I want to know how many edible insect farmers we're getting for the million dollars. If the final cost per pound is higher than for a cow steak, why bother?
I guess this does help with AGW, doesn't it? Lower carbon footprint for the dominant species on the planet. But why limit it to insect farmers? Why not eat politicians (once they've been suitably marinated in a politician tenderizer and maybe cubed)? Lawyers. Yes. Lawyers, but they'd have to be ground to be digestible.
We used to, but then PBS started running ads (clustered at program change times, not during), and begging marathons selling overpriced cups and DVDs and books (infomercials). You might notice they no longer tout the fact that they aren't advertiser supported because they are the advertisers selling the merchandise themselves (or through shell companies).
And, come to think of it, I haven't heard the "if not us, then who?" slogan for a while.
Just out of curiosity, exactly how much money have you paid Google for their software?
My ISP is paying them to mismanage my email and search through it for juicy tidbits and advertising hints, and I pay my ISP, so indirectly, I'm paying them a bundle.
Also, my Uni is now paying them for cloud services and pushing us to use them, so my taxes are paying them even more.
I never said anything that disagrees with that, so I can't figure out why you disagree so vehemently.
Because I didn't originally reply to you, I replied to someone who said that, and you are jumping in apparently defending that position.
You've not addressed the "influence" of the church on the BSA.
I don't have to. I wasn't responding to "influence". I was responding to a claim that BSA was run by the Mormon Church. Every member of an organization has influence over that organization. So what?
ignoring all logical arguments you encounter.
"Some A is B means All B is A". That's the "logical argument I'm "encountering". I haven't ignored that, I've pointed out that it is a logical fallacy.
Your words.
Several articles back. The one you replied to talked about Mormons driving Fords making Ford a Mormon company. You decided to switch back mid-stream for some reason, and yet I dealt as well. It doesn't matter, KKK, Mormon, the fact the some X drive Fords does NOT make Ford a company run by X. Live with it.
I just asked what if there were actual racists running Ford?
And I say, so what? It's irrelevant. They weren't put there because some racists buy Ford products. Companies do not appoint their board of directors that way. I told you that already. Come up with something else that proves that BSA is run by the Mormon church or admit that the claim is ridiculous.
Note, I'm not addressing the buyers, but the people that run it.
And the claim I'm talking about is that since Mormons are "buyers" of BSA products they are in control of BSA. If you're not defending that claim, stop defending that claim.
So long as that "best person" conforms with their parameters.
Every person believes that the best people conform to "their parameters". What normal people would call ethics, but you need to cast in negative terms. I bet even you feel the same way.
Otherwise why would you have those "parameters"? Don't YOU want to be the best person YOU can be? If you have "parameters" that you don't think help you to be the best person you can be, then you'd get rid of them, wouldn't you? Or do you settle for being the most mediocre person you can be and hold on to an ethical belief system that takes you there? "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" is the best path?
Likewise, you wouldn't confuse two groups with "scouts" in their name, when one is for making stuff and the other is for camping in the woods and survival stuff
There is nothing "camping in the woods" specific to the word "boy", and for most people there is nothing inherently "making stuff" in the word "hacker". In fact, as I've pointed out, due to the inequities of STEM education, "hacker" and "boy" are much more like synonyms than antonyms (like "boy" and "girl"). That's where the confusion comes in.
Nobody who was really familiar with Apple Records would ever possibly confuse the Apple iTunes store with Apple Records; it's only those who aren't (and they are the majority). Same here. Here, it would be the parents who are looking for a worthwhile afterschool activity for their kids and come across "Hacker Scouts" (who have absolutely no "scout" activities involved) and think it may be another part of BSA (like cub scouts and Explorers.)
As part of my JROTC I got to shoot an M-60. The Boy Scouts had me camping in the parking lot of a church.
So, one group introduced you to violent ways of killing others, the other gave you tools to help you survive as a homeless person. Yes, I can see why you love one and hate the other. They made you camp out. The bastards.
which to a degree has turned the BSA into an arm of their organization..
So THAT'S why the latest addition to the list of merit badges was one for baptizing living people on behalf of dead ones, and why all those elders on mission trips wear BSA uniforms. I'd heard that the stock in companies that make white dress shirts and black suit pants was tanking, and now I know why.
I'm still seeing a lot of white shirt/black pants well-dressed young men walking around my neighborhood (there's a study center across the street). Maybe they just haven't gotten the word yet?
Perhaps, just maybe, the Mormons being a group that thinks religion is important, and BSA being a group that thinks religion is important, and Mormons having young people they want to reinforce that belief in, maybe Mormons might be hosting scout troops even without it being run by their central church? Just a thought.
But I guess if you hate religion so much, you'll lose the ability to distinguish the players on the other team and they'll all start to look alike after a while. It's a conspiracy, after all.
or at minimal they wield significantly more (and more organized) power over the whole group then the other religious organizations that support the BSA.
You know, I actually heard that a local Explorer Post hosted by the Catholic church was using the baptismal fount during their week-night meetings to baptize each other to save people whose names they are pulling from the phone book. And that the priest in charge of the church was helping them. He couldn't help himself, the local stake was controlling his mind with penetrating electrical waves acting upon his hypothalmus.
What if 95% of the board of Ford are members of the KKK?
That still doesn't make Ford a branch of the Mormon church. And just because some Mormons drive Fords won't force Ford to appoint anyone in the KKK (or the LDS church, for that matter) to the board of directors. That's not how companies work.
"Some scouts are Mormon" does nothing to make BSA a branch of the Mormon church.
Your indefinite statements seem to indicate that you agree in fact, but wish to argue the details.
Agree in fact with what? Your ridiculous implications that Ford has a bunch of KKK members on their board, or that BSA is an organization run by the Mormon church, or what? You've got no facts, just "some X are Y, thus all Y are X" logic to back up supposition.
The claim was that BSA was a Mormon organization because some Mormon churches host scout troops. That's the "fact" I'm refuting, and if you can read what I've wrote and come up with some idea I'm "agreeing in fact" with that, you're looney.
You could issue a $0 license, and that would be a successful "defense" so far as trademark law is concerned.
Letting someone use something very similar to your trademarked name in the same market as you might be a good legal defense of the trademark but it would be a very ridiculous practical defense.
If you don't want another group in the same market using a name that would be confused with your trademark, the right answer is to not allow it, not to give it away for free.
If you send data in under-100-byte chunks, it can go over the downed connection. Don't you know anything about the internet?
Yes, and this is nonsense. Now, I've actually had a network device that failed in a way that its MTU was around 100 bytes, but that's a very ABnormal failure mode, and simply limiting your packets to < 100 bytes isn't going to get the data over a link that has failed.
You're thinking of SMS, and none of the Twitter apps I've got on my phones uses SMS for transport. They can't, I've never told Twitter my mobile number.
The question as originally asked stands. Twitter depends on network connectivity, and in a situation where 3/4G cell connections and/or Internet are down, how will this do anything but increase the load on a system that has already failed due to overload?
Well, if you don't want alerts from Korea, don't follow the Korean alert address. Pretty simple. I don't think you have to worry about getting an alert while in New Orleans from Korea that says "All your bases are belong us."
I guess I should have just said it outright instead of thinking an analogy would suffice.
"Some members of BSA are Mormon" doesn't mean "BSA is a Mormon organization" any more than the fact that some Mormons drive Fords makes Ford a branch of the Mormon Church.
"We'll give you a merit badge in 3D printing -- the template for it anyway. You get to print it yourself. And once you can do that, you can print any other badge you want."
And the better quote is "we don't need no steenkeeng badgers..."
The BSA is the official boy's youth program for the Mormon church (as selected by the Mormons, not the BSA).
"All apples are red, therefore anything that is red must be an apple." That's how you are defending the claim that the BSA is a Mormon organization. No, not even "all apples", "some apples", since only some Mormons are member of BSA.
"Some racists buy Fords, therefore Ford is a company run by racists." There's the car analogy.
The definition you are using for the word hacker, is not the same definition that most "hackers" agree with.
I see you missed the part where I said that this is what most people think. I didn't say it was my definition. Most people don't care what "most hackers agree with", they think hacking is breaking into computers to create havok.
Someone who breaks into computers is more aptly called a cracker.
To most people, a "cracker" is what they take out of a Ritz or saltine box. Please, really, do read all the words and the context that they create. That would keep you from wasting everyone's time preaching to the choir.
On the other hand, the people you ripped off and are asking you to stop are horrible bigots with no reputation left to protect.
It's ok to steal from people whose political and ethical standards are different than yours. Check.
I dare say that the reputation of the Boy Scouts is considerably better than "hacker" for most of the public. Most people don't hate them quite as much as you do, and there are still a lot of people who would prefer to hire an Eagle Scout than someone who makes it a life ambition to break into computers. That's how most of the people view this.
For those who are still living in their parent's basement and haven't run into any of these yet, "girls" are different than "boys", and most people understand that the two are (almost always) mutually exclusive. This is different than "hacker" and "boy", which through an odd twist of STEM inequities, are closer to synonyms than antonyms.
I'm not saying people not going on green isn't annoying but it shouldn't be criminal (or at least any more than anything else a person may do at a red light)...
Yes, it should be, if it is because you are too distracted to be in control of your vehicle.
Every excuse you gave was a mechanical issue that prevented the car from moving. Texting your BFF to see which bar you're all meeting at tonight isn't a mechanical problem, it's a mental one.
There is no shame in finding something entertaining.
Didn't say there was. Said there was shame in feeling you need to find something interesting just because the guy in the next office cubicle does. It's called "peer pressure". Look it up.
Because the same barricades that would stop a car would also stop airplanes who are supposed to be there, and sometimes need to use taxiways to get on and off of the runway and to the gate and back. Do'h.
Thank you. I read both links in the summary and still couldn't figure out what was going on. It didn't help that the articles are poorly written. At one point they both say that these two people who were doing this had been keeping their identities secret from the places they work. How they did that and functioned as the higher level management they claim to be is a mystery. "Who is your director of development?" "I don't know, it is a secret."
Oh well, I guess that`s way too deep for you. Have a nice day!
No, many of us understand "peer pressure" but can suppress the urge to do stupid and wastefully expensive things just because the guy in the next cubicle does them.
You mean, like, OMG, I can't waste time chatting about a ridiculous TV show with people who spend their lives living vicariously through the people they see on their idiot box? OMG. Did you see? Andy won BB! He's so rad. I want to be just like him.:-)
It warrants changing your driver's licencing requirements and increasing the difficulty of the tests, so people who shouldn't be put in charge of a golf cart are incapable of passing.
The instant this idea is proposed in the right venue (i.e., a legislature) the NAACP, ACLU, and just about every other civil rights group in the US will be lining up to file lawsuits to prevent it. The media machine will be put into overdrive so that the message that whoever was stupid enough to propose it is racist, bigoted, and probably homophobic can't be missed by anyone who isn't living in a cave, and probably half of them will hear it (through the grapevine?).
It won't be an issue of just stopping people who cannot drive, there will be claims that this discriminates against "group X" because "group X" is less likely to have gotten free driver's ed, can't afford driver's ed, wasn't in the country when they would have gotten driver's ed, can't afford a good car to take the test in, can't document they had driver's ed, or any of a number of other reasons. (I am reasonably surprised that blind people haven't found a champion to sue to allow them to drive, and to have handicapped parking privileges when they park.)
Imagine a politician that wants to prevent a large percentage of his constituents from driving. The noise would be louder than any politician who wants to make sure the people who are allowed to vote are authorized to vote, and that's a pretty loud existing debate with a lot of name calling (and proving you have the right to vote is easier than getting a driver's license.)
But yeah, raising the level of abilities required before you hand someone a driver's license would reduce, but not eliminate, accidents. Maybe. A bit.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess this does help with AGW, doesn't it? Lower carbon footprint for the dominant species on the planet. But why limit it to insect farmers? Why not eat politicians (once they've been suitably marinated in a politician tenderizer and maybe cubed)? Lawyers. Yes. Lawyers, but they'd have to be ground to be digestible.
We can all be true humanitarians, at last.
I wish the US had a BBC equivalent.
We used to, but then PBS started running ads (clustered at program change times, not during), and begging marathons selling overpriced cups and DVDs and books (infomercials). You might notice they no longer tout the fact that they aren't advertiser supported because they are the advertisers selling the merchandise themselves (or through shell companies).
And, come to think of it, I haven't heard the "if not us, then who?" slogan for a while.
Just out of curiosity, exactly how much money have you paid Google for their software?
My ISP is paying them to mismanage my email and search through it for juicy tidbits and advertising hints, and I pay my ISP, so indirectly, I'm paying them a bundle.
Also, my Uni is now paying them for cloud services and pushing us to use them, so my taxes are paying them even more.
What was your point again?
I never said anything that disagrees with that, so I can't figure out why you disagree so vehemently.
Because I didn't originally reply to you, I replied to someone who said that, and you are jumping in apparently defending that position.
You've not addressed the "influence" of the church on the BSA.
I don't have to. I wasn't responding to "influence". I was responding to a claim that BSA was run by the Mormon Church. Every member of an organization has influence over that organization. So what?
ignoring all logical arguments you encounter.
"Some A is B means All B is A". That's the "logical argument I'm "encountering". I haven't ignored that, I've pointed out that it is a logical fallacy.
Your words.
Several articles back. The one you replied to talked about Mormons driving Fords making Ford a Mormon company. You decided to switch back mid-stream for some reason, and yet I dealt as well. It doesn't matter, KKK, Mormon, the fact the some X drive Fords does NOT make Ford a company run by X. Live with it.
I just asked what if there were actual racists running Ford?
And I say, so what? It's irrelevant. They weren't put there because some racists buy Ford products. Companies do not appoint their board of directors that way. I told you that already. Come up with something else that proves that BSA is run by the Mormon church or admit that the claim is ridiculous.
Note, I'm not addressing the buyers, but the people that run it.
And the claim I'm talking about is that since Mormons are "buyers" of BSA products they are in control of BSA. If you're not defending that claim, stop defending that claim.
So long as that "best person" conforms with their parameters.
Every person believes that the best people conform to "their parameters". What normal people would call ethics, but you need to cast in negative terms. I bet even you feel the same way.
Otherwise why would you have those "parameters"? Don't YOU want to be the best person YOU can be? If you have "parameters" that you don't think help you to be the best person you can be, then you'd get rid of them, wouldn't you? Or do you settle for being the most mediocre person you can be and hold on to an ethical belief system that takes you there? "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" is the best path?
Likewise, you wouldn't confuse two groups with "scouts" in their name, when one is for making stuff and the other is for camping in the woods and survival stuff
There is nothing "camping in the woods" specific to the word "boy", and for most people there is nothing inherently "making stuff" in the word "hacker". In fact, as I've pointed out, due to the inequities of STEM education, "hacker" and "boy" are much more like synonyms than antonyms (like "boy" and "girl"). That's where the confusion comes in.
Nobody who was really familiar with Apple Records would ever possibly confuse the Apple iTunes store with Apple Records; it's only those who aren't (and they are the majority). Same here. Here, it would be the parents who are looking for a worthwhile afterschool activity for their kids and come across "Hacker Scouts" (who have absolutely no "scout" activities involved) and think it may be another part of BSA (like cub scouts and Explorers.)
As part of my JROTC I got to shoot an M-60. The Boy Scouts had me camping in the parking lot of a church.
So, one group introduced you to violent ways of killing others, the other gave you tools to help you survive as a homeless person. Yes, I can see why you love one and hate the other. They made you camp out. The bastards.
which to a degree has turned the BSA into an arm of their organization..
So THAT'S why the latest addition to the list of merit badges was one for baptizing living people on behalf of dead ones, and why all those elders on mission trips wear BSA uniforms. I'd heard that the stock in companies that make white dress shirts and black suit pants was tanking, and now I know why. I'm still seeing a lot of white shirt/black pants well-dressed young men walking around my neighborhood (there's a study center across the street). Maybe they just haven't gotten the word yet?
Perhaps, just maybe, the Mormons being a group that thinks religion is important, and BSA being a group that thinks religion is important, and Mormons having young people they want to reinforce that belief in, maybe Mormons might be hosting scout troops even without it being run by their central church? Just a thought.
But I guess if you hate religion so much, you'll lose the ability to distinguish the players on the other team and they'll all start to look alike after a while. It's a conspiracy, after all.
or at minimal they wield significantly more (and more organized) power over the whole group then the other religious organizations that support the BSA.
You know, I actually heard that a local Explorer Post hosted by the Catholic church was using the baptismal fount during their week-night meetings to baptize each other to save people whose names they are pulling from the phone book. And that the priest in charge of the church was helping them. He couldn't help himself, the local stake was controlling his mind with penetrating electrical waves acting upon his hypothalmus.
What if 95% of the board of Ford are members of the KKK?
That still doesn't make Ford a branch of the Mormon church. And just because some Mormons drive Fords won't force Ford to appoint anyone in the KKK (or the LDS church, for that matter) to the board of directors. That's not how companies work.
"Some scouts are Mormon" does nothing to make BSA a branch of the Mormon church.
Your indefinite statements seem to indicate that you agree in fact, but wish to argue the details.
Agree in fact with what? Your ridiculous implications that Ford has a bunch of KKK members on their board, or that BSA is an organization run by the Mormon church, or what? You've got no facts, just "some X are Y, thus all Y are X" logic to back up supposition.
The claim was that BSA was a Mormon organization because some Mormon churches host scout troops. That's the "fact" I'm refuting, and if you can read what I've wrote and come up with some idea I'm "agreeing in fact" with that, you're looney.
You could issue a $0 license, and that would be a successful "defense" so far as trademark law is concerned.
Letting someone use something very similar to your trademarked name in the same market as you might be a good legal defense of the trademark but it would be a very ridiculous practical defense. If you don't want another group in the same market using a name that would be confused with your trademark, the right answer is to not allow it, not to give it away for free.
If you send data in under-100-byte chunks, it can go over the downed connection. Don't you know anything about the internet?
Yes, and this is nonsense. Now, I've actually had a network device that failed in a way that its MTU was around 100 bytes, but that's a very ABnormal failure mode, and simply limiting your packets to < 100 bytes isn't going to get the data over a link that has failed.
You're thinking of SMS, and none of the Twitter apps I've got on my phones uses SMS for transport. They can't, I've never told Twitter my mobile number.
The question as originally asked stands. Twitter depends on network connectivity, and in a situation where 3/4G cell connections and/or Internet are down, how will this do anything but increase the load on a system that has already failed due to overload?
Well, if you don't want alerts from Korea, don't follow the Korean alert address. Pretty simple. I don't think you have to worry about getting an alert while in New Orleans from Korea that says "All your bases are belong us."
If a Kardashian so much as farts, word goes out like it were an Amber Alert.
As well it should. Have you ever been close to a Kardy when it farts? Oh, the humanity! Pray for a tsunami to wash the smell away.
"Some members of BSA are Mormon" doesn't mean "BSA is a Mormon organization" any more than the fact that some Mormons drive Fords makes Ford a branch of the Mormon Church.
Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!
"We'll give you a merit badge in 3D printing -- the template for it anyway. You get to print it yourself. And once you can do that, you can print any other badge you want."
And the better quote is "we don't need no steenkeeng badgers..."
The BSA is the official boy's youth program for the Mormon church (as selected by the Mormons, not the BSA).
"All apples are red, therefore anything that is red must be an apple." That's how you are defending the claim that the BSA is a Mormon organization. No, not even "all apples", "some apples", since only some Mormons are member of BSA.
"Some racists buy Fords, therefore Ford is a company run by racists." There's the car analogy.
The definition you are using for the word hacker, is not the same definition that most "hackers" agree with.
I see you missed the part where I said that this is what most people think. I didn't say it was my definition. Most people don't care what "most hackers agree with", they think hacking is breaking into computers to create havok.
Someone who breaks into computers is more aptly called a cracker.
To most people, a "cracker" is what they take out of a Ritz or saltine box. Please, really, do read all the words and the context that they create. That would keep you from wasting everyone's time preaching to the choir.
On the other hand, the people you ripped off and are asking you to stop are horrible bigots with no reputation left to protect.
It's ok to steal from people whose political and ethical standards are different than yours. Check.
I dare say that the reputation of the Boy Scouts is considerably better than "hacker" for most of the public. Most people don't hate them quite as much as you do, and there are still a lot of people who would prefer to hire an Eagle Scout than someone who makes it a life ambition to break into computers. That's how most of the people view this.
For those who are still living in their parent's basement and haven't run into any of these yet, "girls" are different than "boys", and most people understand that the two are (almost always) mutually exclusive. This is different than "hacker" and "boy", which through an odd twist of STEM inequities, are closer to synonyms than antonyms.
I'm not saying people not going on green isn't annoying but it shouldn't be criminal (or at least any more than anything else a person may do at a red light)...
Yes, it should be, if it is because you are too distracted to be in control of your vehicle.
Every excuse you gave was a mechanical issue that prevented the car from moving. Texting your BFF to see which bar you're all meeting at tonight isn't a mechanical problem, it's a mental one.
There is no shame in finding something entertaining.
Didn't say there was. Said there was shame in feeling you need to find something interesting just because the guy in the next office cubicle does. It's called "peer pressure". Look it up.
Not clear why they weren't there before.
Because the same barricades that would stop a car would also stop airplanes who are supposed to be there, and sometimes need to use taxiways to get on and off of the runway and to the gate and back. Do'h.
Thank you. I read both links in the summary and still couldn't figure out what was going on. It didn't help that the articles are poorly written. At one point they both say that these two people who were doing this had been keeping their identities secret from the places they work. How they did that and functioned as the higher level management they claim to be is a mystery. "Who is your director of development?" "I don't know, it is a secret."
Oh well, I guess that`s way too deep for you. Have a nice day!
No, many of us understand "peer pressure" but can suppress the urge to do stupid and wastefully expensive things just because the guy in the next cubicle does them.
You mean, like, OMG, I can't waste time chatting about a ridiculous TV show with people who spend their lives living vicariously through the people they see on their idiot box? OMG. Did you see? Andy won BB! He's so rad. I want to be just like him. :-)
HAND. HTH.
It warrants changing your driver's licencing requirements and increasing the difficulty of the tests, so people who shouldn't be put in charge of a golf cart are incapable of passing.
The instant this idea is proposed in the right venue (i.e., a legislature) the NAACP, ACLU, and just about every other civil rights group in the US will be lining up to file lawsuits to prevent it. The media machine will be put into overdrive so that the message that whoever was stupid enough to propose it is racist, bigoted, and probably homophobic can't be missed by anyone who isn't living in a cave, and probably half of them will hear it (through the grapevine?).
It won't be an issue of just stopping people who cannot drive, there will be claims that this discriminates against "group X" because "group X" is less likely to have gotten free driver's ed, can't afford driver's ed, wasn't in the country when they would have gotten driver's ed, can't afford a good car to take the test in, can't document they had driver's ed, or any of a number of other reasons. (I am reasonably surprised that blind people haven't found a champion to sue to allow them to drive, and to have handicapped parking privileges when they park.)
Imagine a politician that wants to prevent a large percentage of his constituents from driving. The noise would be louder than any politician who wants to make sure the people who are allowed to vote are authorized to vote, and that's a pretty loud existing debate with a lot of name calling (and proving you have the right to vote is easier than getting a driver's license.)
But yeah, raising the level of abilities required before you hand someone a driver's license would reduce, but not eliminate, accidents. Maybe. A bit.