Does anyone understand WHY the writer of this article can't play the game left handed? I read through the FA multiple times (yes, I know - hard to believe), but I don't see any explanation of what specifically the game requires that cannot be done by a left handed user. Any further clarification would be welcome.
That's a fair point - but really - while that might work, my point is that we've got an editorial that doesn't really make the point you are trying to make. Microsoft is saying good things about open source in ALL OF ITS markets. For now. Changing what they've done in the past.
Microsoft has ALREADY attacked open source. Many times. I could link to a dozen articles, at least, discussing just this here at Slashdot. If you are going to write an editorial, know the subject, and know your history. Thanks for playing!
Before 1947, it was believed that the speed of sound represented a physical barrier for aircraft and pilots. As airplanes approach the speed of sound, a shock wave forms and the aircraft encounters sharply increased drag, violent shaking, loss of lift, and loss of control. In attempting to break the barrier, several planes went out of control and crashed, injuring many pilots and killing some. The barrier was eventually shown to be mythical, however, when Chuck Yeager surpassed the speed of sound in the X-1.
There are some real problems with that argument. While it's true that there are people exploiting the vulnerabilities in the wild, the number of people who'd LIKE to be exploiting these weaknesses is far greater than the number who are.
Think of it this way - with computer exploits, you often have a small group that has a bunch of exploits they keep under lock and key in order to pull of the jobs they want to do. But you've got a LOT of people who, if given a tool to take advantages of those exploits, would use them - and use them a lot. We call them script kiddies. The same is true, if not more so, in the world of actual $$ - don't you think? Not EVERYONE would try to take advantage of this knowledge - but MORE people would - and that number would likely be significant.
Of course, FIXING these attack vectors would be the preferred method for dealing with the problem, instead of trying to suppress the information. But that's where the real world goes head-to-head with our ideals.
Sure, Bush was president, as if that meant anything in this area. But do you really believe the executive branch cut the purse strings/funding for the project? Do they even teach how the government of the United States works anymore? Hint: the executive branch doesn't get to play with providing funding. Let me get you a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution. Check out the section on "Checks & Balances" and the differences between the Legislative and Executive branch. And try not to drink the KoolAid - while the Executive branch wields a lot of power, and is often indirectly (and sometimes directly) responsible for what happens under their watch, law & funding wise - the President is usually just a good scapegoat.
That's interesting to me. I was shopping for a hybrid at the time. Guess what? You might not like how the Prius looks, but it's interior design is superior to the Civic and the Insight. There's ROOM in the car. A normal adult male can actually feel comfortable in the driver seat. Hell - they can feel comfortable in all four seats - at the same time! No scrunched knees! And if that's not enough, the interior console is easy to read and understand, and I can fit eight foot long pieces of lumber in the car.
Why'd I pick the Prius over the other alternatives? It drives better, looks fine, and has a superior design for the shit I actually care about. Looking like a "regular car" isn't on the list. I find that people who are upset that my car doesn't look like theirs have a lot of other personal "peculiarities" and opinions that I find equally as irrelevant - though often more dangerous.
It's difficult to keep yourself in the top ten when everyone has blocked your mail servers. Poor China, all locked out of the fun stuff. Can't even play with the big boys anymore!
Wow, you are seeming kinda of crazy here, from those of us who watched the entire video. Watch the unedited version of the video, first two minutes. LISTEN to the what the military are saying. WATCH when they tell you these people have weapons. UNDERSTAND that while you might not "see" the weapons, they can easily be mistaken for weapons.
http://collateralmurder.com/
But Everyone Loves Raymond! It says so right in the title. Surely, if the aliens LOVE our stars, we couldn't possible have a better ambassador then Raymond himself. The choice is obvious, people.
This will be a great, hot new trend until companies start running into what Google already has - their research & assets seized by the government, the company kicked out of the country, and no compensation or help forthcoming. It may not be in China's best interest to do so, but they have the track record already. If a company breaks whatever new, ultra-restrictive law that China decides to put in place, they'll lose everything. Businesses will either get out on their own (assets intact), or will be put out of business, with all their hard work going to enrich the government of China. Good luck!
You lost my point, didn't you? Compare the European plan to the current plan being proposed before the Congress in the United States. Check your math. Try to understand why what you point out is absolutely irrelevant as an answer to my question.
And yet, what's being proposed wouldn't really lower your rates. If you weren't able to get health insurance AT ALL, then it'd help. But it won't make it more affordable, if the problem is that it is too expensive. If it's possible to get health insurance, no matter how crappy or expensive, under the current proposal - you'll be REQUIRED to get it. Period. No further help. And add to that? You will be taxed on the income you use to pay for it. So, what's so good about the proposed "socialized medicine" again?
The goal is to have a street capable car that people would gladly purchase and drive, not produce a bicycle that gets good gas mileage that bike riders wouldn't use. Does this proof of concept even get us closer to the real goal? It doesn't seem like it does.
You don't rendezvous with something by pointing a camera at it. I'm guessing the guy who wrote the summary either doesn't know what the word means, or is some sort of deluded voyeur? "Yeah, I rendezvous with the chick across the street every night - she NEVER closes her curtains!"
Am I the only person who sees this as an excellent opportunity for Apple to ditch the unfortunate moniker and go with something like iSlate? I mean, they can even deliver a bunch of moralizing over the thing. And yes, it'll cost them - but it's going to cost them to keep the iPad too - people are making more fun of the name then they are paying attention to the shiny lights of the product.
The United States has a LOT to loose (and gain) from social unrest in China.
Think for a moment.
Do you believe that social unrest in China will be nonviolent? It won't be. There will be plenty of violence - especially if the lid is kept on too long.
Do you believe that the violence won't effect nearby nations, such as Japan, India, Korea, RUSSIA, etc.? It will. It will be deadly serious for those countries, because we are not talking about social unrest where a few people get a few guns and start shooting at people. China may not have a technologically powerful military, but they have a lot of weapons, in the hands of a lot of people, and they are plenty dangerous (these weapons include nuclear missiles, in case you've forgotten). Neighboring countries will be freaking out, to put it mildly, when the shit hits the fan. And they'll have good reason to do so, since the consequences of, and the conflict itself, will most definitely spill outside the border.
Do you believe that the United States won't get involved with the problem? Without a doubt, the United States will get itself entangled in the problem, to some degree. Even if we are constantly being told to butt out by Russia, our other allies like South Korea and Japan will be screaming for help - and we'll try to do something. We'll pour in aid. We'll fuck around in the U.N. trying to create some sort of international intervention, spending massive amounts of political capital. We'll send in troops, with various contradictory missions and poorly thought out objectives. We might be able to resist for a bit, but we'll go in. And our pundits, of course, will say it's because of the money - because Americans, above else, need clarity of purpose - it doesn't MATTER how complicated the situation is - we must simplify it to a single sentence.
And so, do you think this practically inevitable situation won't affect/hurt the United States? I think that's pretty naive. We offload a huge amount of manufacturing of our goods to China - the type of goods that keep our masses happily consuming and ignoring the what's happening in the world. We might not freak out too bad if gasoline hits $4 - but we certainly will if we can't buy a 30" TV for less than a $1000. And we react pretty badly when we demand something as a majority. We won't just get hurt economically, as prices for things considered basic commodities go up - we'll make it worse by poking ourselves, and others, in the eye.
All that said, I hope it happens. I hope the Chinese people take control of their government, grow their middle class, and build some more freedoms into the core of their political, social and moral beliefs. I'm not positive it'll happen, but I'm pretty sure that there will be some sort of explosion in that country. We'll see.
(a) relevant argument; (b) a useful addition to the discussion; and (c) having anything to do with the point I was disagreeing with?
I'm astounded by the apologists for this statement that have come out of the woodwork. The guy spouted something as a fact, while actually speaking out of his butt, and I called him on it, along with providing actual, factual data.
I happen to agree that $54,000 is a lot of money. I'm on the same "side" as the poster I disagreed with. I merely don't like having people "on my side" spouting garbage that weakens the argument. It's a losing proposition.
That's a valid point. The original was not. I prefer to have people who I are on my side spouting relevant, true facts. Otherwise, they are fucking up the argument. It's really that simple. I refuse to condone that kind of behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent response! Thank you!
Does anyone understand WHY the writer of this article can't play the game left handed? I read through the FA multiple times (yes, I know - hard to believe), but I don't see any explanation of what specifically the game requires that cannot be done by a left handed user. Any further clarification would be welcome.
My reading skills aren't the problem here. Perhaps some focus on your own skillset might be in order?
That's a fair point - but really - while that might work, my point is that we've got an editorial that doesn't really make the point you are trying to make. Microsoft is saying good things about open source in ALL OF ITS markets. For now. Changing what they've done in the past.
Microsoft has ALREADY attacked open source. Many times. I could link to a dozen articles, at least, discussing just this here at Slashdot. If you are going to write an editorial, know the subject, and know your history. Thanks for playing!
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/sound_barrier.html
There are some real problems with that argument. While it's true that there are people exploiting the vulnerabilities in the wild, the number of people who'd LIKE to be exploiting these weaknesses is far greater than the number who are.
Think of it this way - with computer exploits, you often have a small group that has a bunch of exploits they keep under lock and key in order to pull of the jobs they want to do. But you've got a LOT of people who, if given a tool to take advantages of those exploits, would use them - and use them a lot. We call them script kiddies. The same is true, if not more so, in the world of actual $$ - don't you think? Not EVERYONE would try to take advantage of this knowledge - but MORE people would - and that number would likely be significant.
Of course, FIXING these attack vectors would be the preferred method for dealing with the problem, instead of trying to suppress the information. But that's where the real world goes head-to-head with our ideals.
Sure, Bush was president, as if that meant anything in this area. But do you really believe the executive branch cut the purse strings/funding for the project? Do they even teach how the government of the United States works anymore? Hint: the executive branch doesn't get to play with providing funding. Let me get you a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution. Check out the section on "Checks & Balances" and the differences between the Legislative and Executive branch. And try not to drink the KoolAid - while the Executive branch wields a lot of power, and is often indirectly (and sometimes directly) responsible for what happens under their watch, law & funding wise - the President is usually just a good scapegoat.
That's interesting to me. I was shopping for a hybrid at the time. Guess what? You might not like how the Prius looks, but it's interior design is superior to the Civic and the Insight. There's ROOM in the car. A normal adult male can actually feel comfortable in the driver seat. Hell - they can feel comfortable in all four seats - at the same time! No scrunched knees! And if that's not enough, the interior console is easy to read and understand, and I can fit eight foot long pieces of lumber in the car.
Why'd I pick the Prius over the other alternatives? It drives better, looks fine, and has a superior design for the shit I actually care about. Looking like a "regular car" isn't on the list. I find that people who are upset that my car doesn't look like theirs have a lot of other personal "peculiarities" and opinions that I find equally as irrelevant - though often more dangerous.
It's difficult to keep yourself in the top ten when everyone has blocked your mail servers. Poor China, all locked out of the fun stuff. Can't even play with the big boys anymore!
Wow, you are seeming kinda of crazy here, from those of us who watched the entire video. Watch the unedited version of the video, first two minutes. LISTEN to the what the military are saying. WATCH when they tell you these people have weapons. UNDERSTAND that while you might not "see" the weapons, they can easily be mistaken for weapons. http://collateralmurder.com/
But Everyone Loves Raymond! It says so right in the title. Surely, if the aliens LOVE our stars, we couldn't possible have a better ambassador then Raymond himself. The choice is obvious, people.
This will be a great, hot new trend until companies start running into what Google already has - their research & assets seized by the government, the company kicked out of the country, and no compensation or help forthcoming. It may not be in China's best interest to do so, but they have the track record already. If a company breaks whatever new, ultra-restrictive law that China decides to put in place, they'll lose everything. Businesses will either get out on their own (assets intact), or will be put out of business, with all their hard work going to enrich the government of China. Good luck!
You lost my point, didn't you? Compare the European plan to the current plan being proposed before the Congress in the United States. Check your math. Try to understand why what you point out is absolutely irrelevant as an answer to my question.
Do NOT pass GO, do NOT collect $200!
And yet, what's being proposed wouldn't really lower your rates. If you weren't able to get health insurance AT ALL, then it'd help. But it won't make it more affordable, if the problem is that it is too expensive. If it's possible to get health insurance, no matter how crappy or expensive, under the current proposal - you'll be REQUIRED to get it. Period. No further help. And add to that? You will be taxed on the income you use to pay for it. So, what's so good about the proposed "socialized medicine" again?
And assuming that the lifetime > 30 years, and assuming there are no maintainence costs. Important stuff.
The goal is to have a street capable car that people would gladly purchase and drive, not produce a bicycle that gets good gas mileage that bike riders wouldn't use. Does this proof of concept even get us closer to the real goal? It doesn't seem like it does.
You don't rendezvous with something by pointing a camera at it. I'm guessing the guy who wrote the summary either doesn't know what the word means, or is some sort of deluded voyeur? "Yeah, I rendezvous with the chick across the street every night - she NEVER closes her curtains!"
Am I the only person who sees this as an excellent opportunity for Apple to ditch the unfortunate moniker and go with something like iSlate? I mean, they can even deliver a bunch of moralizing over the thing. And yes, it'll cost them - but it's going to cost them to keep the iPad too - people are making more fun of the name then they are paying attention to the shiny lights of the product.
The United States has a LOT to loose (and gain) from social unrest in China.
Think for a moment.
Do you believe that social unrest in China will be nonviolent? It won't be. There will be plenty of violence - especially if the lid is kept on too long.
Do you believe that the violence won't effect nearby nations, such as Japan, India, Korea, RUSSIA, etc.? It will. It will be deadly serious for those countries, because we are not talking about social unrest where a few people get a few guns and start shooting at people. China may not have a technologically powerful military, but they have a lot of weapons, in the hands of a lot of people, and they are plenty dangerous (these weapons include nuclear missiles, in case you've forgotten). Neighboring countries will be freaking out, to put it mildly, when the shit hits the fan. And they'll have good reason to do so, since the consequences of, and the conflict itself, will most definitely spill outside the border.
Do you believe that the United States won't get involved with the problem? Without a doubt, the United States will get itself entangled in the problem, to some degree. Even if we are constantly being told to butt out by Russia, our other allies like South Korea and Japan will be screaming for help - and we'll try to do something. We'll pour in aid. We'll fuck around in the U.N. trying to create some sort of international intervention, spending massive amounts of political capital. We'll send in troops, with various contradictory missions and poorly thought out objectives. We might be able to resist for a bit, but we'll go in. And our pundits, of course, will say it's because of the money - because Americans, above else, need clarity of purpose - it doesn't MATTER how complicated the situation is - we must simplify it to a single sentence.
And so, do you think this practically inevitable situation won't affect/hurt the United States? I think that's pretty naive. We offload a huge amount of manufacturing of our goods to China - the type of goods that keep our masses happily consuming and ignoring the what's happening in the world. We might not freak out too bad if gasoline hits $4 - but we certainly will if we can't buy a 30" TV for less than a $1000. And we react pretty badly when we demand something as a majority. We won't just get hurt economically, as prices for things considered basic commodities go up - we'll make it worse by poking ourselves, and others, in the eye.
All that said, I hope it happens. I hope the Chinese people take control of their government, grow their middle class, and build some more freedoms into the core of their political, social and moral beliefs. I'm not positive it'll happen, but I'm pretty sure that there will be some sort of explosion in that country. We'll see.
Fuck off on the trolling comment.
As for the house listing - thank you! I appreciate that SOMEONE put some real effort into defending the first post.
Hardly a rant. And, no, the link does not. Care to back up your assertion, with, say, anything?
Seriously? You consider that a:
(a) relevant argument;
(b) a useful addition to the discussion; and
(c) having anything to do with the point I was disagreeing with?
I'm astounded by the apologists for this statement that have come out of the woodwork. The guy spouted something as a fact, while actually speaking out of his butt, and I called him on it, along with providing actual, factual data.
I happen to agree that $54,000 is a lot of money. I'm on the same "side" as the poster I disagreed with. I merely don't like having people "on my side" spouting garbage that weakens the argument. It's a losing proposition.
That's a valid point. The original was not. I prefer to have people who I are on my side spouting relevant, true facts. Otherwise, they are fucking up the argument. It's really that simple. I refuse to condone that kind of behavior.