Exactly why I would have done the same thing. If the store won't let you examine an item before buying it they don't get my business. I've never had a problem though, even Walmart has let me open boxes. Never tried it a Best Buy.
Because nerds are somehow immune to the outcome of a national election
Because Santorum never had a chance. His backers were the same ones who pushed Gingrich and Bachmann; trying to make the Republicans attack each other for as long as possible before the one candidate who has a chance against Obama is nominated. Hey, it worked back in 1992, it might work again.
Sorry it makes you sad, but this is just click whoring by Slashdot editors.
I read today's news headlines in various media outlets. Based on your childish and homophobic post I'll assume you get your news from the blogosphere. To each his own.
If you're afraid of a draconian return policy just insist that you see it working before you pay for it. I usually ask if I can open a box and check that everything is there if it looks like it could be opened and resealed.
And if you think buying something means "take it home and decide", then I don't care if they refuse to take it back. Once you leave the store with what they promised to sell you, it's yours.
In my experience it ends up the other way around. Many people start out in CS because they want to program. Then they find they can't get through the math and more theoretical aspects, so they switch to MIS or similar IT programs. Then after they graduate they apply for programming jobs because they think they have the same skill set as those who made it through the CS program, but they don't.
Then an electric might not be for you. But for me, ~8 miles each way commute with no stop lights and very little traffic it would make a lot of sense. Visiting my relatives 2 hours away isn't an issue, I get a "weekend special" rental for $15/day anyway; if it gets wrecked or breaks down it's not my problem.
The primary purpose is to provide an incentive for customers to shift energy use to non-peak hours. By doing that the peak load is reduced, which is a big cost saver for the utilities (less total generation and transmission capacity required).
I'd really love a citation for this. Herbicide passed through grass, through cows, through another generation of grass, through different cows, and still proved fatal to plants after it was composted? Not believable.
The poison gets to the bees through High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).
That's the conclusion of the study, yes.
The poison gets into the HFCS from corn that's resistant to pesticide.
It gets into the HFCS from the corn that was used to make the syrup, In the US there
is a good chance that some of the corn was GMO, in Europe not so likely.
The corn that's resistant to pesticide is grown from seeds sold by Monsanto.
The insecticide being associated with CCD has nothing to do with Monsanto seed. There are many other producers of seed corn in the US and other countries; this insecticide can and is used equally on GMO and non-GMO corn.
Ordinary corn wouldn't lead to this, because that much pesticide would have killed it.
Totally false. This is an insecticide, not an herbicide. It doesn't kill corn.
Ordinary sugar wouldn't lead to this, because it's not from a crop that's drenched in the implicated pesticide.
Sure about that? This is one of the most widely used insecticides in the world, it's used on many crops besides corn.
You hurt your own cause by making claims like that. Hating on Monsanto and GMO crops is a separate issue; Roundup Ready crops are modified to be specifically resistant to a very low toxicity herbicide, has nothing to do with insecticides. I've never seen any study, even by the organic guys, that shows a problem with glyphosates.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers glyphosate to be relatively low in toxicity, and without carcinogenic effects.[40] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields, and with residue levels remaining at their maximum levels, and concluded no adverse effects would exist under these conditions
That's exactly what the Harvard study points out. The bees aren't being poisoned by the nectar they gather, they're being poisoned by the HFCS that the bee keepers are feeding them (they take the honey that the bees produce and feed the bees sugar water as a replacement).
And even more interesting, in all three studies the pesticide was intentionally fed to the bees in the sugar water; it wasn't collected by the bees. The Harvard study also points out the bee keepers feed their colonies HFCS, which apparently started containing trace amounts of the pesticide about the time they noticed colony collapse become a problem. Kind of sounds like they need to stop feeding HFCS.
Yes, but it goes even farther. Kimberly Clark (and the remains of Scott Paper which it bought in the 90's) had gone through massive cost cutting and outsourcing, tens of thousands of jobs were cut in the name of reducing cost. When a company gets chainsawn like that the survivors (or in this case the replacements) won't do anything that might draw the attention of the next round of slash and burn management. Keep quiet. Hit your numbers this quarter. Period.
The point has never been "technology enables learning" the point has always been along the lines of "what would happen if we could make sure everyone had access to wikipedia?"
What you say is true; someone assumed that giving each child their own computer would enable them to do something. But the assumption that the "something" would be educational doesn't appear to be correct. I saw it in the computer lab at my own kids' school; most of the effort by the students was listening to music or trying to find a way around the Net Nanny so they could view porn. They didn't know how to use it as an educational tool, and the teachers had no clue what to do with it.
The big problem now is that every child learns differently, has different interests, and (what many don't want to acknowledge) many students are just plain dumb. A good teacher can adjust to each student in real time, but how do you write software that will help all of them learn?
Instead it's by social media/blogger types which is not what Slashdot's target audience is interested in
Sad, but apparently true. Certain topics (e.g. politics, social issues like race or gay rights, green energy/global warming, etc.) always draw more comments/page hits/advertising. I left Fark because it turned into a cesspool of blogger wannabes shouting at each other. Please keep the News For Nerds angle here, especially in an election year when every other media outlet is full of Unbiased Reporting (patent applied for 2012).
So, yes, you can get it off the ground. And the thing is, once you can, "too heavy" doesn't really matter if you have a power source that can keep all that heaviness up.
Good point but perhaps too subtle. The thing wouldn't need to take off on its own, just stay aloft once it's up there. Boosters or a heavy lift aircraft are easy.
Lasers or a rail gun are interesting possibilities for weapons. Bottom line though is that this just isn't needed as long as you have a runway a few hundred miles away. More likely we'll see solar powered ultralight sensors that can stay up for a few days and longer range weapons that can be used as desired. Pretty scary to be on the receiving end of that technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Not outrage, just pointing out your hypocrisy. Digging yourself in deeper with every post is amusing to watch.
Exactly why I would have done the same thing. If the store won't let you examine an item before buying it they don't get my business. I've never had a problem though, even Walmart has let me open boxes. Never tried it a Best Buy.
Oh really? You sound like someone who reads DailyKos, didn't you get the message about Operation Hilarity?
Because nerds are somehow immune to the outcome of a national election
Because Santorum never had a chance. His backers were the same ones who pushed Gingrich and Bachmann; trying to make the Republicans attack each other for as long as possible before the one candidate who has a chance against Obama is nominated. Hey, it worked back in 1992, it might work again.
Sorry it makes you sad, but this is just click whoring by Slashdot editors.
I read today's news headlines in various media outlets. Based on your childish and homophobic post I'll assume you get your news from the blogosphere. To each his own.
If you're afraid of a draconian return policy just insist that you see it working before you pay for it. I usually ask if I can open a box and check that everything is there if it looks like it could be opened and resealed.
And if you think buying something means "take it home and decide", then I don't care if they refuse to take it back. Once you leave the store with what they promised to sell you, it's yours.
Nothing so see here, move one. This is on every media outlet.
In my experience it ends up the other way around. Many people start out in CS because they want to program. Then they find they can't get through the math and more theoretical aspects, so they switch to MIS or similar IT programs. Then after they graduate they apply for programming jobs because they think they have the same skill set as those who made it through the CS program, but they don't.
Then an electric might not be for you. But for me, ~8 miles each way commute with no stop lights and very little traffic it would make a lot of sense. Visiting my relatives 2 hours away isn't an issue, I get a "weekend special" rental for $15/day anyway; if it gets wrecked or breaks down it's not my problem.
Isn't Slashdot supposed to be News For Nerds? Oh wait, it probably doesn't get any more nerdy than this. Good stuff.
The primary purpose is to provide an incentive for customers to shift energy use to non-peak hours. By doing that the peak load is reduced, which is a big cost saver for the utilities (less total generation and transmission capacity required).
I'd really love a citation for this. Herbicide passed through grass, through cows, through another generation of grass, through different cows, and still proved fatal to plants after it was composted? Not believable.
The poison gets to the bees through High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).
That's the conclusion of the study, yes.
The poison gets into the HFCS from corn that's resistant to pesticide.
It gets into the HFCS from the corn that was used to make the syrup, In the US there is a good chance that some of the corn was GMO, in Europe not so likely.
The corn that's resistant to pesticide is grown from seeds sold by Monsanto.
The insecticide being associated with CCD has nothing to do with Monsanto seed. There are many other producers of seed corn in the US and other countries; this insecticide can and is used equally on GMO and non-GMO corn.
Ordinary corn wouldn't lead to this, because that much pesticide would have killed it.
Totally false. This is an insecticide, not an herbicide. It doesn't kill corn.
Ordinary sugar wouldn't lead to this, because it's not from a crop that's drenched in the implicated pesticide.
Sure about that? This is one of the most widely used insecticides in the world, it's used on many crops besides corn.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers glyphosate to be relatively low in toxicity, and without carcinogenic effects.[40] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields, and with residue levels remaining at their maximum levels, and concluded no adverse effects would exist under these conditions
That's exactly what the Harvard study points out. The bees aren't being poisoned by the nectar they gather, they're being poisoned by the HFCS that the bee keepers are feeding them (they take the honey that the bees produce and feed the bees sugar water as a replacement).
Good plan. Please implement it post haste.
Why? Nothing in any of the studies links this to Monsanto or GMO crops.
And even more interesting, in all three studies the pesticide was intentionally fed to the bees in the sugar water; it wasn't collected by the bees. The Harvard study also points out the bee keepers feed their colonies HFCS, which apparently started containing trace amounts of the pesticide about the time they noticed colony collapse become a problem. Kind of sounds like they need to stop feeding HFCS.
Yes, but it goes even farther. Kimberly Clark (and the remains of Scott Paper which it bought in the 90's) had gone through massive cost cutting and outsourcing, tens of thousands of jobs were cut in the name of reducing cost. When a company gets chainsawn like that the survivors (or in this case the replacements) won't do anything that might draw the attention of the next round of slash and burn management. Keep quiet. Hit your numbers this quarter. Period.
The point has never been "technology enables learning" the point has always been along the lines of "what would happen if we could make sure everyone had access to wikipedia?"
What you say is true; someone assumed that giving each child their own computer would enable them to do something. But the assumption that the "something" would be educational doesn't appear to be correct. I saw it in the computer lab at my own kids' school; most of the effort by the students was listening to music or trying to find a way around the Net Nanny so they could view porn. They didn't know how to use it as an educational tool, and the teachers had no clue what to do with it.
The big problem now is that every child learns differently, has different interests, and (what many don't want to acknowledge) many students are just plain dumb. A good teacher can adjust to each student in real time, but how do you write software that will help all of them learn?
If I'm not mistaken his idea was for a nuclear propelled space vehicle, not so absurd after all.
This appears to be a leaked video of Google's Autonomous Farm Equipment
Similar is the famous "Is our children learning?" question. What he actually said was: "The question is 'Are our children learning'?".
Instead it's by social media/blogger types which is not what Slashdot's target audience is interested in
Sad, but apparently true. Certain topics (e.g. politics, social issues like race or gay rights, green energy/global warming, etc.) always draw more comments/page hits/advertising. I left Fark because it turned into a cesspool of blogger wannabes shouting at each other. Please keep the News For Nerds angle here, especially in an election year when every other media outlet is full of Unbiased Reporting (patent applied for 2012).
So, yes, you can get it off the ground. And the thing is, once you can, "too heavy" doesn't really matter if you have a power source that can keep all that heaviness up.
Good point but perhaps too subtle. The thing wouldn't need to take off on its own, just stay aloft once it's up there. Boosters or a heavy lift aircraft are easy.
Lasers or a rail gun are interesting possibilities for weapons. Bottom line though is that this just isn't needed as long as you have a runway a few hundred miles away. More likely we'll see solar powered ultralight sensors that can stay up for a few days and longer range weapons that can be used as desired. Pretty scary to be on the receiving end of that technology.