new service. What the article did not report was that we recieved a petition from 500 "naturalists" saying how strongly they object to this.
Naturally, we did what any good goverment body would do when handed a petition, we threw it away.
Bottem line is that technology is good and that this is going to make our lives and everyone else who uses the park but is not crazy, lives easier.
Progress is a good thing!!
I find it hard to believe that they would not have issued warnings or other things of that nature if the issue was that bandwidth and all of that was becoming too expensive. Suprnova was incredibly popular with teh torrent community and they had to know that people would come to their aid.
I think it is possible that Suprnova and a number of these other sites reached an agreement with the MPAA or whoever was threating to sue them that they just disappear quiety into the night and they can save them self from a lawsuit.
It strikes me as odd that they would not heve mentioned it, but I can easily see the reason for this. If your the MPAA you have two options, either make an example of these sites so people are too scared to fuck with them, or just make them go bye bye. I think the first won't discourage enough people, because the law is on suprnova's side, so a number of people would rise up just to defy the MPAA and take up the cause. However, if the MPAA were to tell suprnova that in order to avoid a lawsuit they need to tell people that the site was just too much work, it prevents them from being martyrs and other people won't be so quick to jump in and fill the vacum left.
No. It is because they don't want to offend anyone, it works, AND they don't want to add any ammo to their opponents. Most legislators have records that can be easily twisted anyway....
Also, speaking as someone who works in politics for a living, I can say that you adn the parent are wrong. The reason politicans sound so canned and alre found always repeating the same thing is because they are trying to get out their message. The message of a campaign is very carefully crafted by professionals who believe that their message is the best way to appeal to voters. They aren't trying to avoid offending others, they are trying to get you to remember what they have to say through repetition.
If he had stated that he took the inititiative in creating the legislation that funded the creation of the internet and that was twisted, I would agree with you. But he didn't.
Actually he did say that he took the initiative. He never used the word invented. Thanks for playing.
way to steal someone elses rant... www.fuckthesouth.com
Like it or not, modern day politics is a game for professionals. In open source technology related things, people who don't know what they are doing stay out of it. In politics though, everyone thinks they know what they are doing and everyone has an opinion.
Um. My site results change in the standard google index every couple of weeks. They are saying that the images hasn't been updated in 7 months. My question is, why the disparity between the regular index and the image index.
Anyone have any ideas why they would be updating their image index so infrequently? Could it be because of the size of the files they are dealing with?
First of all, I have to say, anyone who signs their posts is a real jackass. You sound like a 50 year old guy who is just bitching because things are not as pure as they were when you were a kid. Get a Grip and turn the fucking hearing aid down, thats why the TV is so loud.
Alright, enough Ad Hominem attacks. Time to actually respond to what you said.
First of all, guess what, most TVs are not really that loud. I would say that 80% are muted to begin with and the rest are low. You will find the occasional TV that is turned up too high, but suprise, there is a less assine way to deal with that too...get off your ass and turn the volume down, or ask someone who works there if they would mind turning down the volume.
If you have a problem your recourse is to complain to the managment, not to take matters into your hands. Because as public of a place as you'd like think it is, those TVs are still owned by someone else and probably watched by more people then you think they are.
In a doctors office, maybe someone isn't actively watching it, but they are listening to it. Maybe its helping take their mind off of whatever they are afraid of. Maybe they are really sick and can't cocentrate enough to read a magazine so they just slouch in the chair, close their eyes and listen to whatever is happening on the TV. As far as the minority outweighing the majority your probably wrong on that one too. If you did a blind poll of those in the room, odds are that TV is staying on. People are just afriad to speak up.
If you don't like it then you can go some place else. Only 1 of my doctors have a TV in their waiting room. Find a new doctor or complain to your doctor about it. It is the owners right to put them on their property, it is your right not to shop or go there.
A lot of doctors like the noice that a TV creates. Remember, doctor's offices are places for people to be able to discuss their problems openly. A little bit of noice polution makes it a lot harder for others to hear.
That is why you will notice a lot of little noice generators around doctor's offices. But a TV is far more effective.
Using the door is askin to watching the tv dumbass. Other people are still able to go through it (or watch it).
Locking the door would be the equivilent to turning off the TV. Do you think you should be allowed to lock the door?
What good purpose does this device serve? If you don't own a particular TV, and it's not on your property, what right do you have to turn it off? I totaly agree with this. Guess what folks, you are not the only people in the world. Those TVs in Best Buys? Lets think for half a second why they might be on...people who want to buy a TV tend to want to see the quality of it before they purchase it.
What about the TVs in Cafe's or airports or other random places? Maybe you have a friend to chat to, but what about that lonely person behind you sitting all alone? Maybe she would like to be distracted while she eats her lunch. Maybe the employee at the local video store would like to watch the TV since its slow that night and they don't have much else to do.
The bottem line is, your not walking around the park and having MTV blaring at you. When you run into these tv's its because the owner of that establishment has decided that for one reason or another they want it there. Sure, you don't have to be subjected to the TV, but your recourse is to leave the establishment, not turn off the TV. Or talk to the manager about it. But you are not the only person that lives in the world, you will not find everything convienent.
Your new here arn't you
...commissioned by British Gas...
I guess this helps explain while oil prices are so high....
There is such a knee jerk reaction on slashdot when they hear the word Goverment. Goverment is not always a bad thing, in fact I contend that most of the time it is not. I am very glad the goverement is going to put some regulations on this. We're not talking about going out back and hitting a tether ball around, we're talking about launching a huge fucking missle into space.
Aside from the safety concerns above the craft, there are also major concerns for those around a launch site and for the enviorment in general. Rocket fuel is really nasty stuff. I remember the warnings after Columbia went bang sent out to people informing them that getting near peices of the reckage could be very hazerdous for their health. What happens when one of the crafts goes bang over some city or populated area? And what is to stop them from taking off on the outskirts of populated areas to begin with? Sure they arn't now, but no regulations exist on the books to ensure that they don't.
This is the job of goverment, this above all else is what I want them to regulate. They are not going to put a wet blanket on this new emerging industry, but they are going to make sure that as we move forward it is in a safe and non-reckless fashion.
Man, as technology improves it keeps bringing us closer and closer to the technology displayed in movies over the last 20 years.
A pretty neat application of this would be the ability to create almost that robocop type view of the world with specialy designed contacts or something like that. You walk around and have infomation fed to you about the various objects you see in your reality,
No, I don't want Hillary to win in 2008, I just don't see anything standing in her way, and that troubles me. I'm a "small-l" libertarian, and for the most part the Republican Party has been friendlier to my "ilk" than the Democrats, at least for the past 20 years or so. But, I don't see any Republican or Democratic candidate (with any credibility or electablility) that holds my conservative fiscal views. Since I know no one will represent me, I can look at "both sides" with an equally jaundiced eye.
Just because there isn't anyone out there now, doesn't mean one rise up over the next 3 years. The repulican party has a lot of stars waiting in the wings (as does the democratic party for that matter) to be trotted out almost as soon as this election is over.
Expect within a couple of months after the election to see the republicans starting to put forward their nominees for '08. They have plenty of time to build up all sorts of name recognition. Dubya came out of nowhere. All of a sudden he just rose up and everyone was touting him as the next big thing.
Looking towards '08 right now start thinking Judd Gregg, think Rick Santorum (if he were elected by the way I would flee to Canada), think Frist perhapse and don't forget about what has been kicked around a lot, Jeb Bush (who is actually the better of the bush brothers). Don't think for a second that just because there are no major republican stars shinning at the moment that they won't have someone of stature to run against Hillary. Worst case scenerio they can always drag out Mcain, who may not be their favorite person in the world, but would sure as hell give any democratic canidate a run for their money.
On that note there are plenty of potential contenders against Hillary too. The most obvious being Edwards, but also you've got Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, Joseph Biden, Russ Feingold, Bob Kerry (that'd be pretty funny, Jeb Bush v. Bob Kerry), and Ed Rendell.
If Bush wins on Nov. 2nd I think it is way too early as to start making predications for '08. It should be a very interesting couple of years.
Great, this will allow people to create their own reality tv shows out of their homes, as if reality tv didn't suck enough already.
You can bet that nobody wants to watch my home videos.
I don't know, it depends on what you are doing in them...and more importantly who your doing it with.
I think a more logical idea would be to up the ante and create the x^2 prize or the O prize. Make a new prize for the first to acheive orbit, to make an orbit or two around the world. That would have real world impacts.
That is somewhat counter-intuitive: When will we see a nationwide campaign encouraging people not to vote if they don't care? Or what about people who just don't have the time to do the homework? I know too many people who vote based purely on party or distant relationship than on merit.
Voting based on party is not nessasarily a bad thing. A party designation allows the less then informed citizen to have an idea on where a canidate stands on a given set of issues. No, it doesn't give you a detailed idea of the policies they would implement, but most people don't know that anyway.
People vote base on a number of consicuous and unconscience clues. Be it from the way the canidate holds himself, to the way the canidate looks, to the general impression they get of him, whether they trust the canidate or not. Is this the ideal way to elect a president or canidate for another office (which is most of the time chosen based on who the incumbent is), no of course not. But it is the way the situation is and it is the way things have been since the system began.
I thought we were in a democracy not a republic. I would hold that anything that gets people interested in politics would be good.
No, we're in a republic. If we were in a democracy the electorate would vote directly for issues (tax cuts, raises, laws, etc). Instead, we vote for a series of people who make those decisions for us.
Yeah. the first car crash really did in the car industry. the first bus crash ended children's transportation to school. the only way you could be right is for space travel to remain in the confines of government only trip[s Your right, September 11th did nothing to hurt the airline industry. While a crash on spaceship1 may not be a terrorist event, it will still be very high profile. The bottem line is the above things you mentioned are nessesities, not luxuries. A jaunt in space is not something people need to do in order to get to work. It's a fun excursion, but one that people will not avail themselves of if they believe it is too muh of a risk.
Your right, September 11th did nothing to hurt the airline industry.