You're fine so long as you're not having sex on the counter. In which case the most likely thing would be a floating point error that causes speakers to blare out "Warning! Warning! Unauthorized biological organisms on the cooking surface! Sterilize! Sterilize!" That's when you regret your gas stove that it quickly adapts into a flame thrower.
Corrupt is a strong word. Vested interest? Perhaps. Corrupt? That would need to be gauged, let's measure this up against the current US administration because in my mind I have a good idea where they fit in.
Look before we leap? Why? Because moving away from the combustion engine is a threat to life as we know it? Taking a few SUV's off the road will kill endangered species?
For the past couple of years I've heard arguements against "green" technology ranging from economic to drop in quality of life to "god told us we can do as we see fit". But I haven't heard a consequence that is more dire than what we are on the verge of going through. So seriously, how can something like switching to hybrid or electric cars using electricity drawn by windfarm or solar screw things up any worse?
As for whether there needs to be more debate that's up to people to decide, if the majority feels the need to change then we change.
Well, he'll probably think it's a good thing if the only species left on the planet are cows, chickens, cats and dogs... that's all we need right?:P
Debating climate change is futile it's happening. Debating the human component to it is also futile; after all, we have an environmental footprint and that footprint has no process that offsets it's impact on the environment. So, we should do everything we can to ensure that footprint is minimal then we could say "Well, humans have 0 footprint on the planet but the climate is still changing must be a process we have no control over". Until we have 0 footprint, people like the one you responded to can't convince me otherwise.
At this point, the lines are drawn and either people are convinced or they aren't. Time to count the heads and determine where the majority lies.
Let's step back for a minute, even if you forget Global Warming think of the pollution! Nope, that can't be a problem, no way.
Really? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adapt
If you're saying that nature will adapt, you're correct. Species and ecosystems will evolve from earth changes when they occur.
Whether life in the sense of a species or life forms will adapt is a whole other matter. These earth changes are significant. Entire species will die off. The questions for humans is if we will be one of those species. Not likely? Perhaps. There is still the damage that we would experience from loss of biodiversity. After all, what if a species unlocks the cure for some human ailment... That's one possibility and I could go on and on. For me this is clear, the burning of fossil fuels produces by products that are not offset by any natural or mechanical process at the same rate they are being produced. So we are changing the equilibrium and we can and should correct this. So long as we make a contribution to the problem we should do something about it. There is so much at stake and yet people still want to say "Everything's fine"; it's beyond me.
I'm thinking I'll put it in my blog, maybe a picture or two on Flickr, gee I want to put it everywhere!
Is it just me or are others experiencing uncontrollable urge to post this in as many places as possible? I know, let's make it a tag on slashdot! Such a new avenue of abuse!
Hmm, lets check out the googleshares on this...
Google 766,000,000
Evil 151,000,000
Good 1,150,000,000
Google + Evil 55,700,000
Google + Good 341,000,000
So Google is currently more good than evil. However, Evil is more google than good is... ok, it makes sense when you're down several coffee's.
I'm still waiting for email spam to make it's way into space. Then in a deep voice I plan to say "SPACE SPAM!"
More serious note, space is a "territory" of sorts... still the ownership (and who's laws will prevail) of that territory will depend on who can assert their "control" over that territory. So that will most likely be some corporation.:P
Which leads to an obligatory:
I for one welcome our new SPACE IBM overlords!
Yeah, I picked up on that after I had a chance to give the article a better read. I got really set off by the title of the article... shame on me for thinking that the title of a slashdot article meant anything.:P
I like your observation and agree. If these various service providers give more openings to allow the services to converge naturally it benefits all. So if I tell my internet platform (FireFox) that I have a service on Flickr, Yahoo, Google, or what have you it should able to tie them together. The only problem I foresee in the long term is getting the message services to tie together. That I think is a ways off but doable (I hope). I just hope it's done with open standards so anyone can jump in and compete if the demand is there.
Here's the thing, I don't want a program like this. If I'm browsing, I'm browsing. If I'm messaging, I'm messaging. If you want to interop the two activities, fine. I'm a little put off because I was under the impression that to build in this social browser extension they were introducing a new social network. That's something that I don't think we need. What needs to happen at some point is for social networks to allow interoperability so I can have my friends that use MSN get me on ICQ or GoogleTalk or you name it rather than joining every flipping network under the sun. For me an ideal would be, on my social network (say LinkedIn) I should be able to define I that I have a friend using a particular address (email) and then when I connect my messaging service (GoogleTalk) to that social network it determines who on my network has an authenticated connection to a messaging service. Now I realize I'm simplifying and it's not exactly on topic but I think until social networks talk to each other we don't need additional networks.
Now as for the browser extension, meh. I'm not excited about it. But I must say as the number of FireFox extensions grows that it's quickly no longer becoming a browser and being more of a "internet platform". Which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned, it shifts perceptions that the internet is just web.
It just cheeses me off, how we waste time on talking about things like this?? Now, this is coming from traditional broadcasters who don't have a clue about what they are asking. They're just trying to demonize the internet further and trying to get a piece using guile and bureaucracy. I'm annoyed at how we are wasting dollars even considering this. I started a dialog recently with my MP on the peer-to-peer debate. But rather than agreeing with my "if no one is profiting from it it's not piracy", I was given the answer of "we are commited to finding a solution suitable to all parties involved". That pisses me off. Sometimes leadership means telling people off and sticking up for the public that elects you. Instead there are all these "interest groups" that have the ear of the government that influence the government and make them jump through hoops and I a member of the public is politely told to move along... ARGH!
So, to every Canadian politician out there, grow a pair and stand up for the people that actually elect you not faceless interest groups!
*Unconvincingly* Well, real programmers never get caught in infinite loops! *cough cough*
Back on topic, I have this nagging feeling that somehow SCO thought they could technobabble this through court and the judge would just nod and go, "uh yeah, sure". What bugs me about all this was that I can't help but to feel that this lawsuit was a means to make money for SCO, much like the RIAA lawsuits. I feel like litigation now is a legitimate means to add to your bottom line.
What irritated me about this was that people somehow think that these unproven laws are needed? WHY?? Let's review, to protect you Joe Canadian we are going to strip away a fundamental right or two and then remove the need for due-process or accountability. RIIIGHT. I agree with you completely these laws are unneeded, unconsitituional and unnecessary.
What makes matters worst is Mr. Harpers response to the opposition and declaring that they don't have Canada's security in mind. Talk about spreading FUD; our PM is good at it.
I feel for anyone who lost a loved one in 9/11 but this legislation was never a solution just a stop-gap knee-jerk response.
Thanks for that! I tried finding the source but had to give up. Now it goes without saying that after reading that, I'm now deeply distrurbed though... *shudder*
Oh and this completes my internal debate. Loon he is!
If you have no idea what this subject is about then read the article. Just do it.
His rants are priceless. My 4 yo makes more sense then this guy.
"Maybe he can conjure up some kind of cause of action against Ohio-based Bob Evans Farm Sausage for my illicit use of ham on my fists. This is the first time I can recall a Bar complaint that brings pigs into the discussion."
Maybe I'm not being fair though, maybe I'm just taking it out of context or he could be loon. I'm still debating it.
I begrudgingly agree. ExxonMobil is technically doing nothing wrong. (Although, it leaves me feeling troubled.) If there is any fraudlent arguements to Global Warming (one side or the other) then it's really an ethical issue with the scientists involved.
But here comes the big problem, if the report that UN has now recieved is allowed to be further debated it could take years to settle and then the debate could be further reopened as new advances bring potential new arguements and that time lost adds to further damage to the enviroment. Keep in mind the IPCC was originally commisioned in 1988, so almost 20 years to for people to figure that there is a problem. The solution will take years to implement so it should start now, actually I think it should have started long ago.
Anyways, I'm not trying to detract from your point. But I do think it's time to end the debate and get on to dealing with the problem.
Great, if you're using a laptop with wireless or some other mobile computing with the "right software". The strength of portals is based on easy of use and the ability to access from anywhere. My google homepage is available anywhere I go, work, home, friends; it doesn't render so hot on my smartphone but I'm a couple of generations behind. The point is there is a niche that is nicely facilitated by portals and this doesn't require those us who aren't interested in buying more hardware or software to make additional purchases.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your setup; if it works for you that's what counts.
Slashdot Mirror
You're fine so long as you're not having sex on the counter. In which case the most likely thing would be a floating point error that causes speakers to blare out "Warning! Warning! Unauthorized biological organisms on the cooking surface! Sterilize! Sterilize!" That's when you regret your gas stove that it quickly adapts into a flame thrower.
This post has just saved a life... I know it.
Corrupt is a strong word. Vested interest? Perhaps. Corrupt? That would need to be gauged, let's measure this up against the current US administration because in my mind I have a good idea where they fit in.
Well I'm going to give my 2 cents on this and in doing so expect to answer to Lord Xenu!!
All hail lord Xenu!
Look before we leap? Why? Because moving away from the combustion engine is a threat to life as we know it? Taking a few SUV's off the road will kill endangered species?
For the past couple of years I've heard arguements against "green" technology ranging from economic to drop in quality of life to "god told us we can do as we see fit". But I haven't heard a consequence that is more dire than what we are on the verge of going through. So seriously, how can something like switching to hybrid or electric cars using electricity drawn by windfarm or solar screw things up any worse?
As for whether there needs to be more debate that's up to people to decide, if the majority feels the need to change then we change.
Well, he'll probably think it's a good thing if the only species left on the planet are cows, chickens, cats and dogs... that's all we need right? :P
Debating climate change is futile it's happening. Debating the human component to it is also futile; after all, we have an environmental footprint and that footprint has no process that offsets it's impact on the environment. So, we should do everything we can to ensure that footprint is minimal then we could say "Well, humans have 0 footprint on the planet but the climate is still changing must be a process we have no control over". Until we have 0 footprint, people like the one you responded to can't convince me otherwise.
At this point, the lines are drawn and either people are convinced or they aren't. Time to count the heads and determine where the majority lies.
Let's step back for a minute, even if you forget Global Warming think of the pollution! Nope, that can't be a problem, no way.
Really?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adapt
If you're saying that nature will adapt, you're correct. Species and ecosystems will evolve from earth changes when they occur.
Whether life in the sense of a species or life forms will adapt is a whole other matter. These earth changes are significant. Entire species will die off. The questions for humans is if we will be one of those species. Not likely? Perhaps. There is still the damage that we would experience from loss of biodiversity. After all, what if a species unlocks the cure for some human ailment... That's one possibility and I could go on and on. For me this is clear, the burning of fossil fuels produces by products that are not offset by any natural or mechanical process at the same rate they are being produced. So we are changing the equilibrium and we can and should correct this. So long as we make a contribution to the problem we should do something about it. There is so much at stake and yet people still want to say "Everything's fine"; it's beyond me.
No way they were evil when I first posted! Oh wait, they're good now... damnit!
I for one welcome our new Information Overloads...
I'm thinking I'll put it in my blog, maybe a picture or two on Flickr, gee I want to put it everywhere!
Is it just me or are others experiencing uncontrollable urge to post this in as many places as possible? I know, let's make it a tag on slashdot! Such a new avenue of abuse!
I now know what my new sig is... Thank you!
But of course! Now the numbers make sense! And they said I was mad! MAD! *Boingy boingy boingy*
Hmm, lets check out the googleshares on this...
Google 766,000,000
Evil 151,000,000
Good 1,150,000,000
Google + Evil 55,700,000
Google + Good 341,000,000
So Google is currently more good than evil. However, Evil is more google than good is... ok, it makes sense when you're down several coffee's.
I'm still waiting for email spam to make it's way into space. Then in a deep voice I plan to say "SPACE SPAM!"
:P
More serious note, space is a "territory" of sorts... still the ownership (and who's laws will prevail) of that territory will depend on who can assert their "control" over that territory. So that will most likely be some corporation.
Which leads to an obligatory:
I for one welcome our new SPACE IBM overlords!
Yeah, I picked up on that after I had a chance to give the article a better read. I got really set off by the title of the article... shame on me for thinking that the title of a slashdot article meant anything. :P
I like your observation and agree. If these various service providers give more openings to allow the services to converge naturally it benefits all. So if I tell my internet platform (FireFox) that I have a service on Flickr, Yahoo, Google, or what have you it should able to tie them together. The only problem I foresee in the long term is getting the message services to tie together. That I think is a ways off but doable (I hope). I just hope it's done with open standards so anyone can jump in and compete if the demand is there.
Here's the thing, I don't want a program like this. If I'm browsing, I'm browsing. If I'm messaging, I'm messaging. If you want to interop the two activities, fine. I'm a little put off because I was under the impression that to build in this social browser extension they were introducing a new social network. That's something that I don't think we need. What needs to happen at some point is for social networks to allow interoperability so I can have my friends that use MSN get me on ICQ or GoogleTalk or you name it rather than joining every flipping network under the sun. For me an ideal would be, on my social network (say LinkedIn) I should be able to define I that I have a friend using a particular address (email) and then when I connect my messaging service (GoogleTalk) to that social network it determines who on my network has an authenticated connection to a messaging service. Now I realize I'm simplifying and it's not exactly on topic but I think until social networks talk to each other we don't need additional networks.
Now as for the browser extension, meh. I'm not excited about it. But I must say as the number of FireFox extensions grows that it's quickly no longer becoming a browser and being more of a "internet platform". Which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned, it shifts perceptions that the internet is just web.
It's a new acronym I'm starting: Not Another Freaking Social Network!
Really, I'd like to see existing social networks evolve and allow more interop before I want to see another new one come up. That's just me though.
It just cheeses me off, how we waste time on talking about things like this?? Now, this is coming from traditional broadcasters who don't have a clue about what they are asking. They're just trying to demonize the internet further and trying to get a piece using guile and bureaucracy. I'm annoyed at how we are wasting dollars even considering this. I started a dialog recently with my MP on the peer-to-peer debate. But rather than agreeing with my "if no one is profiting from it it's not piracy", I was given the answer of "we are commited to finding a solution suitable to all parties involved". That pisses me off. Sometimes leadership means telling people off and sticking up for the public that elects you. Instead there are all these "interest groups" that have the ear of the government that influence the government and make them jump through hoops and I a member of the public is politely told to move along... ARGH!
So, to every Canadian politician out there, grow a pair and stand up for the people that actually elect you not faceless interest groups!
Too true, this should make Haggis interesting.
"Ok kids, guess which part is people!"
Ok, if I ate a sheep that was 15% human would that make me 15% cannibal?
And don't go looking at me like it hasn't crossed any of your minds!
*Unconvincingly* Well, real programmers never get caught in infinite loops! *cough cough*
Back on topic, I have this nagging feeling that somehow SCO thought they could technobabble this through court and the judge would just nod and go, "uh yeah, sure". What bugs me about all this was that I can't help but to feel that this lawsuit was a means to make money for SCO, much like the RIAA lawsuits. I feel like litigation now is a legitimate means to add to your bottom line.
What irritated me about this was that people somehow think that these unproven laws are needed? WHY?? Let's review, to protect you Joe Canadian we are going to strip away a fundamental right or two and then remove the need for due-process or accountability. RIIIGHT. I agree with you completely these laws are unneeded, unconsitituional and unnecessary.
What makes matters worst is Mr. Harpers response to the opposition and declaring that they don't have Canada's security in mind. Talk about spreading FUD; our PM is good at it.
I feel for anyone who lost a loved one in 9/11 but this legislation was never a solution just a stop-gap knee-jerk response.
Thanks for that! I tried finding the source but had to give up. Now it goes without saying that after reading that, I'm now deeply distrurbed though... *shudder*
Oh and this completes my internal debate. Loon he is!
His rants are priceless. My 4 yo makes more sense then this guy.
"Maybe he can conjure up some kind of cause of action against Ohio-based Bob Evans Farm Sausage for my illicit use of ham on my fists. This is the first time I can recall a Bar complaint that brings pigs into the discussion."
Maybe I'm not being fair though, maybe I'm just taking it out of context or he could be loon. I'm still debating it.
I begrudgingly agree. ExxonMobil is technically doing nothing wrong. (Although, it leaves me feeling troubled.) If there is any fraudlent arguements to Global Warming (one side or the other) then it's really an ethical issue with the scientists involved.
But here comes the big problem, if the report that UN has now recieved is allowed to be further debated it could take years to settle and then the debate could be further reopened as new advances bring potential new arguements and that time lost adds to further damage to the enviroment. Keep in mind the IPCC was originally commisioned in 1988, so almost 20 years to for people to figure that there is a problem. The solution will take years to implement so it should start now, actually I think it should have started long ago.
Anyways, I'm not trying to detract from your point. But I do think it's time to end the debate and get on to dealing with the problem.
Great, if you're using a laptop with wireless or some other mobile computing with the "right software". The strength of portals is based on easy of use and the ability to access from anywhere. My google homepage is available anywhere I go, work, home, friends; it doesn't render so hot on my smartphone but I'm a couple of generations behind. The point is there is a niche that is nicely facilitated by portals and this doesn't require those us who aren't interested in buying more hardware or software to make additional purchases.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your setup; if it works for you that's what counts.