not do it twice, just change the domain. and yes,to answer your question, they would do it. because they want to sell their product. and if half their consumers move into another dimension, they will follow, like so many sheep.
i expect that all this will require is a G rating. Find me a single G rated movie that isn't suited for kids. I think we all agree on what is suitable, there isn't this gray line, because that's PG, and that probably wouldn't be allowed.
I would love to see real news, without gore, without immediate analysis on what corporation is behind the latest tragedy. Kids should be getting that kind of news, and parents, if they choose, could put a spin on it. Which, judging from the conversation on this topic, quite a few would.
I think everyone is missing the point. This isn't about ads, or history, or corporations. Noone needs a kids.us domain to market crap to young children. Just visit any old disney or nickelodeon site for that -- they sell quite well without a special domain.
This is so when I have kids that are quite young, I can let the surf the web without having them come across the latest photos of virgin young teens. You don't have to be an idiot, a democrat, a rebulican, a ceo, or just a parent to figure out what is suitable for young children. No gore and no porn. That's all this is hoping to keep kids away from until their parents decide they're ready for it.
I think you people watch too much CNN. Parents, and i mean ALL parents, whether they be CEOs of large multinationals, or longshoremen, or lawyers, are all terrified of what their four year old will find if left to surf the web (even supervised). I think this is a wonderful way to limit kids to seeing kid stuff. Even the latest news on iraq is kid stuff provided there are no 'shocking' 'newsmaking' images of the type that reporters love to splatter all over the front page.
in three years of engineering i completed 9 geology courses, several in igneous, a couple sedimentary, mineralogy, and several field courses, which is as much as any geology major -- especially since i specialised in exploration. the only useful geology i found is being done across the street from the geology department, in the physics building, by geophysicists. who actually develop exploration and excavation techniques. geologists are recruited as lackeys who do the manual labour -- no offense. three years was plenty to give a very detailed dose of geology. and there isn't a single group of people anywhere else who refuse to look at the big picture, or the really small one, as much as they do.
there were masters students in geology trying to figure the optical theory of why rose quartz is pink, and they hadn't bothered to ask anyone in the physics department whether that had already been done (this even i can now explain with basic undergrad physics). there were profs whose life's work had been determining whether lake superior is a crater or not, and then charting the bedrock underneath it.
i compare that to walking around with measuring tape and notepad and measuring everything you come into contact with because some of it might be useful some day. no underlying purpose.
geochemists? yes, a better bunch. geophysicists, even better. but geologists? glorified polsters.
i quit geological engineering after three years. geology is not significant. despite what some geologist may say. by their own word "geology is not an exact science". and nothing could be more true, it's a collection of hikers looking for a reason to visit the latest 'geological' hot spot... like hawaii, or chile.
at a normal company people strive to spend less on the task at hand because they get rewarded with raises for that sort of stuff.
at nasa, as with all governemtn institutions, people strive to spend all they get bacause if they don't they might not get as much to spend next year.
i've experienced the latter. i get most of my income from the surplus that is spent to 'meet funding'. and believe me, it's completely useless spending.
"Well here's a flash; so could I or any other modern day, halfway intellegent person. The hard part isn't making the nuke it's getting the fissionable material."
no you could not, and no, that's not the hard part.
speaking as a physics major, here are the difficulties from a scientific standpoint.
1. none
you need cash, which saddam has, to buy the materials needed, and you need cash to build the facilities to make the delivery mechanism. plus, you need a couple of decent unemployed physicsists, which russia has an ample supply of, and you need a couple of years with no inspections to give you time to do your work. Hey wait, iraq has had all these.
I don't believe the 6 month nonsense not because it's too large a figure, but because we have absolutely no clue if iraq has the capability. There are large quantities of perfectly suitable material under single sleeping guard in the ukraine. we don't know how much, but we know there is plenty for anyone's purposes. and we also know that facilities have been built, and probably still exist in iraq.
the only thing left, it would seem, is a means to deliver a bomb far enough away to cause no friendly deaths. but i don't think saddam's administration cares too much about that.
no one would invade the U.S. shouldn't be so arrogant to think that anyone would want to.
but I can tell you one thing, taiwan would be a chinese prison within a year, and saddam would control 90% of world oil within two. Not to speak of south america, which I imagine would become the next africa.
sure, and it was a great escalation of arms that led to the second world war.
Massive, incredibly advanced french and polish armies on horseback defending against equally sophisticated germans with betallions of tanks.
Amrs races don't cause war my friend, psychopaths with power do. And we have plenty of those to go around. Fortunately we're striving for a world were no single idiot can make the decision to pull the trigger first. Even those of you who would lean toward placing Bush in such a camp have to agree that it takes more than an incling for someone over here to send an army out. While in places where currently policing is much needed, there are insane dictators able to send millions of soldiers out to kill at a moment's notice.
We need a world policeman. One that is strong enough to prevent the hell that surely would now be the eastern block (where I was born) and the middle east, had not that balance been there.
i'm sorry, i have to say this, being canadian and all.
"bribe us" with what beer? american?! I'm sorry, all of our beer is pisswater. Doesn't matter what microbrewery you subscribe to, there isn't a single brewery on this entire continent that is capable of producing an ounce of beer that can't be compared to urine by any stretch of the truth.
I say that with both experience and pride, OUR BEER SUCKS, and so does yours.
it never works. sometimes noone feels like complaining about the money gone down the tubes but it still never works. presidents that make people feel all warm and tingly usually get the credit for a lot things that they don't do. Roosevelt did nothing but spend money when he had none to spend, and can be thanked for a very large dam (which could've been built without his help) and an even larger debt. No administration can end a depression, no one ever has. One can just sit, wait, and try make conditions favourable for a rise. Roosevelt was lucky enough to have his spending spree followed by a large demand for armament from both germany and western europe. The world war ended the depression, and there's a possibility that another may do that now.
As per brezniew and stalin, they preferred building balloons and placing large plackards of themseleves across the countryside (here in canada we get chevrons painted on the highway, and ditches dug for no apparent reason, don't get me started on that $3B program that ended three months later).
Fortunately there are some expenses that have the benefit of driving the private sector -- such as the space program. Of course this could be done more efficiently by offering tax incentives to companies that perform the same tasks in the name of research (not some ideology thought up by an actor and his advisory panel in the 80s).
Yes, 40B is a large amount of money to be inefficiently spent, but at least it was, in effect, reinvested into a private market that really needed the boost at the time, and definately does now.
I don't see it. I can move as little, or as much as i want on an automatic. DOn't get me wrong, I'd pick stick over auto anyday, but that's just because i like to shift. Too many games I guess.
Rocking is no problem, all you need to do in order to rock, is accelerate on the up or down swing, and have enough give. If you do it on an automatic, you don't really wear anything away as the fluid is somewhat free to flow in either direction, while in a stick, you grind the clutch.
Admit it, you just like the 'feel' of stick. It's ok, many of us do. But there is no real advantage for having it under any circumstances. THe only thing you could argue for is double-declutching -- and even that will be (or probably is already) possible with a tiptronic system.
And what added dimesion of control is that? Transverse? A car can only go forward of backward, and turn the wheels side to side. I'd hate to own either the car in front or behind you if you believe otherwise.
Maybe if you're moving fast enough you'd be able to fit into a spot smaller than the car, so fast cars are a definite plus when it comes to parking.
the only thing that comes to mind is actually downloading it all and compressing it to see if it actually is what it is, or whether the 'authors' added refrences to satan in reverse.
i think that this message should be remoderated to be 'inciteful'. don't be daring no virus programmers. the last thing we (i mostly) need is all my clients losing their personal files because dell installs ie.
don't get me wrong, that's exactly what i'm implying. explorer is wonderfully smooth, fast and ease of operation is absolute key -- even above security. one incredible testament to the 'feel' concept were those newcomer features for wordperfect users that switched to word. microsoft has demonstrated that you can woo those users who get used to their pc behaving one way by simply imitating that feel and then slowly moving into another.
i think that the best way to get all these explorer users (and let's face it, most of the people you have to convince are the ones that aren
t used to netscape because they got explorer prepackaged) is to make them feel at home with mozilla. make a little checkbox during install: "do you want to make mozilla behave like explorer until you get used to it?"
and zap, you've taken away the only advantage that microsoft has, familiarity. for all the things that microsoft does wrong, they still manage to one-up themselves on friendliness with every new version. while mozilla is secure and (thankfully now) stable, it seems to me like it's losing the battle over the common user for whom prepackaged browsers really matter.
this whole battle has always been over what's pre-shipped with new computers. how many people here who are used to netscape buy anything pre-packaged anymore? nor use something because it comes that way? for all the clamour, dell or compaq aren't going to push for mozilla if they get more support calls with questions on why things don't feel the same.
these changes aren't for anyone involved in this discussion, because, quite frankly, the user for whom winning or losing the competitive battle, wouldn't even stray far enough off yahoo to find this page (nor be able to sort through it find out how to read the articles).
clicked submit by accident...
instead of touting all the security of mozilla, i think more should be done as far as making mozilla FEEL as smooth as explorer. people don't care if the icons are hte same colours or if the titlebar says microsoft, they just want to be able to press enter to submit on their hotmail login page... JUST LIKE IN EXPLORER. the world is filled with people who prefer to change as little as possible. making them install a foreign browser that really, for all it's goodness, still feels very much like mosaic, isn't the right way to go.
I've been building pcs for many people on the side, and here's the biggest complaint i get when i try to push mozilla on them:
"Why doesn't the back button on my intellimouse work with it? It works with explorer."
And just like that, 20 or 30 people have turned off mozilla for just THAT reason. To them, it's just some browser that takes longer to load, puts an icon in the taskbar, and in which the back and forward buttons don't work. And it's no use trying to convince them of all the benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
not do it twice, just change the domain. and yes,to answer your question, they would do it. because they want to sell their product. and if half their consumers move into another dimension, they will follow, like so many sheep.
i expect that all this will require is a G rating. Find me a single G rated movie that isn't suited for kids. I think we all agree on what is suitable, there isn't this gray line, because that's PG, and that probably wouldn't be allowed.
I would love to see real news, without gore, without immediate analysis on what corporation is behind the latest tragedy. Kids should be getting that kind of news, and parents, if they choose, could put a spin on it. Which, judging from the conversation on this topic, quite a few would.
I think everyone is missing the point. This isn't about ads, or history, or corporations. Noone needs a kids.us domain to market crap to young children. Just visit any old disney or nickelodeon site for that -- they sell quite well without a special domain.
This is so when I have kids that are quite young, I can let the surf the web without having them come across the latest photos of virgin young teens. You don't have to be an idiot, a democrat, a rebulican, a ceo, or just a parent to figure out what is suitable for young children. No gore and no porn. That's all this is hoping to keep kids away from until their parents decide they're ready for it.
I think you people watch too much CNN. Parents, and i mean ALL parents, whether they be CEOs of large multinationals, or longshoremen, or lawyers, are all terrified of what their four year old will find if left to surf the web (even supervised). I think this is a wonderful way to limit kids to seeing kid stuff. Even the latest news on iraq is kid stuff provided there are no 'shocking' 'newsmaking' images of the type that reporters love to splatter all over the front page.
in three years of engineering i completed 9 geology courses, several in igneous, a couple sedimentary, mineralogy, and several field courses, which is as much as any geology major -- especially since i specialised in exploration. the only useful geology i found is being done across the street from the geology department, in the physics building, by geophysicists. who actually develop exploration and excavation techniques. geologists are recruited as lackeys who do the manual labour -- no offense. three years was plenty to give a very detailed dose of geology. and there isn't a single group of people anywhere else who refuse to look at the big picture, or the really small one, as much as they do.
there were masters students in geology trying to figure the optical theory of why rose quartz is pink, and they hadn't bothered to ask anyone in the physics department whether that had already been done (this even i can now explain with basic undergrad physics). there were profs whose life's work had been determining whether lake superior is a crater or not, and then charting the bedrock underneath it.
i compare that to walking around with measuring tape and notepad and measuring everything you come into contact with because some of it might be useful some day. no underlying purpose.
geochemists? yes, a better bunch. geophysicists, even better. but geologists? glorified polsters.
i quit geological engineering after three years. geology is not significant. despite what some geologist may say. by their own word "geology is not an exact science". and nothing could be more true, it's a collection of hikers looking for a reason to visit the latest 'geological' hot spot... like hawaii, or chile.
here's the difference:
at a normal company people strive to spend less on the task at hand because they get rewarded with raises for that sort of stuff.
at nasa, as with all governemtn institutions, people strive to spend all they get bacause if they don't they might not get as much to spend next year.
i've experienced the latter. i get most of my income from the surplus that is spent to 'meet funding'. and believe me, it's completely useless spending.
here in balmy canada we pay the record labels 27c on every CD-R we buy to cover losses caused by illicit copying of music.
sort of like randomly putting everyone in the country in prison for a couple of days a year as a penalty for all the crime that's commited.
"Well here's a flash; so could I or any other modern day, halfway intellegent person. The hard part isn't making the nuke it's getting the fissionable material."
no you could not, and no, that's not the hard part.
speaking as a physics major, here are the difficulties from a scientific standpoint.
1. none
you need cash, which saddam has, to buy the materials needed, and you need cash to build the facilities to make the delivery mechanism. plus, you need a couple of decent unemployed physicsists, which russia has an ample supply of, and you need a couple of years with no inspections to give you time to do your work. Hey wait, iraq has had all these.
I don't believe the 6 month nonsense not because it's too large a figure, but because we have absolutely no clue if iraq has the capability. There are large quantities of perfectly suitable material under single sleeping guard in the ukraine. we don't know how much, but we know there is plenty for anyone's purposes. and we also know that facilities have been built, and probably still exist in iraq.
the only thing left, it would seem, is a means to deliver a bomb far enough away to cause no friendly deaths. but i don't think saddam's administration cares too much about that.
no one would invade the U.S. shouldn't be so arrogant to think that anyone would want to.
but I can tell you one thing, taiwan would be a chinese prison within a year, and saddam would control 90% of world oil within two. Not to speak of south america, which I imagine would become the next africa.
sure, and it was a great escalation of arms that led to the second world war.
Massive, incredibly advanced french and polish armies on horseback defending against equally sophisticated germans with betallions of tanks.
Amrs races don't cause war my friend, psychopaths with power do. And we have plenty of those to go around. Fortunately we're striving for a world were no single idiot can make the decision to pull the trigger first. Even those of you who would lean toward placing Bush in such a camp have to agree that it takes more than an incling for someone over here to send an army out. While in places where currently policing is much needed, there are insane dictators able to send millions of soldiers out to kill at a moment's notice.
We need a world policeman. One that is strong enough to prevent the hell that surely would now be the eastern block (where I was born) and the middle east, had not that balance been there.
i'm sorry, i have to say this, being canadian and all. "bribe us" with what beer? american?! I'm sorry, all of our beer is pisswater. Doesn't matter what microbrewery you subscribe to, there isn't a single brewery on this entire continent that is capable of producing an ounce of beer that can't be compared to urine by any stretch of the truth. I say that with both experience and pride, OUR BEER SUCKS, and so does yours.
it never works. sometimes noone feels like complaining about the money gone down the tubes but it still never works. presidents that make people feel all warm and tingly usually get the credit for a lot things that they don't do. Roosevelt did nothing but spend money when he had none to spend, and can be thanked for a very large dam (which could've been built without his help) and an even larger debt. No administration can end a depression, no one ever has. One can just sit, wait, and try make conditions favourable for a rise. Roosevelt was lucky enough to have his spending spree followed by a large demand for armament from both germany and western europe. The world war ended the depression, and there's a possibility that another may do that now. As per brezniew and stalin, they preferred building balloons and placing large plackards of themseleves across the countryside (here in canada we get chevrons painted on the highway, and ditches dug for no apparent reason, don't get me started on that $3B program that ended three months later). Fortunately there are some expenses that have the benefit of driving the private sector -- such as the space program. Of course this could be done more efficiently by offering tax incentives to companies that perform the same tasks in the name of research (not some ideology thought up by an actor and his advisory panel in the 80s). Yes, 40B is a large amount of money to be inefficiently spent, but at least it was, in effect, reinvested into a private market that really needed the boost at the time, and definately does now.
I don't see it. I can move as little, or as much as i want on an automatic. DOn't get me wrong, I'd pick stick over auto anyday, but that's just because i like to shift. Too many games I guess. Rocking is no problem, all you need to do in order to rock, is accelerate on the up or down swing, and have enough give. If you do it on an automatic, you don't really wear anything away as the fluid is somewhat free to flow in either direction, while in a stick, you grind the clutch. Admit it, you just like the 'feel' of stick. It's ok, many of us do. But there is no real advantage for having it under any circumstances. THe only thing you could argue for is double-declutching -- and even that will be (or probably is already) possible with a tiptronic system.
And what added dimesion of control is that? Transverse? A car can only go forward of backward, and turn the wheels side to side. I'd hate to own either the car in front or behind you if you believe otherwise.
Maybe if you're moving fast enough you'd be able to fit into a spot smaller than the car, so fast cars are a definite plus when it comes to parking.
the only thing that comes to mind is actually downloading it all and compressing it to see if it actually is what it is, or whether the 'authors' added refrences to satan in reverse.
i think that this message should be remoderated to be 'inciteful'. don't be daring no virus programmers. the last thing we (i mostly) need is all my clients losing their personal files because dell installs ie.
don't get me wrong, that's exactly what i'm implying. explorer is wonderfully smooth, fast and ease of operation is absolute key -- even above security. one incredible testament to the 'feel' concept were those newcomer features for wordperfect users that switched to word. microsoft has demonstrated that you can woo those users who get used to their pc behaving one way by simply imitating that feel and then slowly moving into another. i think that the best way to get all these explorer users (and let's face it, most of the people you have to convince are the ones that aren t used to netscape because they got explorer prepackaged) is to make them feel at home with mozilla. make a little checkbox during install: "do you want to make mozilla behave like explorer until you get used to it?" and zap, you've taken away the only advantage that microsoft has, familiarity. for all the things that microsoft does wrong, they still manage to one-up themselves on friendliness with every new version. while mozilla is secure and (thankfully now) stable, it seems to me like it's losing the battle over the common user for whom prepackaged browsers really matter. this whole battle has always been over what's pre-shipped with new computers. how many people here who are used to netscape buy anything pre-packaged anymore? nor use something because it comes that way? for all the clamour, dell or compaq aren't going to push for mozilla if they get more support calls with questions on why things don't feel the same. these changes aren't for anyone involved in this discussion, because, quite frankly, the user for whom winning or losing the competitive battle, wouldn't even stray far enough off yahoo to find this page (nor be able to sort through it find out how to read the articles).
clicked submit by accident... instead of touting all the security of mozilla, i think more should be done as far as making mozilla FEEL as smooth as explorer. people don't care if the icons are hte same colours or if the titlebar says microsoft, they just want to be able to press enter to submit on their hotmail login page ... JUST LIKE IN EXPLORER. the world is filled with people who prefer to change as little as possible. making them install a foreign browser that really, for all it's goodness, still feels very much like mosaic, isn't the right way to go.
I've been building pcs for many people on the side, and here's the biggest complaint i get when i try to push mozilla on them:
"Why doesn't the back button on my intellimouse work with it? It works with explorer."
And just like that, 20 or 30 people have turned off mozilla for just THAT reason. To them, it's just some browser that takes longer to load, puts an icon in the taskbar, and in which the back and forward buttons don't work. And it's no use trying to convince them of all the benefits.