Of course in Rwanda, violent media, radio broadcasts in this case, was an important part of the genocide. The government controlled radio was a primary vehicle for inflaming the Hutus to kill the Tutsi.
Obviously, radio broadcast calling for you to go out and kill others is different from a game or movie. But where is the line drawn? Is any fictional violence ok? Is it ok as long as we make the targets annonymous (or alien) and don't attach a race or nationality to them?
Yes, but you would normally either have a flagman or a flashing arrow trucking (depending on the location) to warn oncoming traffic. So hopefully even drivers familiar with the route would be alerted to the work going on when the barrels are initially placed.
I don't think using Slashdot as a marketing barometer this way will be too succesful. My main data point is that I have never seen a Segway in use in person. I think/.ers were dead on for that call.
I'm sure you're still supposed to pay the use tax even though you're not still in possession. I guess if you want to push the term, you "used" the purchase as a gift.
That's why this argument with analogies is pointless to begin with, the situations are so unique that the kind of comparisons we are making are just silly.
The point isn't to send out probes, get the info back and say, "Oh that's nice. Now let me get back to fighting some religious wars" (funny how things stay the same 500 years later). If something worthwhile is found, whether it's life, water, useful ores or whatever, then by all means, send people if there is a good reason.
I can also come up with what-if scenarios. What if there were microbes living on the moons of Jupiiter or the atmosphere of Venus, or some evidence about the fundamentals of physics that would only be apparent with the next generation space telescope? But instead of learning about these in the next decade it takes us another 40 or 50 years because all of our space exploration money is tied up in a manned mission to mars for the next 25 years.
I'm not saying humans should never go to Mars, but for right now, what's the point? Adventure is what most people in this thread seem to be saying. To me a much better argument for sending humans is their adaptability to changing conditions (conduct a test that engineers didn't plan for). Personally, I don't see this as a sufficient reason since we could send out additional cheap probes even if there were say a year lag time. What's the rush? But at least this is a better argument than drama, adventure and human spirit.
I understand the advanture and emotional side of exploration. But in that case, and not to sound harsh, but pay for it yourself. Don't spend tax payers money just for drama and adventure. That's not what governement should be around to do. If the only reason to have the additional expense of a manned mission is for people to WATCH the DRAMA of exploration then let FOX do a reality TV show. Otherwise I'm perfectly happy with NASA sending out twice as many robotic probes all over the solar system. NASA and the goverment shouldn't be doing this just to stoke our ego.
Contrary Voice: You know Chris, we've invented and tested these amzing new remoted control sailboats. They're unmanned and much less expensive to build, operate and send out than a 3 ship manned voyage.
We'll still be able to get all of the same information as the manned voayge but at much less expense and no risk of death. The only difference is that you won't be able to make any inspiring speeches or hit any golf balls in a new land.
Columbus: Oh, umm...see that doesn't fit my particular..umm..(sidekick: idiom sir)...idiom. It's not nearly as manly, adventurous or cool as sailing there myself. So damn the logic, economics and dangers, I'm going anyway.
---
The point is wether or not space should be explored at all. The question is what is the best way to do it. It's not an either or proposition-manned mission or no exploration at all. For everything we can reasonably expect to accomplish, unmanned probes, rovers or orbital telescopes can give us much more bang for our buck given our current level of technology.
And if it's not annoying enough now, remember somebody may come across these stories in a few months. Public web content is forever (/robots.txt notwithstanding).
Oh my God! Won't someone think of the children!
So you don't think it's funny or silly or whatever, then stay away for one day out of the year. Besides how is this any more useless than bitching about SCO or the RIAA or giggling like schoolgirls when someone types M$ or Windoze.
Oh, I thought sending a 77 year old into space was the biggest marketing gimmick for space.
What was the reason for using my money to send him into space again-to study the effects of weightlessness and the elderly? That seems like a useful study at this point in our space program.
Really, what's the difference between sending up a wannabe musician or a rich CEO (who would both pay for their trip) or sending up an elderly former astronaut/senator (at tax payers expense). Sending Glenn back into space was just as much a marketing gimmick for NASA as anything anyone else has done.
That's a very narrow way of looking at the issue though. If you're going to look at the economics of it, the question to ask is if the money/effort spent to build the pyramids could have been better directed elsewhere with a much larger pay off. For example in Egypt maybe they would have been better off building aqueducts, or irrigating farmland and performing scientific/philosophical studies. (Just imgaine how much further along science might be if the advances in math, science and philosophy that happened in ancient Greece had occured 2000 years earlier, we'd probably already have ouposts on Mars and the moons of Jupiter by now).
And I think that is basically the question that is facing us at our current place in space exploration. Yes, sure, a manned mission to Mars would probably have many economic and scientific benefits while also satisfying some peoples need for adventure. But what if for the same cost (or more likely, much less cost) we can achieve even greater economic and scientific benefits for us right now while also putting us in an even better position for manned exploration later on when are technology will hopefully caught up to where it really needs to be to accomplish the colonisation goals that you are looking for.
As far as your point of democracies not being able to carry out grand visions, maybe if your idea of grand visions are pryamids, cathedrals, castles and other massive structures that may be awe inspiring but really serve no purpose other than satisfying someones ego then yes, you may be right. But I think if you look throughout history you'll see that, for the most part, the greatest advancements made in human knowledge were made at times and places when freedom and openess were more widespread (granted these weren't always times of democracy, but there was usually some sort of geverment accountability).
The Revenue Department has spent about $3 million over the last two years on the program, which has generated a total of $43 million in new tax revenue and $6 million in refunds. (Yes, the system identifies overpayers, too.)
Neatly stacked, as in a pyramid of oranges at a grocery store, the spheres occupy 74 percent of the available volume. Arranged randomly, however, the spheres fill only 64 percent of the space.
Umm, 71 percent is more dense than 64 percent. Yay for illiteracy.
I was pissed that my new hp printer couldn't make me a grilled cheese sandwich either. I know a printer isn't supposed to be able to make me a sandwich (just like it's not supposed to be able to make counterfeit money). But how dare they not give me that capability. Damn them.
Funny, we have secretaries typing out forms nearly everyday, and none of them are typing in a dark closet.
We submit bids, insurance and all sorts of things to the state on pre-printed forms. You're right, in some cases the information could be hand written but it's more professional when typed and more importantly there is much less chance being illegible, with the liability that might result from that.
That's not really what this article is about though. It's one thing to continue using an outdated technology because it is too expensive to upgrade to the current standards (or people are too lazy to perform the upgrade). What the author is saying is that people are still choosing to go out and purchase something that most people whould consider outdated because fulfills a certain role better than newer technology can.
Pacino was nominated for playing Michael Corleone, the same role he played in the original. He was nominated for best supporting acot in the first and best actor for the second, winning neither time.
Robert Deniro won best supporting actor for playing Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando's role from the original).
So I think Pacino's case would be the same as Astin's.
My father is a copier salesman. The newer model copiers (color at least) won't let you copy currency. I think the first two times you try it will print out a black page and give you an error message about copying currency. If you try a third time the machine will lock down. To unlock it you need to get a service call from the manufacturer who will also notify the authorities.
Also the majority of the people fighting in those wars were drafted, not volunteers. (Although for WWII at least there probably wouldn't have been a shortage of volunteers)
Re:Link me to them...
on
RFID Casino Chips
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I doubt the chips would be tagged to individual betters. As another poster mentioned, everytime you won or lost a bet the indivivual chips would have to be logged onto and off of your comp card.
The best that could be hoped for is to maybe see a flow of chips. What I mean is for example: maybe they see that poker players prefer to play craps and not blackjack while they wait for a poker table to open up. So then the casino could decide to shift some craps tables over near the poker room.
I just don't see how this could help with missed payouts or monitoring bet size or things like that unless the chips were "checked in and out" to individuals as bets were won or lost. And I can't see casinos implementing something like this because it would slow the games down (and would slow down who quickly the casino would be winning money).
So other than to prevent stealing and counterfeiting of chips I'm hard pressed to see too many other uses for this technology in a casino, either benefical or harmful to gamblers.
In this case yes, but this is a very simple example. Sometimes, epsecially on topics that you are unfamiliar with, it can be difficult to figure out what additional words are going to help to refine your search.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, radio broadcast calling for you to go out and kill others is different from a game or movie. But where is the line drawn? Is any fictional violence ok? Is it ok as long as we make the targets annonymous (or alien) and don't attach a race or nationality to them?
Yes, but you would normally either have a flagman or a flashing arrow trucking (depending on the location) to warn oncoming traffic. So hopefully even drivers familiar with the route would be alerted to the work going on when the barrels are initially placed.
I don't think using Slashdot as a marketing barometer this way will be too succesful. My main data point is that I have never seen a Segway in use in person. I think /.ers were dead on for that call.
I'm sure you're still supposed to pay the use tax even though you're not still in possession. I guess if you want to push the term, you "used" the purchase as a gift.
Who said anything about getting rid of space exploration? I just question on what type of exploration we're spending it on.
The point isn't to send out probes, get the info back and say, "Oh that's nice. Now let me get back to fighting some religious wars" (funny how things stay the same 500 years later). If something worthwhile is found, whether it's life, water, useful ores or whatever, then by all means, send people if there is a good reason.
I can also come up with what-if scenarios. What if there were microbes living on the moons of Jupiiter or the atmosphere of Venus, or some evidence about the fundamentals of physics that would only be apparent with the next generation space telescope? But instead of learning about these in the next decade it takes us another 40 or 50 years because all of our space exploration money is tied up in a manned mission to mars for the next 25 years.
I'm not saying humans should never go to Mars, but for right now, what's the point? Adventure is what most people in this thread seem to be saying. To me a much better argument for sending humans is their adaptability to changing conditions (conduct a test that engineers didn't plan for). Personally, I don't see this as a sufficient reason since we could send out additional cheap probes even if there were say a year lag time. What's the rush? But at least this is a better argument than drama, adventure and human spirit.
I understand the advanture and emotional side of exploration. But in that case, and not to sound harsh, but pay for it yourself. Don't spend tax payers money just for drama and adventure. That's not what governement should be around to do. If the only reason to have the additional expense of a manned mission is for people to WATCH the DRAMA of exploration then let FOX do a reality TV show. Otherwise I'm perfectly happy with NASA sending out twice as many robotic probes all over the solar system. NASA and the goverment shouldn't be doing this just to stoke our ego.
Contrary Voice: You know Chris, we've invented and tested these amzing new remoted control sailboats. They're unmanned and much less expensive to build, operate and send out than a 3 ship manned voyage.
We'll still be able to get all of the same information as the manned voayge but at much less expense and no risk of death. The only difference is that you won't be able to make any inspiring speeches or hit any golf balls in a new land.
Columbus: Oh, umm...see that doesn't fit my particular..umm..(sidekick: idiom sir)...idiom. It's not nearly as manly, adventurous or cool as sailing there myself. So damn the logic, economics and dangers, I'm going anyway.
---
The point is wether or not space should be explored at all. The question is what is the best way to do it. It's not an either or proposition-manned mission or no exploration at all. For everything we can reasonably expect to accomplish, unmanned probes, rovers or orbital telescopes can give us much more bang for our buck given our current level of technology.
Oh my God! Won't someone think of the children!
So you don't think it's funny or silly or whatever, then stay away for one day out of the year. Besides how is this any more useless than bitching about SCO or the RIAA or giggling like schoolgirls when someone types M$ or Windoze.
Get over yourself.
like the back of a volkswagen?
What was the reason for using my money to send him into space again-to study the effects of weightlessness and the elderly? That seems like a useful study at this point in our space program.
Really, what's the difference between sending up a wannabe musician or a rich CEO (who would both pay for their trip) or sending up an elderly former astronaut/senator (at tax payers expense). Sending Glenn back into space was just as much a marketing gimmick for NASA as anything anyone else has done.
And I think that is basically the question that is facing us at our current place in space exploration. Yes, sure, a manned mission to Mars would probably have many economic and scientific benefits while also satisfying some peoples need for adventure. But what if for the same cost (or more likely, much less cost) we can achieve even greater economic and scientific benefits for us right now while also putting us in an even better position for manned exploration later on when are technology will hopefully caught up to where it really needs to be to accomplish the colonisation goals that you are looking for.
As far as your point of democracies not being able to carry out grand visions, maybe if your idea of grand visions are pryamids, cathedrals, castles and other massive structures that may be awe inspiring but really serve no purpose other than satisfying someones ego then yes, you may be right. But I think if you look throughout history you'll see that, for the most part, the greatest advancements made in human knowledge were made at times and places when freedom and openess were more widespread (granted these weren't always times of democracy, but there was usually some sort of geverment accountability).
Is is true that as long as I include "IANAL" in a /. post that any advice I offer is legally binding in court?
The Revenue Department has spent about $3 million over the last two years on the program, which has generated a total of $43 million in new tax revenue and $6 million in refunds. (Yes, the system identifies overpayers, too.)
Umm, 71 percent is more dense than 64 percent. Yay for illiteracy.
I was pissed that my new hp printer couldn't make me a grilled cheese sandwich either. I know a printer isn't supposed to be able to make me a sandwich (just like it's not supposed to be able to make counterfeit money). But how dare they not give me that capability. Damn them.
We submit bids, insurance and all sorts of things to the state on pre-printed forms. You're right, in some cases the information could be hand written but it's more professional when typed and more importantly there is much less chance being illegible, with the liability that might result from that.
That's not really what this article is about though. It's one thing to continue using an outdated technology because it is too expensive to upgrade to the current standards (or people are too lazy to perform the upgrade). What the author is saying is that people are still choosing to go out and purchase something that most people whould consider outdated because fulfills a certain role better than newer technology can.
So now I'm curious about what really is going on at military bases.
Pacino was nominated for playing Michael Corleone, the same role he played in the original. He was nominated for best supporting acot in the first and best actor for the second, winning neither time.
Robert Deniro won best supporting actor for playing Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando's role from the original).
So I think Pacino's case would be the same as Astin's.
It may have changed since then but Al Pacino received a nomination for his performance in the Godfather II, though he didn't win.
My father is a copier salesman. The newer model copiers (color at least) won't let you copy currency. I think the first two times you try it will print out a black page and give you an error message about copying currency. If you try a third time the machine will lock down. To unlock it you need to get a service call from the manufacturer who will also notify the authorities.
Also the majority of the people fighting in those wars were drafted, not volunteers. (Although for WWII at least there probably wouldn't have been a shortage of volunteers)
The best that could be hoped for is to maybe see a flow of chips. What I mean is for example: maybe they see that poker players prefer to play craps and not blackjack while they wait for a poker table to open up. So then the casino could decide to shift some craps tables over near the poker room.
I just don't see how this could help with missed payouts or monitoring bet size or things like that unless the chips were "checked in and out" to individuals as bets were won or lost. And I can't see casinos implementing something like this because it would slow the games down (and would slow down who quickly the casino would be winning money).
So other than to prevent stealing and counterfeiting of chips I'm hard pressed to see too many other uses for this technology in a casino, either benefical or harmful to gamblers.
In this case yes, but this is a very simple example. Sometimes, epsecially on topics that you are unfamiliar with, it can be difficult to figure out what additional words are going to help to refine your search.