ah so, the old 'a few bad apples ruined it' mindset? that's hardly productive and just as discriminatory as those whom you label as such. this is one of several attitudes that do nothing but help build and justify police state policies which make people hate government in the first place.
Actually, two reasons: the stated, public, politically correct reason that makes people cry tears (or else lose their political cred), and then the real one. It's easy to garner power by convincing a group of people that they are oppressed (or are more oppressed than they thought) so that they vote for you/your organization. After awhile, power is amassed around these assumptions, and even if reality gets better to the point of diminishing returns, the machine continues to operate on the old assumptions to keep itself politically potent. this describes just about every established social activist group today. these groups do not want equality, they want social dominance.
from what i read, they didn't dive into the reactor itself, but the water that had pooled in the basement levels below it to open drainage valves.. of course that water wasn't boiling but it was highly radioactive.
no, I don't work for them. and my statement was an admittedly limited assessment.. from what I've read, the graphite fire in chernobyl burned somewhere between 1100 and 3000 degrees, which is enough to crack most forms of concrete and melt just about any metals used in construction at the time. since the explosion destroyed the vessel, the only thing left, really, was the radioactive slag at the bottom and atmosphere. this caused a fire which hurled the remaining heavier elements into the environment and was kept burning by the decay heat from the uranium in the slag..
No, I am not a nuclear physicist or trained in reactor maintenance, but this is my understanding of the event and how it differs from japan's situation. in contrast, according to TFA, the melted fuel is cool enough at 50C, and was not graphite moderated. the issue was water level..
maybe it isn't your difference but rather how you carry it that's a turn off. those who fit some kind of 'assumed victimization' role in society tend to wear their pride on their shoulders, demanding entitlements because of said difference.. now, they don't all do it, but it is a stereotype for a reason, and, anecdotally, I've seen it in practice. these people are prima donnas in the office, making life for everyone else hell by judging them, then accusing any judgments directed back as 'hate.'
if gays don't like gay bashing, the least they could do is avoid using the same kind of fallacy ridden attacks.. (ie if someone doesn't like gay people or doesn't support everything they want, he must fear them/be a closet case etc). There seems to be a lot of ego and pride in the victimhood marching these days, and not just for gays...pride that borders on superiority complex.
Unlike chernobyl, this isn't a graphite fire kept burning by the heat generated by the radioactive uranium. so while it is very 'hot', it is not going to melt through anything..
only if it also includes the overly prideful gays who think their attribute makes them think they deserve special dispensations from society like the other 'protected' castes. Someone disliking gays (for whatever reason) doesn't mean he's a closet case. However, logic appears outside their grasp, so gays resort to the same kinds of ad hominem and passive aggression women do when they don't want to admit to their own character faults.
I see you're one of those ultra sensitives today's society pumps out in droves, who then lobby to make life so whitewashed and locked down that it's no longer interesting.. grow a thicker skin already, if you can't tell the difference between a joke and seriousness, or contextual reference.
That is entirely your fault for having the wrong friends. Not my fault at all.
What about the other people who have access (sysops, friends of friends, friends of friends who are enemies with your friends etc)? so the only friends worth having are those who will keep your info private? it's just not a reasonable expectation when using a site like facebook, no matter how conscientious they are. the only choice is to not use it, but even then if someone who does is friends with you and dumps his entire camera to facebook.... this is why privacy is important, and should be a right if the law says it isn't. if that makes certain things more expensive, so be it. I'd rather pay in cash than in personal sanity/reputation because some info gleaned from my life was taken out of context and used as a weapon to stick it to me.. the data is there forever, and it WILL be taken out of context if you ever do become interesting enough to components of society who have the power to make your life miserable.
Personally I don't become friends with people who are scared of the sky because it can see them.
ad hominem.
I have always been honest with everyone I have ever known. I have no reason to hide behind some bullshit "public persona" or such other nonsense. It is all lies, fake and wrong, plain and simple.
yeah great, the whole nothing to hide excuse. hello, mcfly! people using the info aren't going to be rational, they're trying to 'win'. you may think your info is innocuous and you are just oh so innocent that no one could ever find fault, but this is wrong.. someone WILL find fault with you if they want, and the more info they have, the easier it gets.
If you post with your account, you null your moderation ability for that particular article. At least, it was like that last I checked.
interesting, so you can be anonymous when it suits your interest, but when someone else does it, they have something to hide..ookay.
Equally this doesn't apply to me either way. I don't haphazardly go around clicking on free deals or other such nonsense on Facebook. In fact, I blocked the feeds of everyone and all applications the instant I added anyone.
oh yeah, and if the info doesn't show up in pretty CSS, it must be inaccessible to those who really want it, now, or in the future? buddy, on facebook, you are the whore being pimped. just because you chose to wear the panties instead of the thong, doesn't mean you aren't still whored out..
Assumptions, as always, are the finest here on Slashdot. See First post for even more fine meta on Slashdot. Of course it gets marked flamebait despite being absolutely true as of recent times. Another reason I choose not to register. No better than Reddit groupthink.
if there's groupthink around here, it's those apologetics whose arguments boil down to 'because it's just the way it is, so get used to it because it's the way it is and that makes it ok...', looping like a badly configured soundcard.
exactly. it's about the zomg safety! crusade lobby vs sane driving habits. they never allow questioning of their seatbelt and airbag mandates.. their entire political capital is invested in those two.. their interest in actual safety is secondary.
depends what you call civilized.. I could say something like "In civilized parts of the world, you are capable of responsibility for your own situation and thus can decide whether safety restraints are merited. In uncivilized parts, the state nannies you from the left for votes based on knee-jerk fear mongering, and insurance companies lobby it from the right out of profit motive." unfortunately, like western europe, the USA is now firmly in uncouthland.
I agree, in general.. However, I was referring to something like the sony GDM-f500r display (or the 520 perhaps). these were great displays. I think crt was cut short artificially by politically empowered tree huggers.. I don't mind moving to greener tech, but not if it's going to have huge corner cases, like lcd.
I'm not saying that backward compatibility doesn't have value. But what I am saying is that from time to time, you simply HAVE to bite the bullet on supporting some older things in order to make something newer and better. Microsoft hasn't really done that in all the years of its existence... and the bloat, bugs and instability shows it for everyone to see.
correct, but that incompatible replacement better offer something far more compelling/useful than the rube-goldberg thing it wants to replace. I'm not sure windows 8 (or any of the new UI paradigms from gnome or apple) offer that. all they're doing is grafting tablet interfaces onto desktop environments.. it's stupid because it's far less flexible and does not take advantage of the i/o formfactor.
And they could have even done this if they planned on doing it this way all along. What do I mean? Well, if they said "This is the list of 1990 standards and it is good to be supported until 1995" and "This is the list of 1995 standards and this is good to be supported until 2000" and so on. (Don't be stupid or literal and respond with something like "but that's obsolesence every 5 years! The market would never tollerate it!") I know Microsoft already does this to some degree, but it is done without consistency and without announcement or product labeling.
again, if the new thing doesn't offer anything compelling, but breaks compatibility with the old, most will stick with the old.. if anything, it's the known devil vs the unknown.. in this case, it looks like the new one is worse.
I use Apple as proof that it doesn't have to kill the company or its customers to say "hey, we will support your old stuff for the next few years, but expect that support to stop" and then remain firm with it. What Microsoft has done is just inconsistent. Windows XP SP3 64bit anyone? Silverlight? dotNet?
..which is why they don't make much headway into corporate markets.. sure people use iphones and ipads, but only as peripheral devices. apple is not in the server room, nor on employee desks. corporates want stability over new features, so microsoft does little more than patch a few updates onto what exists and calls it a new version, then offers financial incentives to upgrade to it. windows 8 might be an attempt to break away from that model, but it's suicide imo because instead of of minor but useful updates, it's grafting an interface model not even intended for the hardware the OS is supposed to target.
Sure, every 2 years is a bit too much to ask. But staying with the same old thing for 20 years? C'mon! We're still living in i386 land even if it is being stretched into "x86_64" now.
we're still on x86 because nothing else has come along that offers the performance/price ratio...not even close. the best arm chips perform like midrange pentium 3 chips from 1999, with the only advantage being low power draw for portable devices. they're painfully slow compared with a modern desktop from 2003....and powerful PPC chips haven't outpaced their x86 competitors since the late 90s (even then it's debatable). the only ones that do today are in ibm servers costing far more than the average desktop, and they still don't run the majority of desktop software. I don't think we'll see x86 disappear until someone else comes up with a completely new way to manufacture chips that can outpace intel.
also, x86_64 removes a lot of the cruft associated with x86, adds 8 new gp registers, removes the 16 bit bastard child that is 'real mode', among other things.
a roll call is a local track that builds relations with students and teacher. An automated system teaches kids that pervasive electronic surveillance is acceptable for even trivial things like being across a certain line before a bell rings. this is not the message schools should send.
Roll call itself is a waste.. if the kid's not in class, the teacher should recognize that in his grade book immediately and take action. School doesn't need to be run like a prison.
The chips are placed underneath each school's coat-of-arms or on one of the sleeves below a phrase that says: "Education does not transform the world. Education changes people and people transform the world."
am I the only one who sees the (probably) unintentional irony here?
actually, it's quite different. one is a local track driven by relationship between teacher and student, the other, part of a database that becomes a permanent record and sets misguided expectations of the future.. the real harm is that it teaches the kids...err politicians/economic leaders of tomorrow that computer programmed heuristic driven surveillance is acceptable, even for trivial things, and psychologically healthy. it sends a message that people are cattle or assets that need pervasive tracking. this is not an attitude we need in a culture that aspires to individual liberty. I'd even argue that attendance itself is a step in that direction.. there's no need to know where the kid is every minute of every day. if his grades are good, it's fine. if they're not, well, then look into why. this is another cowardly example of school systems wanting the power, yet shirking the responsibility with automation (ie getting to know your students in this case).
The actions those kids take when not in class could have a harmful and costly impact on others (vandalism, illegal drug use causing health problems that must then be paid for, a lack of education resulting in more stupid grown-ups that can't hold a job and drag on the economy, etc.). In addition, plenty of parents want their kids to go to school because it keeps them safe and is ultimately good for them.
I guess you didn't take into account the psychological harm from obsessive, oppressive, non-stop surveillance into every aspect of life.. your statement here is also quite black and white.. school is not pure 'good' or pure 'bad', nor does cutting a class equate to 'vandalism' or drug use (which is also not pure 'good' or pure 'bad.')
This doesn't just apply to kids, it applies to everyone. The actions any person takes impacts one's neighbors, and as such everyone has direct incentives to encircle everyone else in systems of control. This isn't a matter of "them" wanting to take "our" freedoms away. It is am matter of "us" wanting to make sure "they" don't do things that have a negative impact on "us." This principle is universal.
and this is the attitude that will ensure we do live out that dystopia of infinite control of others = infinite freedom for the individual. is that really what you want?
Slashdot Mirror
people discriminate on nationality all the time.. what planet are you from?
ah so, the old 'a few bad apples ruined it' mindset? that's hardly productive and just as discriminatory as those whom you label as such. this is one of several attitudes that do nothing but help build and justify police state policies which make people hate government in the first place.
Actually, two reasons: the stated, public, politically correct reason that makes people cry tears (or else lose their political cred), and then the real one. It's easy to garner power by convincing a group of people that they are oppressed (or are more oppressed than they thought) so that they vote for you/your organization. After awhile, power is amassed around these assumptions, and even if reality gets better to the point of diminishing returns, the machine continues to operate on the old assumptions to keep itself politically potent. this describes just about every established social activist group today. these groups do not want equality, they want social dominance.
from what i read, they didn't dive into the reactor itself, but the water that had pooled in the basement levels below it to open drainage valves.. of course that water wasn't boiling but it was highly radioactive.
no, I don't work for them. and my statement was an admittedly limited assessment.. from what I've read, the graphite fire in chernobyl burned somewhere between 1100 and 3000 degrees, which is enough to crack most forms of concrete and melt just about any metals used in construction at the time. since the explosion destroyed the vessel, the only thing left, really, was the radioactive slag at the bottom and atmosphere. this caused a fire which hurled the remaining heavier elements into the environment and was kept burning by the decay heat from the uranium in the slag..
No, I am not a nuclear physicist or trained in reactor maintenance, but this is my understanding of the event and how it differs from japan's situation. in contrast, according to TFA, the melted fuel is cool enough at 50C, and was not graphite moderated. the issue was water level..
maybe it isn't your difference but rather how you carry it that's a turn off. those who fit some kind of 'assumed victimization' role in society tend to wear their pride on their shoulders, demanding entitlements because of said difference.. now, they don't all do it, but it is a stereotype for a reason, and, anecdotally, I've seen it in practice. these people are prima donnas in the office, making life for everyone else hell by judging them, then accusing any judgments directed back as 'hate.'
if gays don't like gay bashing, the least they could do is avoid using the same kind of fallacy ridden attacks.. (ie if someone doesn't like gay people or doesn't support everything they want, he must fear them/be a closet case etc). There seems to be a lot of ego and pride in the victimhood marching these days, and not just for gays...pride that borders on superiority complex.
Unlike chernobyl, this isn't a graphite fire kept burning by the heat generated by the radioactive uranium. so while it is very 'hot', it is not going to melt through anything..
uh yeah, you agree with me, I think... maybe you meant to reply to the gp?
only if it also includes the overly prideful gays who think their attribute makes them think they deserve special dispensations from society like the other 'protected' castes. Someone disliking gays (for whatever reason) doesn't mean he's a closet case. However, logic appears outside their grasp, so gays resort to the same kinds of ad hominem and passive aggression women do when they don't want to admit to their own character faults.
not just because they're rich, but because they care more about form than function, just like women tend to.. ie the perfect apple customers.
would you like to take a free personality test?
I see you're one of those ultra sensitives today's society pumps out in droves, who then lobby to make life so whitewashed and locked down that it's no longer interesting.. grow a thicker skin already, if you can't tell the difference between a joke and seriousness, or contextual reference.
or maybe the networks sided with fox because 'obvious fact' wasn't quite so factual. the enemy of my enemy...
no they don't.. the old ones just need to be applied, the 'on the internet' suffix does not justify a rewrite.
That is entirely your fault for having the wrong friends. Not my fault at all.
What about the other people who have access (sysops, friends of friends, friends of friends who are enemies with your friends etc)? so the only friends worth having are those who will keep your info private? it's just not a reasonable expectation when using a site like facebook, no matter how conscientious they are. the only choice is to not use it, but even then if someone who does is friends with you and dumps his entire camera to facebook.... this is why privacy is important, and should be a right if the law says it isn't. if that makes certain things more expensive, so be it. I'd rather pay in cash than in personal sanity/reputation because some info gleaned from my life was taken out of context and used as a weapon to stick it to me.. the data is there forever, and it WILL be taken out of context if you ever do become interesting enough to components of society who have the power to make your life miserable.
Personally I don't become friends with people who are scared of the sky because it can see them.
ad hominem.
I have always been honest with everyone I have ever known. I have no reason to hide behind some bullshit "public persona" or such other nonsense. It is all lies, fake and wrong, plain and simple.
yeah great, the whole nothing to hide excuse. hello, mcfly! people using the info aren't going to be rational, they're trying to 'win'. you may think your info is innocuous and you are just oh so innocent that no one could ever find fault, but this is wrong.. someone WILL find fault with you if they want, and the more info they have, the easier it gets.
If you post with your account, you null your moderation ability for that particular article.
At least, it was like that last I checked.
interesting, so you can be anonymous when it suits your interest, but when someone else does it, they have something to hide..ookay.
Equally this doesn't apply to me either way.
I don't haphazardly go around clicking on free deals or other such nonsense on Facebook. In fact, I blocked the feeds of everyone and all applications the instant I added anyone.
oh yeah, and if the info doesn't show up in pretty CSS, it must be inaccessible to those who really want it, now, or in the future? buddy, on facebook, you are the whore being pimped. just because you chose to wear the panties instead of the thong, doesn't mean you aren't still whored out..
Assumptions, as always, are the finest here on Slashdot. See First post for even more fine meta on Slashdot.
Of course it gets marked flamebait despite being absolutely true as of recent times. Another reason I choose not to register. No better than Reddit groupthink.
if there's groupthink around here, it's those apologetics whose arguments boil down to 'because it's just the way it is, so get used to it because it's the way it is and that makes it ok...', looping like a badly configured soundcard.
exactly. it's about the zomg safety! crusade lobby vs sane driving habits. they never allow questioning of their seatbelt and airbag mandates.. their entire political capital is invested in those two.. their interest in actual safety is secondary.
depends what you call civilized.. I could say something like
"In civilized parts of the world, you are capable of responsibility for your own situation and thus can decide whether safety restraints are merited. In uncivilized parts, the state nannies you from the left for votes based on knee-jerk fear mongering, and insurance companies lobby it from the right out of profit motive." unfortunately, like western europe, the USA is now firmly in uncouthland.
I agree, in general.. However, I was referring to something like the sony GDM-f500r display (or the 520 perhaps). these were great displays. I think crt was cut short artificially by politically empowered tree huggers.. I don't mind moving to greener tech, but not if it's going to have huge corner cases, like lcd.
I'm not saying that backward compatibility doesn't have value. But what I am saying is that from time to time, you simply HAVE to bite the bullet on supporting some older things in order to make something newer and better. Microsoft hasn't really done that in all the years of its existence ... and the bloat, bugs and instability shows it for everyone to see.
correct, but that incompatible replacement better offer something far more compelling/useful than the rube-goldberg thing it wants to replace. I'm not sure windows 8 (or any of the new UI paradigms from gnome or apple) offer that. all they're doing is grafting tablet interfaces onto desktop environments.. it's stupid because it's far less flexible and does not take advantage of the i/o formfactor.
And they could have even done this if they planned on doing it this way all along. What do I mean? Well, if they said "This is the list of 1990 standards and it is good to be supported until 1995" and "This is the list of 1995 standards and this is good to be supported until 2000" and so on. (Don't be stupid or literal and respond with something like "but that's obsolesence every 5 years! The market would never tollerate it!") I know Microsoft already does this to some degree, but it is done without consistency and without announcement or product labeling.
again, if the new thing doesn't offer anything compelling, but breaks compatibility with the old, most will stick with the old.. if anything, it's the known devil vs the unknown.. in this case, it looks like the new one is worse.
I use Apple as proof that it doesn't have to kill the company or its customers to say "hey, we will support your old stuff for the next few years, but expect that support to stop" and then remain firm with it. What Microsoft has done is just inconsistent. Windows XP SP3 64bit anyone? Silverlight? dotNet?
..which is why they don't make much headway into corporate markets.. sure people use iphones and ipads, but only as peripheral devices. apple is not in the server room, nor on employee desks. corporates want stability over new features, so microsoft does little more than patch a few updates onto what exists and calls it a new version, then offers financial incentives to upgrade to it. windows 8 might be an attempt to break away from that model, but it's suicide imo because instead of of minor but useful updates, it's grafting an interface model not even intended for the hardware the OS is supposed to target.
Sure, every 2 years is a bit too much to ask. But staying with the same old thing for 20 years? C'mon! We're still living in i386 land even if it is being stretched into "x86_64" now.
we're still on x86 because nothing else has come along that offers the performance/price ratio...not even close. the best arm chips perform like midrange pentium 3 chips from 1999, with the only advantage being low power draw for portable devices. they're painfully slow compared with a modern desktop from 2003. ...and powerful PPC chips haven't outpaced their x86 competitors since the late 90s (even then it's debatable). the only ones that do today are in ibm servers costing far more than the average desktop, and they still don't run the majority of desktop software. I don't think we'll see x86 disappear until someone else comes up with a completely new way to manufacture chips that can outpace intel.
also, x86_64 removes a lot of the cruft associated with x86, adds 8 new gp registers, removes the 16 bit bastard child that is 'real mode', among other things.
locating your family in a mall is not a social problem.. it is a tactical one.
a roll call is a local track that builds relations with students and teacher. An automated system teaches kids that pervasive electronic surveillance is acceptable for even trivial things like being across a certain line before a bell rings. this is not the message schools should send.
Roll call itself is a waste.. if the kid's not in class, the teacher should recognize that in his grade book immediately and take action. School doesn't need to be run like a prison.
The chips are placed underneath each school's coat-of-arms or on one of the sleeves below a phrase that says: "Education does not transform the world. Education changes people and people transform the world."
am I the only one who sees the (probably) unintentional irony here?
actually, it's quite different. one is a local track driven by relationship between teacher and student, the other, part of a database that becomes a permanent record and sets misguided expectations of the future.. the real harm is that it teaches the kids...err politicians/economic leaders of tomorrow that computer programmed heuristic driven surveillance is acceptable, even for trivial things, and psychologically healthy. it sends a message that people are cattle or assets that need pervasive tracking. this is not an attitude we need in a culture that aspires to individual liberty. I'd even argue that attendance itself is a step in that direction.. there's no need to know where the kid is every minute of every day. if his grades are good, it's fine. if they're not, well, then look into why. this is another cowardly example of school systems wanting the power, yet shirking the responsibility with automation (ie getting to know your students in this case).
not in T+10 years when she divorces you, taking the house and leaving you with the bills.
The actions those kids take when not in class could have a harmful and costly impact on others (vandalism, illegal drug use causing health problems that must then be paid for, a lack of education resulting in more stupid grown-ups that can't hold a job and drag on the economy, etc.). In addition, plenty of parents want their kids to go to school because it keeps them safe and is ultimately good for them.
I guess you didn't take into account the psychological harm from obsessive, oppressive, non-stop surveillance into every aspect of life.. your statement here is also quite black and white.. school is not pure 'good' or pure 'bad', nor does cutting a class equate to 'vandalism' or drug use (which is also not pure 'good' or pure 'bad.')
This doesn't just apply to kids, it applies to everyone. The actions any person takes impacts one's neighbors, and as such everyone has direct incentives to encircle everyone else in systems of control. This isn't a matter of "them" wanting to take "our" freedoms away. It is am matter of "us" wanting to make sure "they" don't do things that have a negative impact on "us." This principle is universal.
and this is the attitude that will ensure we do live out that dystopia of infinite control of others = infinite freedom for the individual. is that really what you want?
yes, assuming square pixels.. 320x200 was displayed at 4:3 ratio..they were stretched vertically..