There is slightly more to it than poor=stupid, but you can't deny that we live in an age where there are very few barriers to advancement if you seriously want to do well. One of the few things you can't do a great deal about is being stupider than toast, and we might as well face it - such people are not in short supply.
The irony was not entirely lost on me either, though the difference is/. posters are (generally) interesting people whose views are usually worth engaging with. The people who respond to "Have Your Say" threads, on the other hand....
That's just the BBC being itself. They have this wierd idea that being a public service broadcaster means they have to publish the comments of every clueless fool who writes into them. Unofrtunately this just results in a list of daft comments that make Youtube posters look thoughtful.
Scientologists are no different from anyone else. As an atheist, I am just as strongly against all the religions you cite; however, the one I would like to see wiped from the face of the earth first of all is Scientology.
That is a ridiculous argument. If you believe that putting your wee-wee in another man's bottom is wrong and sinful, more power to you, but the crucial difference is that both parties involved agree to do it. This is the essential element that is missing when it is your wee-wee and a five year old child. Take your strawman elsewhere.
I don't know if I'm having one of those days where everything is just delightfully funny, but having followed your link there, I came to this page.
Hilarious stuff, well, maybe not. Until you get to the bottom of the page, where you come to this little gem:
How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
Heh. My Nomad 1 is still going strong today, it is nailed to my kitchen wall to provide me with pleasant sounds while I cook dinner. Still looks brand new.
Yes. I work with young kids - 10-18 - quite a lot and I have no doubt that there are very few kids indeed who are actually dim enough to do something like this. Most of them treat it (and the warnings they receive) as a standing joke.
Google's datacentres are huge because they cache all content they suck in and becuase the amount of traffic Google serves is huge. You don't need all that for a startup.
It's not really that scary. If you sit back and think for a second, entering the search market takes a couple of servers and some code. Not that hard: what you need are good ideas to ensure good results are returned.
Given the nature of the internet, it is inevitable that we will all use the best and maybe the second best search engines out there. I don't know *anybody* that doesn't use Google - not because Google is the dominant search operator, but because Google is the one that most often returns good results for them. If a poster on here popped up and said xyz search engine is better, I would give it a try, if it worked I would maybe bookmark it and use it again. If it's consistently better, it wins.
This is true, but on the other hand when designing a wall to contain half-tonne autonomous killing machines, I would prefer to err on the side of keeping it simple, and presuming that Mr Tiger is more than capable of travelling at 35mph in whatever direction he (or she, in this case) so chooses.
Online search and advertising are two areas it is very hard to justify regulatory interference for. The cost of entry to the market is sufficiently low (a bunch of servers, some code monkeys, and a handful of innovative ideas) that even if a monopoly situation is reached, the monopoly will have to maintain competitive pricing or they will be faced with a swarm of smart Silicon Valley startups.
Depending on the nature of your response, Microsoft reserves the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that Yahoo!'s shareholders are provided with the opportunity to realize the value inherent in our proposal.
In other words, Microsoft is putting them on notice that they intend to take Yahoo over, and if the board does not agree then it will be a hostile takeover. In other words, if you don't agree, your job is toast:)
No bad thing: Yahoo has been floundering badly for some time (well, ever since Google arrived, if we're honest) and needs some serious work before it has any chance of being an effective competitor to Google.
There is a good reason for not having ridiculously wide columns on a screen - humans can only comfortably read 60-70 characters on a single line before they get lost. There is a reason no news site on earth presents stories in a full screen width.
Why don't you Google for "without prejudice"? I presume a similar concept exists in American law.
All that is happening here is that a judge has confirmed that someone who sends a letter holds the copyright of that letter. This is a point of law that was settled in Britain in the Victorian era. However, just like anything else, fair use applies.
Is it just me, or does anybody else think that the current state of particle physics is very similar to the complexities that had to be introduced to the Ptolemaic system for predicting the motion of planets? That is, it seems to work (more or less) but we seem to have missed a much simpler and deeper explanation that removes the need for digging down into ever deeper layers of apparently fractal particles.
It isn't tax money. The Bank of England is a central bank, a lender of last resort that can lend essentially unlimited sums in situations where it (and government oversight) deems appropriate. Appropriate circumstances are where a bank is in danger of folding despite being essentially sound businesses. This is the case with Northern Rock - they have plenty of assets, in the form of mortgages; the problem is they tried to fund it with a source of lending that was not (despite their protestations) guaranteed to continue. When the credit markets ground to a halt, they were sitting ducks.
The Bank did the right thing in extending credit (albeit at an uncompetitive rate), but the Government did the wrong thing in guaranteeing saver's deposits. They would probably have survived anyway and given the entire industry a harsh lesson in the realities of financing. As soon as they did that the nationalisation genie was out the bottle, and once it's out it is very difficult to put back.
We have pretty much standardised nowadays on the 1000 million version, primarily because it allows newspaper editors to use the word 'billion' a thousand times more often.
To my mind, if you manage to get 300 tonnes of falling metal out of the sky and on the deck with nothing worse than a broken leg, you've done something right.
Slashdot Mirror
Completely off-topic, but thankyou for that now-rare beast, a well written and argued /. post :)
Don't worry, Idle has been like this for a while. We agree it looks hideous; complaining about it is a recognised spectator sport.
So you're saying being gay is a mental problem? Just want to be clear.
There is slightly more to it than poor=stupid, but you can't deny that we live in an age where there are very few barriers to advancement if you seriously want to do well. One of the few things you can't do a great deal about is being stupider than toast, and we might as well face it - such people are not in short supply.
The irony was not entirely lost on me either, though the difference is /. posters are (generally) interesting people whose views are usually worth engaging with. The people who respond to "Have Your Say" threads, on the other hand....
That's just the BBC being itself. They have this wierd idea that being a public service broadcaster means they have to publish the comments of every clueless fool who writes into them. Unofrtunately this just results in a list of daft comments that make Youtube posters look thoughtful.
Scientologists are no different from anyone else. As an atheist, I am just as strongly against all the religions you cite; however, the one I would like to see wiped from the face of the earth first of all is Scientology.
That is a ridiculous argument. If you believe that putting your wee-wee in another man's bottom is wrong and sinful, more power to you, but the crucial difference is that both parties involved agree to do it. This is the essential element that is missing when it is your wee-wee and a five year old child. Take your strawman elsewhere.
Hilarious stuff, well, maybe not. Until you get to the bottom of the page, where you come to this little gem:
That is without question the best video I have ever seen posted on /. Good find.
Because even an administration as boneheaded as Bush's knows that you can't put economic genies back in the bottle.
Heh. My Nomad 1 is still going strong today, it is nailed to my kitchen wall to provide me with pleasant sounds while I cook dinner. Still looks brand new.
Yes. I work with young kids - 10-18 - quite a lot and I have no doubt that there are very few kids indeed who are actually dim enough to do something like this. Most of them treat it (and the warnings they receive) as a standing joke.
Google's datacentres are huge because they cache all content they suck in and becuase the amount of traffic Google serves is huge. You don't need all that for a startup.
Given the nature of the internet, it is inevitable that we will all use the best and maybe the second best search engines out there. I don't know *anybody* that doesn't use Google - not because Google is the dominant search operator, but because Google is the one that most often returns good results for them. If a poster on here popped up and said xyz search engine is better, I would give it a try, if it worked I would maybe bookmark it and use it again. If it's consistently better, it wins.
This is true, but on the other hand when designing a wall to contain half-tonne autonomous killing machines, I would prefer to err on the side of keeping it simple, and presuming that Mr Tiger is more than capable of travelling at 35mph in whatever direction he (or she, in this case) so chooses.
Online search and advertising are two areas it is very hard to justify regulatory interference for. The cost of entry to the market is sufficiently low (a bunch of servers, some code monkeys, and a handful of innovative ideas) that even if a monopoly situation is reached, the monopoly will have to maintain competitive pricing or they will be faced with a swarm of smart Silicon Valley startups.
In other words, Microsoft is putting them on notice that they intend to take Yahoo over, and if the board does not agree then it will be a hostile takeover. In other words, if you don't agree, your job is toast :)
No bad thing: Yahoo has been floundering badly for some time (well, ever since Google arrived, if we're honest) and needs some serious work before it has any chance of being an effective competitor to Google.
And this layout sucks. Meh.
Let us not forget Bertrand Russell's teapot.
All that is happening here is that a judge has confirmed that someone who sends a letter holds the copyright of that letter. This is a point of law that was settled in Britain in the Victorian era. However, just like anything else, fair use applies.
Is it just me, or does anybody else think that the current state of particle physics is very similar to the complexities that had to be introduced to the Ptolemaic system for predicting the motion of planets? That is, it seems to work (more or less) but we seem to have missed a much simpler and deeper explanation that removes the need for digging down into ever deeper layers of apparently fractal particles.
The Bank did the right thing in extending credit (albeit at an uncompetitive rate), but the Government did the wrong thing in guaranteeing saver's deposits. They would probably have survived anyway and given the entire industry a harsh lesson in the realities of financing. As soon as they did that the nationalisation genie was out the bottle, and once it's out it is very difficult to put back.
We have pretty much standardised nowadays on the 1000 million version, primarily because it allows newspaper editors to use the word 'billion' a thousand times more often.
To my mind, if you manage to get 300 tonnes of falling metal out of the sky and on the deck with nothing worse than a broken leg, you've done something right.