To quote TFA: "In their painstaking research project Adey and his colleague, psychology professor Michael Shayer, compared the results of today's children with those of children who took exactly the same test in the mid-1990s and also 30 years ago."
So we're not comparing us against them, we're comparing us against us over time. And The Flynn Effect discussed rising IQs in developed, not developing, countries.
Last time I looked this was a discussion forum. You know, a place where people post opinions and other people comment on them. "A" stated the films were formulaic. "B" stated that if people found them so they didn't have to watch them. Both valid viewpoints. So near as I can tell it's your reply that's out of line...
I suggest we resolve such disputes the old-fashioned way. Two opposing lobbyists with unreconcilable differences would pace off thirty paces, turn, take aim, and fire. Winner takes all.
At the very least, we'd halve the number of available lobbyists... and if successful we could apply it to CEOs, lawyers, and politicians.
And I'd suggest you read your own article for comprehension. To quote, "The maps show that a 1-meter (3-foot) rise would swamp cities all along the U.S. eastern seaboard. A 6-meter (20-foot) sea level rise would submerge a large part of Florida."
So, yes, a 20 foot rise WOULD sumerge a large part of Florida. However, the Australian study again postulates a one FOOT (not meter) rise over the rest of the century. Such being the case, it would seem the consequences would not be nearly as dire, and that we might have a little time in which to prepare.
Your Ford comment may signify more than you know. Ford, in the light of recent losses and reduced market share, needed to do something. So. Did they than announce that they were going to produce the most fuel efficient vehicles in every class, or usher in the hydrogen economy, or even concentrate on making the best damn trucks in the world? No.
Their solution? To announce that every Ford worker that drives a non-Ford product now has to park in the outermost parking lot, thus providing an "incentive" for them buy a Ford product.
Your Wiki article definition defines "pure" socialism, when in fact there may be many shades of gray(e.g. Sweden). As to the rest, that probably depends greatly upon your vantage point. On one hand, the government may want a significant chunk of your income. According to your argument , giving it up makes you "less free". On the other hand, doing so may grant everyone the "right" to free healthcare, an advantage that many might argue would be better for that society as a whole. In short, the members of that population now have a new freedom...
And Australian researchers found the the rise in global sea levels is ACCELERATING. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4651876. stm To quote, "Global sea levels could rise by about 30cm during this century if current trends continue, a study warns."
So we should all head for the hills because... wait. 30cm? That's about one foot, or less than a third of a meter. By the end of the century. Even the headline bypasses this inconvenient fact in favor of scare tactics. "Sea level rise 'is accelerating'". Be afraid!
As such, this appears to be in the same vein as the statistic that it's possible to drown in less than an inch of water. Yes, you can, but as a practical matter how many people do?
So? If a democracy is such a good thing then why do we elect presidents and senators and governers and mayors? Obviously we should just let everybody vote directly on everything, and empower no one to make any decision on anything.
Nice sidestep. You orignal rant stated "They are NOT closer to a democracy," to which the reply was not every country NEEDS to be a democracy in order to ensure personal freedoms. I could be equally "free" and/or have human "rights" in a socialist country, or under a constitutional monarchy.
As to, "That prosperity is why we have the military might we do," I can only say that having a vast untapped pool of natural resources didn't hurt things either.
"The ability to criticize the government is the linchpin of democracy."
Try saying linchpin of freedom and I may agree. Nothing says a goverment has to be democratic. I can live in a autocratic society with a King or Queen who's equally bound by law, and have the same right of criticism. How am I now less free?
One only has to spend a little time on/. to wonder about the concept of giving everyone an equal say in government...
You mean, like the US government who deemed that images of caskets returning from the Middle East be censored? Like prohibiting cell phone cameras and the like to "protect" us from future knowledge of prisoner abuse? Like forbidding journalistic coverage unless said journalist are safely ensconced (embedded) within military escort units?
Personally, I'm of the opinion that people who live within glass houses...
...and "hate" speech or inappropriate content (say, a bloody fetus on an anti-abortion site). Nice of you pick only one example.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with those types of content or not, or think they should be blocked, or not, it is being blocked. That is, censored. You should check out the TOS for most hosting sites. It's... enlightening.
"...only joined when it became obvious who the winners were going to be."
Now THAT'S a version of history I never heard before. Let's see, Poland and France and most of Europe were overrun, England was on the ropes, Russia had been invaded, Japan had aligned itself with the Axis powers, and THAT was the winning side?
You do realize, of course, that you've just validated the parent's point that change is gradual, and doesn't happen all at once. Sometimes it takes years, decades, or even centuries. And frankly, I agree with the post above, as I fail to see why every society MUST be democratic in nature. Are we that certain it's the only true path?
Be that as it may, in about a third of the US grass grows everywhere without needing to be watered, and in many places where watering doesn't matter because fresh water is abundant. And discounting hardier forms like prarie grass. I think living in a desert environment may be coloring your thinking. Try driving through, say, Kentucky some time.
And whether or not people should have grass for yards is another question. The practical reality, at the moment, is that many do, and that gives us the opportunity to make use of the by-products.
Personally, I'm suprised they were able to make the warning message stick. If I were censoring people, I begin by not even letting them know they were being censored. As is, it's sending up a fairly large warning single that there's something somewhere someone doesn't want you to know...
Everything Bogtha said, plus the fact that every server I have has a browser on it so I can get security updates, patches, new software releases, etc., onto the box. One should also mention that IE on Windows 2003 server runs under a "high-security" model, where you basically have to manually add the site you want to use to your Trusted Sites list in order to download or install anything.
I guess, to also use your example, that a Mac shouldn't come with Safari, iTunes, Quicktime, Dashboard, Mail, or any other software preinstalled either. Just an empty box able to do directory listings.
Which, to my mind, is absurd. People buy Macs partly because they CAN do lots of things out of the box. It's part of the value add. Same with Windows.
"...but in essence you can not have a Masters Computer Science student designing software for the average person."
Not a troll, but doesn't this same statement kill off about 90% of the Linux/OSS contributors? And just as a counterpoint, neither do you want a non-skilled HS student creating code for the average person.
I think an earlier poster had a point. How many acres of grass (i.e. front and back yards, landscaping, parks, playing fields) are already being grown in the US? How many people already water and fertilize and maintain them? How much cut grass is already being gathered weekly and hauled off to dumps?
It would appear that what we should be looking into is a way to divert the biomass we're already growing and harvesting to a different destination.
And no, I don't expect it to power the entire country. I would, however, expect it to make a significant dent.
You're so right. In keeping with that train of thought, we should stop adding ANY new features or additional standards support to FireFox. After all, unless they're willing to back all of those changes down to version 0.9, we'll still have to support the existing base and THEY won't have the new features.;)
Slashdot Mirror
So we're not comparing us against them, we're comparing us against us over time. And The Flynn Effect discussed rising IQs in developed, not developing, countries.
Last time I looked this was a discussion forum. You know, a place where people post opinions and other people comment on them. "A" stated the films were formulaic. "B" stated that if people found them so they didn't have to watch them. Both valid viewpoints. So near as I can tell it's your reply that's out of line...
We're talking about paid lobbyists, not presidents.
At the very least, we'd halve the number of available lobbyists... and if successful we could apply it to CEOs, lawyers, and politicians.
So, yes, a 20 foot rise WOULD sumerge a large part of Florida. However, the Australian study again postulates a one FOOT (not meter) rise over the rest of the century. Such being the case, it would seem the consequences would not be nearly as dire, and that we might have a little time in which to prepare.
Their solution? To announce that every Ford worker that drives a non-Ford product now has to park in the outermost parking lot, thus providing an "incentive" for them buy a Ford product.
That's "innovation" to the modern CEO.
Your Wiki article definition defines "pure" socialism, when in fact there may be many shades of gray(e.g. Sweden). As to the rest, that probably depends greatly upon your vantage point. On one hand, the government may want a significant chunk of your income. According to your argument , giving it up makes you "less free". On the other hand, doing so may grant everyone the "right" to free healthcare, an advantage that many might argue would be better for that society as a whole. In short, the members of that population now have a new freedom...
So we should all head for the hills because... wait. 30cm? That's about one foot, or less than a third of a meter. By the end of the century. Even the headline bypasses this inconvenient fact in favor of scare tactics. "Sea level rise 'is accelerating'". Be afraid!
As such, this appears to be in the same vein as the statistic that it's possible to drown in less than an inch of water. Yes, you can, but as a practical matter how many people do?
So? If a democracy is such a good thing then why do we elect presidents and senators and governers and mayors? Obviously we should just let everybody vote directly on everything, and empower no one to make any decision on anything.
As to, "That prosperity is why we have the military might we do," I can only say that having a vast untapped pool of natural resources didn't hurt things either.
Try saying linchpin of freedom and I may agree. Nothing says a goverment has to be democratic. I can live in a autocratic society with a King or Queen who's equally bound by law, and have the same right of criticism. How am I now less free?
One only has to spend a little time on /. to wonder about the concept of giving everyone an equal say in government...
Personally, I'm of the opinion that people who live within glass houses...
Regardless of whether or not you agree with those types of content or not, or think they should be blocked, or not, it is being blocked. That is, censored. You should check out the TOS for most hosting sites. It's... enlightening.
Now THAT'S a version of history I never heard before. Let's see, Poland and France and most of Europe were overrun, England was on the ropes, Russia had been invaded, Japan had aligned itself with the Axis powers, and THAT was the winning side?
You do realize, of course, that you've just validated the parent's point that change is gradual, and doesn't happen all at once. Sometimes it takes years, decades, or even centuries. And frankly, I agree with the post above, as I fail to see why every society MUST be democratic in nature. Are we that certain it's the only true path?
http://www.alternet.org/story/31260/
And especially when Google is letting people know they are being censored by their goverment...
Where is it well argued that they should not?
As everyone on /. knows by now, data can not be stolen.
And whether or not people should have grass for yards is another question. The practical reality, at the moment, is that many do, and that gives us the opportunity to make use of the by-products.
Personally, I'm suprised they were able to make the warning message stick. If I were censoring people, I begin by not even letting them know they were being censored. As is, it's sending up a fairly large warning single that there's something somewhere someone doesn't want you to know...
I guess, to also use your example, that a Mac shouldn't come with Safari, iTunes, Quicktime, Dashboard, Mail, or any other software preinstalled either. Just an empty box able to do directory listings.
Which, to my mind, is absurd. People buy Macs partly because they CAN do lots of things out of the box. It's part of the value add. Same with Windows.
Not a troll, but doesn't this same statement kill off about 90% of the Linux/OSS contributors? And just as a counterpoint, neither do you want a non-skilled HS student creating code for the average person.
That's why you have end user testing.
It would appear that what we should be looking into is a way to divert the biomass we're already growing and harvesting to a different destination.
And no, I don't expect it to power the entire country. I would, however, expect it to make a significant dent.
You're so right. In keeping with that train of thought, we should stop adding ANY new features or additional standards support to FireFox. After all, unless they're willing to back all of those changes down to version 0.9, we'll still have to support the existing base and THEY won't have the new features. ;)