Wait - you think your work should be funded by the taxpayer 'cause you're smart and you find your field interesting? Go use your own goddamned money to play in your lab.
That seems incredibly short-sighted and self-defeating. We use public funds (aka taxes) to pay for basic research because it is a public good. A public good means something we all benefit from, by the way.
For example, even though I don't drive, I continue to pay for roads with my taxes because I derive a lot of indirect benefit from them, such as groceries being delivered to the market I buy from. Likewise, even though I don't have children and would love to not pay taxes that go to schools I realize that having an educated populace is a benefit to me so I don't mind paying for it.
Basic research is similar in that it rarely produces immediate, tangible results, but does contribute in many ways to the products and services that we do eventually see.
Any judge who speaks out in a professional manner about any activity's moral/ethical/philosophical components is not fit to rule. Those parts are reserved for the people to decide upon.
You may be correct, but that is really not relevant as she has never been a judge before. Would you advocate appointing as justices only those whom have never voiced an opinion before? That would limit the pool rather drastically, don't you think?
Taking away the free coffee in my office would be considered a benefit. An act of mercy, really.
It is a vile substance that resembles coffee in name only.
While you are not totally wrong, the two party system has existed in this country long before the 24 hour news television existed. Or Television. Or radio, for that matter.
Not saying we can't change it, let's just not pretend the two party system is a new phenomena. It's not.
"...unless you act to use them for your own benefit, your opponent's information is going to get out there.
Heaven forbid people get all the facts and make up their own mind. Let's just prevent our opponents from being able to make their case in the first place!
No, that's not it at all. It's about accuracy, not pinning blame. Supporting inaccurate reporting just because it puts a positive light on the people you support is just as unacceptable as spinning things to put a negative light on those you don't support.
Spin is spin is spin. It doesn't matter who it makes look good or bad, it's misleading. That should not be acceptable, ever.
A company in this case would not want to be found disobeying proper government authority if they said no
That's the problem, really. There was not 'proper government authority'. Proper authority would have included things like warrants, court orders, judicial oversight, pesky little things like that. Had any of that been in place then yes, they would have been cooperating with 'proper government authority'. As it is, they just cooperated because someone asked them nicely, and they should be held accountable for it.
why isn't OpenOffice already available by default on new PC's and Workstations?
Because then customers would have less of an incentive to purchase MS Office. This gives MS a huge incentive to pressure Dell, et al, to not offer alternatives on a windows machine.
Going from 95% to 82% justifies a 'just' in there. I dare say 'business types' would be more then a bit dismayed to see thier market share drop from 95% to 82%.
I have used IE6 for years and never once got a virus or spyware because of it.
The problem is not users with a clue. If you can manage to use IE6 and not get infested with malware it's because you know what you are doing and you know what not to click. The average user does not. Keeping a system clean using IE6 requires a knowledgable user actively guarding against getting crap on your system.
The problem is that most users do not possess the knowledge required to use IE6 cleanly. That is why FF is good. It helps protects users who don't know how to protect themselves. If you can use IE without a problem then great, use it, but pretending that IE6 is safe to use for a general user is a bit of a stretch.
There's also the small issue that FF just works better, but if you don't care about things like standards compliance and open source then it's just a matter of personal preference and there's no accounting for that. As a long-time FF user I don't understand how anyone could willfully choose to use IE but hey, diversity is what makes the world interesting right?
Rambling on here more then I intended to, but my point is simply that yes, it is possible to run windows and IE and not become a malware infested zombie, but it takes effort and know-how, two things that the average user doesn't (and shouldn't need) to possess.
What in XP used the ribbon? The first, and as far as I know only, apps to use the ribbon are the new office products that are just now in beta. Personally, I love the ribbon. Doesn't take long at all to get used to and works extremely well.
What in XP used this robbon that you think sucked?
They won't notice until their hard drive crashes and they need to put their music on a new computer. At which point, because they were unable to backup their liscenses, they will find themselves unable to listen to the music they purchased. I think they will notice something changed when that happens.
Or am I just misunderstanding the whole 'backing up liscenses' thing and it means something totally different?
The global scientific community has no reason to lie about this
That's open to more then a little debate, but I'm really not in the mood to get into it, and it's not germane to this discussion.
The basic scepticism, at least for me, comes from the fact that the earth has been warming and cooling itself all by it's lonesome for quite a bit longer then we've been around. Can you tell me which human actions cause the last ice age to end? Or begin for that matter?
Speaking for myself, I'm not saying we're not causing it, I'm just saying the earth has been warming and cooling itself long before we got here, and maybe we should look at other explanations for the current warming as well. Not discount that we might be causing it, on the contrary, look into that, but don't discount other possabilities.
My basic objection is that I don't consider the matter closed. I'm not saying we are or are not responsible, nor am I saying we shouldn't take steps, such as reducing carbon emissions, just in case we are causing it. What I am saying is that we don't know either way. What I am saying is that the earth's climate is a massively complicated system that we really don't understand all that well, and maybe we shouldn't be ignoring evidence from either side.
We haven't figured out how to predict the weather 3 days from now, yet I'm supposed to believe we've figured out what it will be in 3 years? In 30?
A basic requirement for good science is an open mind, something both sides in this debate would do well to remember.
Please, we've been messing with nature for a long time now. Modern medical science has been keeping many people alive that natural selection would have killed off.
Is that a good thing for the species as a whole? That's a whole different discussion I think, but also not germane to this one. That genie is well out of the bottle. I think you have valid concerns, there will of course be many problems if people suddenly stop dying of old age, but I think we are well past the point of not messing with nature.
What would I be looking for? That people die younger in poor countries? Or even in poor parts of wealthy countries? Of course they do, but that has nothing to do with aging.
Or is there some other part of the statistics I should be looking at?
That might be the most ridiculous thing I've read on/. in quite some time. And that's saying something.
So is your basic premise that poor folk are happy living short lives and only those mean rich people want to live longer? Last time I checked Alzheimer's was an equal opportunity destroyer. There are of course conditions that, due to a wide array of factors, afflict the poor disproportionately, but aging isn't one of them.
I know hating on the wealthy is popular, but please, try and maintain a little perspective about it.
Yes, you're being overly pedantic. Relative to the person doing the sailing the side of the boat that is left will change, the side that is port will not, which was the point.
Having said that, I was agreeing with the GP myself, so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
"Most Americans don't seem to realise that they have one of the most right wing societies in the west. You 'liberal' democrats would be considered rather right wing in most European countries."
That's why we call it 'Left' and 'Right' and not 'Port' and 'Starbord'. It's relative, not absolute.
The problem is that it's a public terminal, Windows has nothing to do with it.
Being a public terminal it is most likely going to have only one user account set up for public use, meaning the seperate user space offered by linux would never come in to play.
I do agree that I can see no reason why you would want this installed on a public terminal.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait - you think your work should be funded by the taxpayer 'cause you're smart and you find your field interesting? Go use your own goddamned money to play in your lab.
That seems incredibly short-sighted and self-defeating. We use public funds (aka taxes) to pay for basic research because it is a public good. A public good means something we all benefit from, by the way. For example, even though I don't drive, I continue to pay for roads with my taxes because I derive a lot of indirect benefit from them, such as groceries being delivered to the market I buy from. Likewise, even though I don't have children and would love to not pay taxes that go to schools I realize that having an educated populace is a benefit to me so I don't mind paying for it. Basic research is similar in that it rarely produces immediate, tangible results, but does contribute in many ways to the products and services that we do eventually see.
Any judge who speaks out in a professional manner about any activity's moral/ethical/philosophical components is not fit to rule. Those parts are reserved for the people to decide upon.
You may be correct, but that is really not relevant as she has never been a judge before. Would you advocate appointing as justices only those whom have never voiced an opinion before? That would limit the pool rather drastically, don't you think?
Taking away the free coffee in my office would be considered a benefit. An act of mercy, really. It is a vile substance that resembles coffee in name only.
While you are not totally wrong, the two party system has existed in this country long before the 24 hour news television existed. Or Television. Or radio, for that matter. Not saying we can't change it, let's just not pretend the two party system is a new phenomena. It's not.
How very 'progressive'.
No, that's not it at all. It's about accuracy, not pinning blame. Supporting inaccurate reporting just because it puts a positive light on the people you support is just as unacceptable as spinning things to put a negative light on those you don't support.
Spin is spin is spin. It doesn't matter who it makes look good or bad, it's misleading. That should not be acceptable, ever.
Because then customers would have less of an incentive to purchase MS Office. This gives MS a huge incentive to pressure Dell, et al, to not offer alternatives on a windows machine.
Seems fairly obvious to me.
Well sure, because communist societies have always been so good about privacy!
Or is that only because they "didn't do it right"?
Going from 95% to 82% justifies a 'just' in there. I dare say 'business types' would be more then a bit dismayed to see thier market share drop from 95% to 82%.
Maybe that's just me though.
The problem is not users with a clue. If you can manage to use IE6 and not get infested with malware it's because you know what you are doing and you know what not to click. The average user does not. Keeping a system clean using IE6 requires a knowledgable user actively guarding against getting crap on your system.
The problem is that most users do not possess the knowledge required to use IE6 cleanly. That is why FF is good. It helps protects users who don't know how to protect themselves. If you can use IE without a problem then great, use it, but pretending that IE6 is safe to use for a general user is a bit of a stretch.
There's also the small issue that FF just works better, but if you don't care about things like standards compliance and open source then it's just a matter of personal preference and there's no accounting for that. As a long-time FF user I don't understand how anyone could willfully choose to use IE but hey, diversity is what makes the world interesting right?
Rambling on here more then I intended to, but my point is simply that yes, it is possible to run windows and IE and not become a malware infested zombie, but it takes effort and know-how, two things that the average user doesn't (and shouldn't need) to possess.
What in XP used the ribbon? The first, and as far as I know only, apps to use the ribbon are the new office products that are just now in beta. Personally, I love the ribbon. Doesn't take long at all to get used to and works extremely well.
What in XP used this robbon that you think sucked?
True, but only after they shot all the redcoats.
I don't get it, isn't this already called SimCity?
They won't notice until their hard drive crashes and they need to put their music on a new computer. At which point, because they were unable to backup their liscenses, they will find themselves unable to listen to the music they purchased. I think they will notice something changed when that happens.
Or am I just misunderstanding the whole 'backing up liscenses' thing and it means something totally different?
I'm afraid your post will be marked redundant. This is
That's open to more then a little debate, but I'm really not in the mood to get into it, and it's not germane to this discussion.
The basic scepticism, at least for me, comes from the fact that the earth has been warming and cooling itself all by it's lonesome for quite a bit longer then we've been around. Can you tell me which human actions cause the last ice age to end? Or begin for that matter?
Speaking for myself, I'm not saying we're not causing it, I'm just saying the earth has been warming and cooling itself long before we got here, and maybe we should look at other explanations for the current warming as well. Not discount that we might be causing it, on the contrary, look into that, but don't discount other possabilities.
My basic objection is that I don't consider the matter closed. I'm not saying we are or are not responsible, nor am I saying we shouldn't take steps, such as reducing carbon emissions, just in case we are causing it. What I am saying is that we don't know either way. What I am saying is that the earth's climate is a massively complicated system that we really don't understand all that well, and maybe we shouldn't be ignoring evidence from either side.
We haven't figured out how to predict the weather 3 days from now, yet I'm supposed to believe we've figured out what it will be in 3 years? In 30?
A basic requirement for good science is an open mind, something both sides in this debate would do well to remember.
Please, we've been messing with nature for a long time now. Modern medical science has been keeping many people alive that natural selection would have killed off.
Is that a good thing for the species as a whole? That's a whole different discussion I think, but also not germane to this one. That genie is well out of the bottle. I think you have valid concerns, there will of course be many problems if people suddenly stop dying of old age, but I think we are well past the point of not messing with nature.
What would I be looking for? That people die younger in poor countries? Or even in poor parts of wealthy countries? Of course they do, but that has nothing to do with aging.
Or is there some other part of the statistics I should be looking at?
That might be the most ridiculous thing I've read on
So is your basic premise that poor folk are happy living short lives and only those mean rich people want to live longer? Last time I checked Alzheimer's was an equal opportunity destroyer. There are of course conditions that, due to a wide array of factors, afflict the poor disproportionately, but aging isn't one of them.
I know hating on the wealthy is popular, but please, try and maintain a little perspective about it.
Yes, you're being overly pedantic. Relative to the person doing the sailing the side of the boat that is left will change, the side that is port will not, which was the point.
Having said that, I was agreeing with the GP myself, so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
"Most Americans don't seem to realise that they have one of the most right wing societies in the west. You 'liberal' democrats would be considered rather right wing in most European countries."
That's why we call it 'Left' and 'Right' and not 'Port' and 'Starbord'. It's relative, not absolute.
Have you ever seem Pokemon? Thank god hollywood didn't learn from them!
Or like blaming the gun manufactures when people get shot.
Oh, wait...
The problem is that it's a public terminal, Windows has nothing to do with it.
Being a public terminal it is most likely going to have only one user account set up for public use, meaning the seperate user space offered by linux would never come in to play.
I do agree that I can see no reason why you would want this installed on a public terminal.