How come no one seems to be asking the slot machine manufacturers to make voting machines? They deal with millions - or billions - of dollars a day and seem to be able to account for every single penny accurately. As an added bonus, all they'd really have to do is change the 7's to donkeys and jackpots to republicans... Pull the lever for your new rep!
Seriously though - they're the people who should be making the machines...
"...it would cumulatively and ultimately affect something we'd regret later." Sounds like next summers' BLOCKBUSTER MOVIE from Hollywood. I'm going to start on a script now so I can sue them later.
If you use PayPal at all, only link it to a credit card which you've kept at a low limit. How? I hadn't logged in for a long time, but the last time I used it, I wasn't given a choice. I COULD NOT transfer money into my paypal account until I linked a bank account - I typically use my amex because I've had great experiences with their fraud protection. Anyway - I tried for over a week, every day, to get past the nag screens but anytime I went to put money into my account, I was blocked by the 'sign up now' B$. I ended up creating a bucket account (only carries $100) at another credit union, so even if it gets jacked, it'll be hard to do much damage. But it still irks me. Can you get an account without tying it to a bank?
Solving it makes you invisible to girls. I think you also become the master of time, but haven't been able to confirm it yesterday.
BTW - solving the 4D version gets you beat up by jocks. Very hard level to get past.
so... uh, the aliens did it? ppphhtt.
Whenever the government can be involved, you must know that if something can be either a conspiracy or incompetence, incompetence is the correct answer. The current administration is barely capable of public speaking, there's no possible universe in which they could pull something like 9/11 off. I challenge you to cast doubt on that fact.
But it's code that either can't be exposed to public scrutiny (because it's so bad they/you'll get in trouble for exposing it, because it's specific to YOUR bank, because it was done in partnership with a company that won't or more likely is an extension of a proprietary app they shouldn't have mucked with in the first place, because it includes *as PART OF THE EXECUTION* clear text passwords in scripts - seriously, ad nausium), or it's code that can't be open because of SEC regulations. Having proprietary code doesn't mean they can - or should - contribute it to anyone. And even so, no one at that conference accused banks of 'not playing nice' by any stretch of the imagination. They suggested they could get a lot more from OSS if they'd open up. That's a huge difference in tone, one the article perverts.
I saw this article yesterday and I call flame-bait. What "Major open source vendors"? HP and Novell. 2. And those major vendors weren't calling on all banks to contribute more code, they were suggesting that firms on WALL STREET (the entire financial services industry, not just banks) could get more from Open Source if they were more open about what they used and what they wanted. The entire article is a subtle spin to paint OSS as victims and the entire financial services industry as pack of wolves. And that picture is simply wrong. Plenty of financial firms USE OSS, and are doing more and more of it, but they don't contribute because THEY DON'T WRITE CODE! They're users. They don't do a lot of custom code because they don't need it, and what they need is very much a secret. They pay HP and Novell (or more likely Red Hat and IBM) to do that code work, and hire unix and linux admins to do their in house work. There's no conflict or bad feelings involved, except by ZDnet who's trying to stir up a controversy that doesn't exist.
Lyons would flame dead hurricane refugees, who were killed by dead US soldiers, who were also firemen on 9/11 if it got him a headline. In my opinion...:D
But by "anti-copyright activist" do you mean don't believe in copyrights at all? If so, please explain (or direct me to your better rants).
-- I'm not baiting, I just don't believe I've ever heard anyone express a *no* copyrights position. I'm personally a fan of the constitional 14 year copyright -> public domain theory {and believe a 5 - 10 year term would be more appropriate in today's age).
From what I've read so far, the article seems fair and well thought out (spelling and grammer aside... lol). Seriously though, I'm not getting an anti-oss feeling from it at all. So, is the submitter a zealot or what?
Sadly, I was unclear in my meaning - What I should have said is that coal plants release more radioactive material *into the environment* than nuclear plants by a lot. It's simply because nuclear waste from nuclear plants is contained and accounted for, and monitored VERY closely, where nuclear waste from coal is generally unregulated as a by-product - and ignored because the rest of the waste from coal is FAR more harmful (mercury and heavy metals topping the list, acid rain about half way down, nuclear way down at the bottom). It's a loophole in the legislation regulating waste from power production, probably because the vast majority of power in the US comes from coal and it is the best local source of fossil fuel America has. In another form - if a nuclear plant dumped as much radioactive material as a coal plant, people would freak out, because oh-my-god it's nuclear! But because it comes from "coal", it's not the same "nuclear" or something. The _amount_ of radioactive waste from coal (or a nuclear plant) is actually fairly inconsequential, but coal plants still 'dump' more of it. What I really wanted to point out is that given two power plants, 1 coal, 1 nuclear, the amount of harmful waste coming from the nuclear plant is less in volume and fewer in type (nuclear waste vs. heavy metals, oxides, nuclear, etc. with coal), and therefor easier to deal with. But that's not as fun to say...
someone thought of this. A geologist told them that once it's pulled into the subduction zone, we could have really cool nuclear colored volcanoes within 1000 years (as volcanoes pretty much line subduction zones, and it is possible that the material could be melted and shot back up in that short amount of time). Environmentalists were also very excited about the kinds of life we could expect when some of those containers eventually ruptured before being buried, with no way to clean it up. I'm paraphrasing of course.
Nuclear waste disposal has come a LONG way since the 60's though - I saw an article that detailed plans for a small scale self contained nuclear plant that will last a city of 300,000 30 years. Size of the core was something like 6 feet long by 1 foot wide. Which you could replace. Which means that for every million people or so we'd need basically a footlocker's worth of space to store waste every 30 years. And I've been hearing about breeder reactors as of the last 20 minutes that seem to consume almost all of thier own waste in re-processing. Not to mention the fact that many forms of nuclear material can be broken down to inert states.
The parent was wrong in that he said that coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear plants....yeah. oops. I meant that more radioactive waste from coal ends up in the environment, where nuclear plants account for it. So much for sticking my foot out there first...:)
Here's a fun fact - who knew that coal produces more nuclear waste than a nuclear power plant? By a lot. Not to mention the mecury and other heavy metals and by-products of coal. Go NUKES! And I would like to be Mr. Burns if I may... excellent...
There are countries in Africa today who still don't have hot water and electricity in every home, but everyone's got a cell phone.
Yep. That's progress. I guess with that cell phone that very same kid, now old enough to get into an R rated movie, will even be able to get into a theater and see "Blackhawk Down" using Skidata's bar code! Although I'm at a loss as to how they'd power the projector without electricity... or charge their phones... OH! Let's just ignore that little inconsistency and wonder if maybe they're all getting ipods they can watch movies on, so they don't NEED electricity for the projector! And of course we all know that tracking troops in Africa is a more important than hot water or electricity. Ahhh progress... Makes me kind of wonder if they get unlimited day time minutes to discuss the widespread poverty, famine and war.
They are going to make a great continent of consumers, they're already in love with technology and entertainment. Of course, I was only referring to the 9 out of 10 cell phone owners in America who have never sent a text message over their phones in their lives, but good call! Thumbs up man!
Now we can further separate the technocracy from the unwashed masses who don't have cell phones or know how to use them. Holding the population in thrall is becoming easier every day...
Certainly, but it doesn't mean you CAN'T. It is still possible - it just depends on what you choose to believe. Good debate though!:)
*I thought quantum theory wasn't testable untill the last 15 years or so... Is that not the case? [I'm a little rusty on it, can you point me in the right direction?]
it means God creates a universe in which He no longer has any influence You're so close to getting it...
It means God created a universe that's so in tune* that it doesn't require his influence. He doesn't *have* to interfere - which still doesn't mean he doesn't exist. And according to some Christian scholars, he chooses NOT to interfere for the sole reason that it would undermine free will. So yes, intelligent design and creationism (as in the literal biblical event) are horribly embarrassing. Even the Vatican supports the evolutionary theories. But it doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it just means that people who believe creationism and ID are stupid. (Maybe you do get it, but I'm reading in your responses that you don't believe God exists because you believe science can at least infer that he doesn't... which just wouldn't be possible.)
* "In tune" means everything from super black holes to quantum mechanics all exist and function in a predictable way (well, maybe except for quantum mechanics, but since we've only been working on it for what, 15 years? it's hard to say...)
I'm not misunderstanding you, you're just drawing a conclusion that's unsupportable. Quantum behavior having no underlying cause could just be God creating a universe in which quantum particles behave randomly, by design. The problem with God and science is that it's just a matter of interpretation. Of belief. Of faith. Which is by definition, not science - it's philosophy.
Most Christian based religions have a cornerstone of "Faith". Faith is the belief in something *without proof*. So if the Christians are right that God created the universe (and that God wants them to have faith), there wouldn't be a scientific proof of any kind to be done. He would have created a universe that would work as well if he existed as it would if he didn't. This means that someone with faith in God and someone without could both look at the same universe, understand it's mechanics (including evolution), and derive their own *meaning* from it. To someone with faith, the magnificence of it all is the glory of God. To someone without a belief in God, it's magnificent enough to just be what it is on its own. But (assuming the Christian God is all he's supposed to be) you CANNOT prove that he does or does not exist. Look at like this - for every scientific proof (including the Bell Inequality) you offer that proves that there's no underlying cause, a person with faith can (even reasonably) believe that it's because God didn't put an underlying cause there. Note that this _belief_ doesn't change the behavior of the particles, physical properties or the ability to test and interpret the world correctly. [well... in some people it does, but that's a personal problem.] The point is to understand creation, but you'll still have to take God on faith...
This point, however, does not bode well for Intelligent Design as the theory itself is in conflict with God's desire for us to have faith that he exists. That's my point.
No. If you understood anything about physics you would know that the evolution of the universe involves a considerable amount of chaos and quantum effects.
Either that, or maybe it's that God created the universe INCLUDING chaos and quantum effects... and so on. DER....
"Your reason for your argument (that humans and apes share a common ancestor) is that it "FITS". How is that different to my argument, that we don't?"
Because your argument CAN'T be observed, tested or proved. Evolution can. It might not have been done yet, but there's at least the possibility that we will eventually find that 'missing link'. To prove ID, conclusively, the "intelligence" behind it all would have to tell us how they did it.
The problem I have with ID, as a (non-denominational) Christian, is that it's evil. You CANNOT prove that God exists without destroying the principal need to have faith that he exists. And let's be honest, ID is an attempt to 'suggest' that God did it - to raise a doubt, a question, to spark belief in those who might be on the fence. The mechanics of the universe (and evolution) are just as beautiful to someone with faith in God as they are to people who don't believe in God (Christian or otherwise) - which is THE POINT! God WANTS us to understand his creation whether or not we believe in him. You don't get it both ways. Science can be right, and you can choose to find the Glory of God in that or not - but you still HAVE to take *GOD*... on FAITH! Did you miss that part? Was it unclear? Was he, perhaps, kidding? Tell me, please, why would I need faith in God if I took your argument? And if you can answer that question, tell why would I want to believe in a God that couldn't put it all together seamlessly?
Slashdot Mirror
How come no one seems to be asking the slot machine manufacturers to make voting machines? They deal with millions - or billions - of dollars a day and seem to be able to account for every single penny accurately. As an added bonus, all they'd really have to do is change the 7's to donkeys and jackpots to republicans... Pull the lever for your new rep! Seriously though - they're the people who should be making the machines...
"...it would cumulatively and ultimately affect something we'd regret later." Sounds like next summers' BLOCKBUSTER MOVIE from Hollywood. I'm going to start on a script now so I can sue them later.
It's Microsoft's new secure computing platform. Beware!
If you use PayPal at all, only link it to a credit card which you've kept at a low limit. How? I hadn't logged in for a long time, but the last time I used it, I wasn't given a choice. I COULD NOT transfer money into my paypal account until I linked a bank account - I typically use my amex because I've had great experiences with their fraud protection. Anyway - I tried for over a week, every day, to get past the nag screens but anytime I went to put money into my account, I was blocked by the 'sign up now' B$. I ended up creating a bucket account (only carries $100) at another credit union, so even if it gets jacked, it'll be hard to do much damage. But it still irks me. Can you get an account without tying it to a bank?
Solving it makes you invisible to girls. I think you also become the master of time, but haven't been able to confirm it yesterday. BTW - solving the 4D version gets you beat up by jocks. Very hard level to get past.
so... uh, the aliens did it? ppphhtt. Whenever the government can be involved, you must know that if something can be either a conspiracy or incompetence, incompetence is the correct answer. The current administration is barely capable of public speaking, there's no possible universe in which they could pull something like 9/11 off. I challenge you to cast doubt on that fact.
But it's code that either can't be exposed to public scrutiny (because it's so bad they/you'll get in trouble for exposing it, because it's specific to YOUR bank, because it was done in partnership with a company that won't or more likely is an extension of a proprietary app they shouldn't have mucked with in the first place, because it includes *as PART OF THE EXECUTION* clear text passwords in scripts - seriously, ad nausium), or it's code that can't be open because of SEC regulations. Having proprietary code doesn't mean they can - or should - contribute it to anyone. And even so, no one at that conference accused banks of 'not playing nice' by any stretch of the imagination. They suggested they could get a lot more from OSS if they'd open up. That's a huge difference in tone, one the article perverts.
I saw this article yesterday and I call flame-bait.
What "Major open source vendors"? HP and Novell. 2. And those major vendors weren't calling on all banks to contribute more code, they were suggesting that firms on WALL STREET (the entire financial services industry, not just banks) could get more from Open Source if they were more open about what they used and what they wanted. The entire article is a subtle spin to paint OSS as victims and the entire financial services industry as pack of wolves. And that picture is simply wrong.
Plenty of financial firms USE OSS, and are doing more and more of it, but they don't contribute because THEY DON'T WRITE CODE! They're users. They don't do a lot of custom code because they don't need it, and what they need is very much a secret. They pay HP and Novell (or more likely Red Hat and IBM) to do that code work, and hire unix and linux admins to do their in house work. There's no conflict or bad feelings involved, except by ZDnet who's trying to stir up a controversy that doesn't exist.
I call "BAH!"
Lyons would flame dead hurricane refugees, who were killed by dead US soldiers, who were also firemen on 9/11 if it got him a headline. In my opinion... :D
But by "anti-copyright activist" do you mean don't believe in copyrights at all? If so, please explain (or direct me to your better rants). -- I'm not baiting, I just don't believe I've ever heard anyone express a *no* copyrights position. I'm personally a fan of the constitional 14 year copyright -> public domain theory {and believe a 5 - 10 year term would be more appropriate in today's age).
From what I've read so far, the article seems fair and well thought out (spelling and grammer aside... lol). Seriously though, I'm not getting an anti-oss feeling from it at all. So, is the submitter a zealot or what?
Sadly, I was unclear in my meaning - What I should have said is that coal plants release more radioactive material *into the environment* than nuclear plants by a lot. It's simply because nuclear waste from nuclear plants is contained and accounted for, and monitored VERY closely, where nuclear waste from coal is generally unregulated as a by-product - and ignored because the rest of the waste from coal is FAR more harmful (mercury and heavy metals topping the list, acid rain about half way down, nuclear way down at the bottom). It's a loophole in the legislation regulating waste from power production, probably because the vast majority of power in the US comes from coal and it is the best local source of fossil fuel America has. In another form - if a nuclear plant dumped as much radioactive material as a coal plant, people would freak out, because oh-my-god it's nuclear! But because it comes from "coal", it's not the same "nuclear" or something. The _amount_ of radioactive waste from coal (or a nuclear plant) is actually fairly inconsequential, but coal plants still 'dump' more of it.
/ colmain.html
7 81847
What I really wanted to point out is that given two power plants, 1 coal, 1 nuclear, the amount of harmful waste coming from the nuclear plant is less in volume and fewer in type (nuclear waste vs. heavy metals, oxides, nuclear, etc. with coal), and therefor easier to deal with. But that's not as fun to say...
My main source was this: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text
But to be honest, this chain (not just the top, but the whole chain) of discussion is more to my point than... well, my point. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178263&cid=14
someone thought of this. A geologist told them that once it's pulled into the subduction zone, we could have really cool nuclear colored volcanoes within 1000 years (as volcanoes pretty much line subduction zones, and it is possible that the material could be melted and shot back up in that short amount of time). Environmentalists were also very excited about the kinds of life we could expect when some of those containers eventually ruptured before being buried, with no way to clean it up. I'm paraphrasing of course.
Nuclear waste disposal has come a LONG way since the 60's though - I saw an article that detailed plans for a small scale self contained nuclear plant that will last a city of 300,000 30 years. Size of the core was something like 6 feet long by 1 foot wide. Which you could replace. Which means that for every million people or so we'd need basically a footlocker's worth of space to store waste every 30 years. And I've been hearing about breeder reactors as of the last 20 minutes that seem to consume almost all of thier own waste in re-processing. Not to mention the fact that many forms of nuclear material can be broken down to inert states.
The parent was wrong in that he said that coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear plants. ...yeah. oops. I meant that more radioactive waste from coal ends up in the environment, where nuclear plants account for it. So much for sticking my foot out there first... :)
Here's a fun fact - who knew that coal produces more nuclear waste than a nuclear power plant? By a lot. Not to mention the mecury and other heavy metals and by-products of coal. Go NUKES! And I would like to be Mr. Burns if I may... excellent...
I think the Bush administration is installing it right now...
Yep. That's progress. I guess with that cell phone that very same kid, now old enough to get into an R rated movie, will even be able to get into a theater and see "Blackhawk Down" using Skidata's bar code! Although I'm at a loss as to how they'd power the projector without electricity... or charge their phones... OH! Let's just ignore that little inconsistency and wonder if maybe they're all getting ipods they can watch movies on, so they don't NEED electricity for the projector! And of course we all know that tracking troops in Africa is a more important than hot water or electricity. Ahhh progress... Makes me kind of wonder if they get unlimited day time minutes to discuss the widespread poverty, famine and war.
They are going to make a great continent of consumers, they're already in love with technology and entertainment. Of course, I was only referring to the 9 out of 10 cell phone owners in America who have never sent a text message over their phones in their lives, but good call! Thumbs up man!
Do you get to this magical land through a wardrobe closet somewhere in England?
Now we can further separate the technocracy from the unwashed masses who don't have cell phones or know how to use them. Holding the population in thrall is becoming easier every day...
If someone bought Celine Dion and Niel Diamond CD's I'd go so far as to say they deserved to get rooted...
Certainly, but it doesn't mean you CAN'T. It is still possible - it just depends on what you choose to believe. Good debate though! :)
*I thought quantum theory wasn't testable untill the last 15 years or so... Is that not the case? [I'm a little rusty on it, can you point me in the right direction?]
It means God created a universe that's so in tune* that it doesn't require his influence. He doesn't *have* to interfere - which still doesn't mean he doesn't exist. And according to some Christian scholars, he chooses NOT to interfere for the sole reason that it would undermine free will. So yes, intelligent design and creationism (as in the literal biblical event) are horribly embarrassing. Even the Vatican supports the evolutionary theories. But it doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it just means that people who believe creationism and ID are stupid. (Maybe you do get it, but I'm reading in your responses that you don't believe God exists because you believe science can at least infer that he doesn't... which just wouldn't be possible.)
* "In tune" means everything from super black holes to quantum mechanics all exist and function in a predictable way (well, maybe except for quantum mechanics, but since we've only been working on it for what, 15 years? it's hard to say...)
I'm not misunderstanding you, you're just drawing a conclusion that's unsupportable. Quantum behavior having no underlying cause could just be God creating a universe in which quantum particles behave randomly, by design. The problem with God and science is that it's just a matter of interpretation. Of belief. Of faith. Which is by definition, not science - it's philosophy.
Most Christian based religions have a cornerstone of "Faith". Faith is the belief in something *without proof*. So if the Christians are right that God created the universe (and that God wants them to have faith), there wouldn't be a scientific proof of any kind to be done. He would have created a universe that would work as well if he existed as it would if he didn't. This means that someone with faith in God and someone without could both look at the same universe, understand it's mechanics (including evolution), and derive their own *meaning* from it. To someone with faith, the magnificence of it all is the glory of God. To someone without a belief in God, it's magnificent enough to just be what it is on its own. But (assuming the Christian God is all he's supposed to be) you CANNOT prove that he does or does not exist.
Look at like this - for every scientific proof (including the Bell Inequality) you offer that proves that there's no underlying cause, a person with faith can (even reasonably) believe that it's because God didn't put an underlying cause there. Note that this _belief_ doesn't change the behavior of the particles, physical properties or the ability to test and interpret the world correctly. [well... in some people it does, but that's a personal problem.] The point is to understand creation, but you'll still have to take God on faith...
This point, however, does not bode well for Intelligent Design as the theory itself is in conflict with God's desire for us to have faith that he exists. That's my point.
Either that, or maybe it's that God created the universe INCLUDING chaos and quantum effects... and so on. DER....
Because your argument CAN'T be observed, tested or proved. Evolution can. It might not have been done yet, but there's at least the possibility that we will eventually find that 'missing link'. To prove ID, conclusively, the "intelligence" behind it all would have to tell us how they did it.
The problem I have with ID, as a (non-denominational) Christian, is that it's evil. You CANNOT prove that God exists without destroying the principal need to have faith that he exists. And let's be honest, ID is an attempt to 'suggest' that God did it - to raise a doubt, a question, to spark belief in those who might be on the fence. The mechanics of the universe (and evolution) are just as beautiful to someone with faith in God as they are to people who don't believe in God (Christian or otherwise) - which is THE POINT! God WANTS us to understand his creation whether or not we believe in him. You don't get it both ways. Science can be right, and you can choose to find the Glory of God in that or not - but you still HAVE to take *GOD*... on FAITH! Did you miss that part? Was it unclear? Was he, perhaps, kidding? Tell me, please, why would I need faith in God if I took your argument? And if you can answer that question, tell why would I want to believe in a God that couldn't put it all together seamlessly?