"Seriously, in an HOV lane this would be easy and a reason to buy one. You could eat breakfast, talk on your cell phone (or text), do your makeup etc. in comfort."
And if the car in front of you suddenly veers out of control, or any other unexpected condition arises, well, at least you guys have healthcare now. Right?
I've been on the motorway when the unexpected happens. I do not want to trust a computer to first recognise, and then react to, the unexpected. Not on a motorway.
I've worked in a paperless office. The only thing that was required for it to work, for was all the people to want it.
I am supposed to be working in a paperless office now, but our PHB is not a technical guy (one of many reasons we're in the mess we're in) and he wants everything printed, in colour, regardless of the expense. Even if your data / emails would be more sensible to be printed in B&W, he will insist you add a bit of colour to it. Then print it in colour.
If he was replaced with someone a bit more tech savvy, we'd be paperless in a week.
Ironically, our PHB insisted that we "go green" so all our emails have this text at the bottom saying "Are you sure you need to print this email?" and a graphic of a tree. It was his idea to make the text and icon green, so it would add some colour to his print outs.
Yes, we feel like we're living in a Dilbert strip, but don't we all from time to time?
I think it absolutely vital for fantasy, and all fiction everywhere, to move beyond reverence for certain works.
Somehow humanity managed to move beyond Shakespeare, creating new-ish works which we prefer to his, and I believe we can move beyond Tolkien
Yeah, there's a difference between making a modern adaptation of Shakespeare, or even a whole other thing INSPIRED by Shakespeare, and writing "Hamlet 2: The Revenge of the Prince!"
Gandalf tells Bilbo he hasn't aged a day. He's celebrating his 111th birthday in the first movie.
And in the flashback, where Bilbo finds the ring, obviously Ian Holm looked pretty much the same as he did in Fellowship.
They should have made The Hobbit with Ian Holm a few years ago. Or at least scanned him in so we could AVATAR his performance into the movie, if the need arose.
Now, we'll have a movie with a different Bilbo, an older Aragorn, an older Gandalf... even an older Elrond.
If that were true (and like all lottery wins, the odds are against it) I'd be more inclined to include that in the hostile-neighbourhood hypothesis. We've had several near extinction events over the course of Earth's history, which has delayed the introduction of sentient life by (possibly) anywhere up to 60 million years. If we're first, then other planets must have equally catastrophic histories. Which kind of sucks for life's chances.
Logical fallacy. Just because I have the unmitigated gall to point out that atheists aren't suicide bombers, I am clearly in favour of atheist states like the Khmer Rouge.
It seems that you're incorrectly suggesting that every terroristic/violent/abusive event in recent history has had a religious affiliation.
Really? Because it seems to me like you're reaching desperately for a straw man argument. Let's recap, shall we? Someone accuses atheists of being a "hostile and angry group". Not only is that factually wrong, but it's also insulting.
I didn't come anywhere CLOSE to insinuating that every terroristic/violent/abusive event can be traced back to religion. In what sick twisted mind does a rebuttal of alleged atheist hostility, become an accusation against religions of all stripes?
You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!
Really? When is the last time you saw an atheist fly a plane into a sky scraper? Or shoot a doctor dead, because some invisible man in the sky didn't like the LEGAL work the doctor was doing? Have any ministers, reverends or priests (even the PEDO ones) been assaulted by bands of roving atheists? Are atheist groups campaigning en masse to deny rights to homosexuals and legislate bigotry?
I seem to recall something in one of those holy books that said "take the log out of your own eye, before you attempt to remove the speck from your brothers eye"
I'm not doing the maths, but I seem to recall reading the maths somewhere, that showed something crazy, like circumnavigating the universe in 52 years or something. Just saying, that if you do start working the numbers out, and get something you think is nuts, you're probably right.
If it hadn't been for asteroidal impacts wiping out the dinosaurs, some avian/lizard like creatures from Earth could have colonised this galaxy by now. The fact that the galaxy hasn't been colonised by some earlier evolved species from another star, has only three (that I know of) explanations.
1) The good neighbour hypothesis. The galaxy is colonised, but they are advanced enough to be beyond our perception threshold, and they leave young species like ours alone.
2) The hostile neighbourhood hypothesis. The galaxy is not conducive to long term sentient life. Either because of natural disasters (periodic galactic core eruptions) or some fundamental flaw with intelligent species. (Like the catch-22 of "A survival instinct is necessary, yet it's what ultimately drives species to war over diminishing resources, and die off." Thus, the survival instinct has a built in limitation which kicks in as technology and our destructive ability, increase.)
3) The "Here-it-comes" hypothesis. The galaxy is being colonised, by a species that is anywhere from 100 to 500,000 years ahead of us in development. But their colonisation wave hasn't reached our part of the galaxy yet. When it does, we'll sink beneath the wave.
If anyone can posit a 4th, which isn't some sub-set of those 3, I'd like to hear it.
In any case, if any of those options were true, I'm not sure SETI would be useful unless it gave us some advance notice of the oncoming colonisation wave. Not that we could do anything to prevent our extinction.
When you start putting an acceptable face on preferential medical treatment, it's the thin end of the wedge.
How long before this perfectly acceptable and seemingly reasonable tier-ring system is tweaked some more? Perhaps soldiers get preferential treatment? I can see that meeting little public resistance. Then soldiers and their immediate families. And if soldiers, why not fire-fighters or even other medical staff?
Or politicians?
At what point do people enter a job market, or start a political campaign, just to help a loved one move up a few spaces on the transplant waiting list?
And if it did extend as far as politicians, what with campaign contributions being as messed up as they are, how is that any different than buying the organs in the first place?
Indeed. I would put what they are offering, at under 5 bucks. Truthfully. Since I'm paying for the bandwidth, and the storage, and they will most likely still own it, and probably be able to delete the damn thing remotely or something... 5 bucks is about all it's worth.
Holy crap. After spending years online, where people regularly talk about their "favourite websights" I thought the s-i-t-e spelling had become obsolete. Apparently, it has merely become interchangeable.
"I'm sure the loss of his child is punishment enough."
That's assuming this wasn't intentional. Someone had to buy that very realistic Wii-gun controller, as they're not commonly on-sale. (They can be gotten over ebay though) If this was intentional, then the loss of the child isn't punishment.
And yes, I know that's incredibly cynical, thinking that a parent would want their child to die in such a fashion, but too many cases in the last year or two (like Baby P in England) have really shattered my faith in unquestioning parental love. There are some truly awful people out there, who have kids.
Slashdot Mirror
plus the imminent release of that video.
What video?
"Seriously, in an HOV lane this would be easy and a reason to buy one. You could eat breakfast, talk on your cell phone (or text), do your makeup etc. in comfort."
And if the car in front of you suddenly veers out of control, or any other unexpected condition arises, well, at least you guys have healthcare now. Right?
I've been on the motorway when the unexpected happens. I do not want to trust a computer to first recognise, and then react to, the unexpected. Not on a motorway.
Or any of the comatose patients which "facilitators" tell us are really alive and conscious?
I've worked in a paperless office. The only thing that was required for it to work, for was all the people to want it.
I am supposed to be working in a paperless office now, but our PHB is not a technical guy (one of many reasons we're in the mess we're in) and he wants everything printed, in colour, regardless of the expense. Even if your data / emails would be more sensible to be printed in B&W, he will insist you add a bit of colour to it. Then print it in colour.
If he was replaced with someone a bit more tech savvy, we'd be paperless in a week.
Ironically, our PHB insisted that we "go green" so all our emails have this text at the bottom saying "Are you sure you need to print this email?" and a graphic of a tree. It was his idea to make the text and icon green, so it would add some colour to his print outs.
Yes, we feel like we're living in a Dilbert strip, but don't we all from time to time?
Am I the only one that read that and said "Oh, so the album CDs will still be 25 bucks?"
I think it absolutely vital for fantasy, and all fiction everywhere, to move beyond reverence for certain works.
Somehow humanity managed to move beyond Shakespeare, creating new-ish works which we prefer to his, and I believe we can move beyond Tolkien
Yeah, there's a difference between making a modern adaptation of Shakespeare, or even a whole other thing INSPIRED by Shakespeare, and writing "Hamlet 2: The Revenge of the Prince!"
Gandalf tells Bilbo he hasn't aged a day. He's celebrating his 111th birthday in the first movie.
And in the flashback, where Bilbo finds the ring, obviously Ian Holm looked pretty much the same as he did in Fellowship.
They should have made The Hobbit with Ian Holm a few years ago. Or at least scanned him in so we could AVATAR his performance into the movie, if the need arose.
Now, we'll have a movie with a different Bilbo, an older Aragorn, an older Gandalf... even an older Elrond.
Yeah, that would definitely fall under hostile-neighbourhood.
Not only do they not research them, they are greatly offended when confronted with the facts. (And will mark such posts "Flamebait")
If that were true (and like all lottery wins, the odds are against it) I'd be more inclined to include that in the hostile-neighbourhood hypothesis. We've had several near extinction events over the course of Earth's history, which has delayed the introduction of sentient life by (possibly) anywhere up to 60 million years. If we're first, then other planets must have equally catastrophic histories. Which kind of sucks for life's chances.
Wow. Someone modded that troll.
I think we need a new "-1 : I really don't like this post" because some people don't appear to know what a Troll post is.
Hitler was a Catholic Christian until at least 1941, though I can understand why you'd rather not claim him as one of yours.
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot may have been atheists but that wasn't the reason they killed people. They were power mad dictators.
Logical fallacy.
Just because I have the unmitigated gall to point out that atheists aren't suicide bombers, I am clearly in favour of atheist states like the Khmer Rouge.
Yes, that makes perfect sense.
It seems that you're incorrectly suggesting that every terroristic/violent/abusive event in recent history has had a religious affiliation.
Really? Because it seems to me like you're reaching desperately for a straw man argument.
Let's recap, shall we? Someone accuses atheists of being a "hostile and angry group". Not only is that factually wrong, but it's also insulting.
I didn't come anywhere CLOSE to insinuating that every terroristic/violent/abusive event can be traced back to religion. In what sick twisted mind does a rebuttal of alleged atheist hostility, become an accusation against religions of all stripes?
When is the last time you saw, say, a Buddhist, do those things?
Never, obviously, but no one has accused Buddhists of being a hostile and angry group, have they?
You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!
Really?
When is the last time you saw an atheist fly a plane into a sky scraper? Or shoot a doctor dead, because some invisible man in the sky didn't like the LEGAL work the doctor was doing? Have any ministers, reverends or priests (even the PEDO ones) been assaulted by bands of roving atheists? Are atheist groups campaigning en masse to deny rights to homosexuals and legislate bigotry?
I seem to recall something in one of those holy books that said "take the log out of your own eye, before you attempt to remove the speck from your brothers eye"
Don't try to pull the ostrich's head out of the sand.
They don't like that, and have a hell of a kick.
I'm not doing the maths, but I seem to recall reading the maths somewhere, that showed something crazy, like circumnavigating the universe in 52 years or something. Just saying, that if you do start working the numbers out, and get something you think is nuts, you're probably right.
No, your math is fine.
If it hadn't been for asteroidal impacts wiping out the dinosaurs, some avian/lizard like creatures from Earth could have colonised this galaxy by now.
The fact that the galaxy hasn't been colonised by some earlier evolved species from another star, has only three (that I know of) explanations.
1) The good neighbour hypothesis. The galaxy is colonised, but they are advanced enough to be beyond our perception threshold, and they leave young species like ours alone.
2) The hostile neighbourhood hypothesis. The galaxy is not conducive to long term sentient life. Either because of natural disasters (periodic galactic core eruptions) or some fundamental flaw with intelligent species. (Like the catch-22 of "A survival instinct is necessary, yet it's what ultimately drives species to war over diminishing resources, and die off." Thus, the survival instinct has a built in limitation which kicks in as technology and our destructive ability, increase.)
3) The "Here-it-comes" hypothesis. The galaxy is being colonised, by a species that is anywhere from 100 to 500,000 years ahead of us in development. But their colonisation wave hasn't reached our part of the galaxy yet. When it does, we'll sink beneath the wave.
If anyone can posit a 4th, which isn't some sub-set of those 3, I'd like to hear it.
In any case, if any of those options were true, I'm not sure SETI would be useful unless it gave us some advance notice of the oncoming colonisation wave. Not that we could do anything to prevent our extinction.
When you start putting an acceptable face on preferential medical treatment, it's the thin end of the wedge.
How long before this perfectly acceptable and seemingly reasonable tier-ring system is tweaked some more?
Perhaps soldiers get preferential treatment? I can see that meeting little public resistance.
Then soldiers and their immediate families.
And if soldiers, why not fire-fighters or even other medical staff?
Or politicians?
At what point do people enter a job market, or start a political campaign, just to help a loved one move up a few spaces on the transplant waiting list?
And if it did extend as far as politicians, what with campaign contributions being as messed up as they are, how is that any different than buying the organs in the first place?
Similar to how anti-semitism is defined as being against the policies of the current Israeli government (by them anyway)?
A dangerous observation to make, if you were not an A.C.
I can't wait until my nephew in the UK is old enough to accuse various MP's of molestation, even if he's never met them.
"You want a PS4 for Christmas kiddo? Here's a list of names. Ruin their lives for me. Thanks."
Indeed. I would put what they are offering, at under 5 bucks. Truthfully. Since I'm paying for the bandwidth, and the storage, and they will most likely still own it, and probably be able to delete the damn thing remotely or something... 5 bucks is about all it's worth.
such as requiring line of site.
Holy crap. After spending years online, where people regularly talk about their "favourite websights" I thought the s-i-t-e spelling had become obsolete. Apparently, it has merely become interchangeable.
"I'm sure the loss of his child is punishment enough."
That's assuming this wasn't intentional.
Someone had to buy that very realistic Wii-gun controller, as they're not commonly on-sale. (They can be gotten over ebay though)
If this was intentional, then the loss of the child isn't punishment.
And yes, I know that's incredibly cynical, thinking that a parent would want their child to die in such a fashion, but too many cases in the last year or two (like Baby P in England) have really shattered my faith in unquestioning parental love. There are some truly awful people out there, who have kids.