I say don't use water for electricity, store it for later use. Let it replenish the aquifers. As precious a commodity as is fresh water, you'd think that people would want to see a way to keep as much on hand as is possible at all times. What you keep not understanding, and what I and others keep trying to tell you, is this: Hydroelectric power does not consume water! It can replenish the aquifers just as well from the bottom of the dam as it can from the top.
Right. "The water level is low" is the evidence. "Hydroelectric power is wasting water" is your interpretation, which you have now apparently entirely disavowed.
Well, you don't want it to _come back_, which will happen if either it fails to reach escape velocity, or it ends up in around the sun at a similar distance from the sun as earth.
I'll write a GPL-licensed piece of software that doesn't work at all, thereby forbidding everyone from using GPL licensed software (because it doesn't work with my software)
Yes, that much effort was required to restrain him. The real question is, what was he doing that was so bad such that it was worth that much effort to restrain him. If all someone is doing is talking, rather than, say, physically threatening the senator, then it's morally better to just let them do their thing rather than turn it into a violent physical confrontation. What if, due to the police's actions, the incident had turned into a riot?
As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., is heard to say, "That's alright, let me answer his question."... As Kerry tells the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer struggles on the ground... So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question?
The post I meant to reply to, which I can't find now, was talking about supposedly requiring cable providers to provide all of basic cable in analog indefinitely.
And so on, the list is practically endless. Even the pictures are misleading. There is a whole special branch of photography dealing with food and how to present it optimally. Yes, you can see what's in there, but it appears bigger and more, and it is carefully tuned to manipulate you. It's not "misleading" if you don't interpret it as meaning the food literally looks like that - the POINT is that you can _see_ it's got lettuce on it, even though you know with the real burger the lettuce will be hidden under the bun. You can _see_ that it has sour cream, guacamole, beans, and rice, even though you know they'll all be mixed together in the actual burrito.
All burgers look the same in real life. All you can see is the bun, the meat, and maybe some cheese sticking out the sides. The fake pictures will show you that there's ketchup and pickles on this one, tomatoes and bacon on that one, and lettuce and special sauce on this other one.
But you want the FCC to mandate that your cable provider provides an option that works with every TV so that you don't need a set top box. They could either provide any number of [cheaply made] set top boxes for free to their customers, or only provide the lifeline channels (lifeline = the dirt-cheap mostly-non-advertised package they're required to offer now) in analog leaving the rest of the bandwidth on their wires free for digital.
Well, even ignoring "best thing since sliced bread", you can get relatively honest details like "It contains two all-beef patties, special sauce (likely to be some sort of mayo based stuff, "special sauce"s usually are), lettuce, cheese (probably american plastic pseudo-cheese, as it's fast food), pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun, and likely does not contain anything else such as tomato slices, mustard, bacon, or they would have mentioned it in such an otherwise exhaustive listing". Even without a jingle like that, a picture of the product can be helpful - for fast food in particular, the "fake" pictures are actually more informative than a picture of the actual product can bee, since you can actually see what stuff it has on it instead of having everything mashed together like the actual product.
Another kind of "it exists" advertising are the oversized signs that are meant to be seen from five miles away on the highway - like, a mcdonalds [etc] logo on a 500-foot pole. (And, if you say that it's not advertising, it seems to me more like you're determined to say any advertising you don't hate isn't really advertising)
I think there is a very limited legitimate information purpose for ads—A TV commercial for, say, a new menu item at a fast food restaurant does more to tell me it exists than quietly adding it to the menu. While I can’t necessarily trust a biased/one-sided/etc ad for any further information, they’re generally reliable (there are exceptions, but in general it works well) for telling me something exists (and, then, if I decide I care, I can find comparisons, reviews, independent suggestions, search to see if there are similar products from other vendors, etc)
Gas price signs (price advertising in general, really) are an example of truly useful advertising that goes beyond “it exists”. They’re one-sided in that they only show one station’s prices, but they’re much more useful than if I had to pull in and read the price off the pumps. They’re not making any claims that are subjective, so bias is immaterial, and having it in four-foot-high digits makes it easier to choose, from the street, which place to go to.
by throwing out ads in the Sunday paper, which has no consequence for the newspaper So you don't get that in the long run, if fewer people read the ads and fewer people buy the stuff, that the advertisers will start not being willing to pay as much for ad placement, so the newspapers will make less money (either from being forced to lower their rates or not being able to get as many contracts at the unchanged rates)?
Why don't websites move to a business model where it doesn't matter if you block the ad? How do I know that some particular website isn't using such a business model?
I mentioned it because it is an indisputable fact (in most cases). It is relevant to the discussion because someone IS garnering revenue. Since someone is garnering revenue, that is the difference to this point:
I fail to see how using Firefox to ignore the ad banners and such is morally any different than throwing out the advertising supplements to the newspaper without glancing at the ads therein. (emphasis mine) How does your answer relate to his question? if someone garnering revenue is the only measurable difference of any kind, there is no moral difference, because we have no moral obligation to ensure that people get revenue for their business model.
Main reason for meters is to make money. Ecological and traffic reasons are just excuses. Only poor people are discouraged, why would only rich people be allowed to pollute and jam traffic ? Because there aren't as many of them - it's the same way any "sin tax" works.
Seriously, I do not see how what happens in Quebec or what Quebec demands will change the lives of Canadians living in another part of Canada Go buy a can of soda. What language(s) is it labeled in?
Or just close it while the OS is overloaded doing something else, and it doesn't realize you've closed it, and doesn't sleep. Used to happen to me all the time.
That's happened to me with OSX - I suspect it's a fault common to most systems - maybe it's missing the 'lid closed' signal or something when it's busy - I always make sure the computer's asleep _before_ closing the lid these days
Slashdot Mirror
Right. "The water level is low" is the evidence. "Hydroelectric power is wasting water" is your interpretation, which you have now apparently entirely disavowed.
Well, you don't want it to _come back_, which will happen if either it fails to reach escape velocity, or it ends up in around the sun at a similar distance from the sun as earth.
Even if those bare facts are true, you've provided no evidence in favor of your interpretation of WHY the water is low.
I'll write a GPL-licensed piece of software that doesn't work at all, thereby forbidding everyone from using GPL licensed software (because it doesn't work with my software)
n/t
I predict the number of predictions of the end of Moore's Law will double every six months.
Yes, that much effort was required to restrain him. The real question is, what was he doing that was so bad such that it was worth that much effort to restrain him. If all someone is doing is talking, rather than, say, physically threatening the senator, then it's morally better to just let them do their thing rather than turn it into a violent physical confrontation. What if, due to the police's actions, the incident had turned into a riot?
Right. Many people don't realize that it is NOT a native word for being shocked, it is a portmanteau of "Electric" and "Execute".
They should open-source 1-2-3 and AmiPro.
As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., is heard to say, "That's alright, let me answer his question." ... As Kerry tells the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer struggles on the ground...
So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question?
The post I meant to reply to, which I can't find now, was talking about supposedly requiring cable providers to provide all of basic cable in analog indefinitely.
All burgers look the same in real life. All you can see is the bun, the meat, and maybe some cheese sticking out the sides. The fake pictures will show you that there's ketchup and pickles on this one, tomatoes and bacon on that one, and lettuce and special sauce on this other one.
Well, even ignoring "best thing since sliced bread", you can get relatively honest details like "It contains two all-beef patties, special sauce (likely to be some sort of mayo based stuff, "special sauce"s usually are), lettuce, cheese (probably american plastic pseudo-cheese, as it's fast food), pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun, and likely does not contain anything else such as tomato slices, mustard, bacon, or they would have mentioned it in such an otherwise exhaustive listing". Even without a jingle like that, a picture of the product can be helpful - for fast food in particular, the "fake" pictures are actually more informative than a picture of the actual product can bee, since you can actually see what stuff it has on it instead of having everything mashed together like the actual product.
Another kind of "it exists" advertising are the oversized signs that are meant to be seen from five miles away on the highway - like, a mcdonalds [etc] logo on a 500-foot pole. (And, if you say that it's not advertising, it seems to me more like you're determined to say any advertising you don't hate isn't really advertising)
I think there is a very limited legitimate information purpose for ads—A TV commercial for, say, a new menu item at a fast food restaurant does more to tell me it exists than quietly adding it to the menu. While I can’t necessarily trust a biased/one-sided/etc ad for any further information, they’re generally reliable (there are exceptions, but in general it works well) for telling me something exists (and, then, if I decide I care, I can find comparisons, reviews, independent suggestions, search to see if there are similar products from other vendors, etc)
Gas price signs (price advertising in general, really) are an example of truly useful advertising that goes beyond “it exists”. They’re one-sided in that they only show one station’s prices, but they’re much more useful than if I had to pull in and read the price off the pumps. They’re not making any claims that are subjective, so bias is immaterial, and having it in four-foot-high digits makes it easier to choose, from the street, which place to go to.
Why don't websites move to a business model where it doesn't matter if you block the ad? How do I know that some particular website isn't using such a business model?
How does your answer relate to his question? if someone garnering revenue is the only measurable difference of any kind, there is no moral difference, because we have no moral obligation to ensure that people get revenue for their business model.
What are you talking about, 1's not safe, it's got a barb on it
It could be the fact that it's an IP in china, and the receiving mail server thinks all chinese email servers are spambots.
Or just close it while the OS is overloaded doing something else, and it doesn't realize you've closed it, and doesn't sleep. Used to happen to me all the time.
That's happened to me with OSX - I suspect it's a fault common to most systems - maybe it's missing the 'lid closed' signal or something when it's busy - I always make sure the computer's asleep _before_ closing the lid these days