But does it have to be lit using artificial light?
The concept is not bad. There are some things that could be improved along the way (during the day, solar tubes could provide proper light). Worth investigating.
The guy has been buying off politicians for decades and he has openly bragged about it. He had the Clintons come to his daughter's wedding. He has been involved in political parties in the past - all of them - whatever suited his needs at the time.
The guy has plenty of establishment ties. If you believe he doesn't then you're falling for his "Hope and Change 2.0" campaign.
NPR is far from fair. If you believe that it is, then you live in an echo chamber. Sorry to have to call you out on this, but it's true. NPR is very, very left- and progressive- leaning on their programming.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad. Some people enjoy that point of view (like you, obviously). But to claim that it is a fair and balanced source of information is completely incorrect.
I don't see a problem with Facebook offering a limited set of services for free. Nobody is forced to use those services. Will people be encouraged to? Sure. Will they be only allowed to use Facebook forever until the end of time? No. Other businesses may try this model, or someone might want access to the wider Internet and purchase access.
I don't see the "evil" here, I don't see how anyone is being harmed. Facebook built a product and they want people to use it.
We complain a lot because, well, it's easy to complain, but also because we care. I know it can be a real pain in the butt to put up with the negativity, but it's all rooted in a love for what Slashdot was and what it could be once more.
This engine had features that you simply could not find in other engines of the day. Multiple gravity sources, real-time visibility to other parts of a map, extremely round objects, the ability to handle 50+ enemies on the screen at once (with zero slowdown), ability to handle huge outdoor areas.
You could do things with the Serious Engine that would make the Quake, Half-Life, and Unreal engines choke, at best.
And it still looks pretty good today. The guys at Croteam did a phenomenal job.
The good thing is that, unlike just 10 years ago, if people care to find information about a candidate it is very easy to do so. Is a candidate being quoted in an attack ad? It's trivial for us, these days, to find the original context of the words and see if that is what the person really said. Has a candidate changed positions on an important issue? Well let's look at the person's voting record, or their past articles or videos or speeches. Does someone have a policy position on issue X? It's very likely - check the website or contact the campaign by email, Facebook, Twitter, Skype, or a hundred other options.
It's all available to us.
It was very easy for the media to really screw a candidate they didn't like. They still have heavy influence, but not quite what it once was. We used to have to rely on The Evening News With Talking Head of the Day for all of our information - now we can still listen to it, but use it as a starting point, not as the final source of information.
We have that option.
Another important thing about the Internet and the sagging power of the media: Money no longer buys elections. Candidates can get their message out to more people, more cheaply, than ever before. Money helps, yes - of that there is zero doubt, but it isn't the sole deciding factor like it used to be.
Look at the Republican primary in New Hampsire: Ted Cruz spent $18 per vote; $1,200 for Bush. Both ended up in a very close tie. Over $130 million was spent on Bush in the first few states, more than several other candidates' entire funding - combined - and he's out of the race.
Bernie Sanders doesn't have a war chest even close to Hillary, but he's giving her some trouble in quite a few states.
So, when Trump gets up there and just keeps screeching, "Cruz is a Liar! Cruz is a Liar!" the people should be doing a few minutes of research to see who the liar really is. When Hillary says, "Oh, they weren't marked classified, that means that nothing illegal happened," then people should spend a few minutes learning about how the classification system works and if she's telling the truth.
But they don't. A combination of anger, disenfranchisement, laziness, apathy, and not caring if your favorite candidate is a corrupt piece of crap as long as you get what you want, means we are wasting what should be a massive revolution in how politics is conducted.
I think that is a tragedy. The capability is there. The people are just asleep.
If you think every politician is like Trump then you haven't been paying attention. We need to look no father than this current election cycle.
Take Ted Cruz, for example. He attacks the other candidates - rarely - but he does it using their own words and their own record. He doesn't insult them or threaten lawsuits. Bernie Sanders also does not stoop to this level and has, on several occasions, even risen to defend his political opponents against attacks.
Agree or disagree with their politics and platforms, that's fine, but we do have candidates in this election cycle - and previous election cycles - that are on the whole fairly honest and really do seem to believe in what they're doing. They have long records of backing and supporting these positions. They're not just stump speeches.
Yes, even the most honest candidates will split hairs, or frame an event in the very best light, but rarely have we had a politician who has nothing but attacks and insults. When we do, they typically fall to the sidelines fairly early because they're exposed as people with no real policy. They don't rise to the top.
But then we had Obama, and now we have Trump. They're really the same person. Their campaign styles are similar. Their followers have the same fervent, blind idolatry. If you disagree with their candidate, you don't just have a different opinion - you are flat out wrong, and not only are you wrong, but you're stupid, and evil, and should be silenced.
It's certainly already starting. He's recently been threatening to use libel laws to silence news organizations that publish inconvenient content about him.
His tactics to win an argument include: Threats of lawsuits, flat out lies, insults, and talking over you so that you can't get your own point across.
If this guy wins then sane political discourse in America is well and truly dead.
It would take an act of God for Sanders to be the (D) nominee. Clinton has a large majority of the super delegates supporting her (I wonder how much blackmail is involved), all she needs to do is more or less tie Sanders. After all, the (D) party wouldn't want the "wrong" candidate to be the nominee, yes? We can't have those silly people picking the nominee, they don't know what is best for them.
Trump is the end result of lots of people feeling disenfranchised and angry over many, many years. To be fair, there's a lot to be angry about, but I don't think that Trump's supporters are really thinking this one through. People who are angry rarely do. They just want "something" to be done.
Welcome to the second wave of "Hope and Change" as a political platform.
So what you're telling me is that when the market offers a product or service that is superior to other products and services, it will eventually gain dominance?
There was no government subsidy for LCD computer monitors (that I am aware of, anyway). We shouldn't have subsidies for electric vehicles either. Or Ethanol. Or anything else. Let the product stand on its own; when it is good enough people will adopt it on their own.
So, Software Freedom means that you can't do what you want with your software? Is this one of those Richard Stalin - I mean, Stallman - groups or something?
As far as I'm concerned the true motive is to force larger transactions to use electronic transfers, allowing the government to track more transactions.
This is purely a push for more tracking. The government wants ALL your transactions to be electronic so that you cannot ever have a private monetary transaction.
Slashdot Mirror
But does it have to be lit using artificial light?
The concept is not bad. There are some things that could be improved along the way (during the day, solar tubes could provide proper light). Worth investigating.
Trump is non-establishment?
The guy has been buying off politicians for decades and he has openly bragged about it. He had the Clintons come to his daughter's wedding. He has been involved in political parties in the past - all of them - whatever suited his needs at the time.
The guy has plenty of establishment ties. If you believe he doesn't then you're falling for his "Hope and Change 2.0" campaign.
NPR is far from fair. If you believe that it is, then you live in an echo chamber. Sorry to have to call you out on this, but it's true. NPR is very, very left- and progressive- leaning on their programming.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad. Some people enjoy that point of view (like you, obviously). But to claim that it is a fair and balanced source of information is completely incorrect.
And make sure to base64 encode it. Nobody will figure that one out.
I don't see a problem with Facebook offering a limited set of services for free. Nobody is forced to use those services. Will people be encouraged to? Sure. Will they be only allowed to use Facebook forever until the end of time? No. Other businesses may try this model, or someone might want access to the wider Internet and purchase access.
I don't see the "evil" here, I don't see how anyone is being harmed. Facebook built a product and they want people to use it.
Thank you very much for your efforts.
We complain a lot because, well, it's easy to complain, but also because we care. I know it can be a real pain in the butt to put up with the negativity, but it's all rooted in a love for what Slashdot was and what it could be once more.
The future is here: "Bacon. Bacon! It's Bacon! Bacon Bacon Bacon! IT'S BACON!!!"
This engine had features that you simply could not find in other engines of the day. Multiple gravity sources, real-time visibility to other parts of a map, extremely round objects, the ability to handle 50+ enemies on the screen at once (with zero slowdown), ability to handle huge outdoor areas.
You could do things with the Serious Engine that would make the Quake, Half-Life, and Unreal engines choke, at best.
And it still looks pretty good today. The guys at Croteam did a phenomenal job.
I'm thankful.
I don't think you read the entire post. I'll make it very, very short for you:
We have the capability to find the information. Most people are too lazy/upset/apathetic to do it.
The good thing is that, unlike just 10 years ago, if people care to find information about a candidate it is very easy to do so. Is a candidate being quoted in an attack ad? It's trivial for us, these days, to find the original context of the words and see if that is what the person really said. Has a candidate changed positions on an important issue? Well let's look at the person's voting record, or their past articles or videos or speeches. Does someone have a policy position on issue X? It's very likely - check the website or contact the campaign by email, Facebook, Twitter, Skype, or a hundred other options.
It's all available to us.
It was very easy for the media to really screw a candidate they didn't like. They still have heavy influence, but not quite what it once was. We used to have to rely on The Evening News With Talking Head of the Day for all of our information - now we can still listen to it, but use it as a starting point, not as the final source of information.
We have that option.
Another important thing about the Internet and the sagging power of the media: Money no longer buys elections. Candidates can get their message out to more people, more cheaply, than ever before. Money helps, yes - of that there is zero doubt, but it isn't the sole deciding factor like it used to be.
Look at the Republican primary in New Hampsire: Ted Cruz spent $18 per vote; $1,200 for Bush. Both ended up in a very close tie. Over $130 million was spent on Bush in the first few states, more than several other candidates' entire funding - combined - and he's out of the race.
Bernie Sanders doesn't have a war chest even close to Hillary, but he's giving her some trouble in quite a few states.
So, when Trump gets up there and just keeps screeching, "Cruz is a Liar! Cruz is a Liar!" the people should be doing a few minutes of research to see who the liar really is. When Hillary says, "Oh, they weren't marked classified, that means that nothing illegal happened," then people should spend a few minutes learning about how the classification system works and if she's telling the truth.
But they don't. A combination of anger, disenfranchisement, laziness, apathy, and not caring if your favorite candidate is a corrupt piece of crap as long as you get what you want, means we are wasting what should be a massive revolution in how politics is conducted.
I think that is a tragedy. The capability is there. The people are just asleep.
Case in point: Memes are not intelligent discourse.
"-1, Overrated" is not the correct moderation option for a post that hasn't been moderated up.
Use the reply box if you disagree.
I did not say that Trump willing will be the cause of its death.
Trump winning is a symptom of its death.
If you think every politician is like Trump then you haven't been paying attention. We need to look no father than this current election cycle.
Take Ted Cruz, for example. He attacks the other candidates - rarely - but he does it using their own words and their own record. He doesn't insult them or threaten lawsuits. Bernie Sanders also does not stoop to this level and has, on several occasions, even risen to defend his political opponents against attacks.
Agree or disagree with their politics and platforms, that's fine, but we do have candidates in this election cycle - and previous election cycles - that are on the whole fairly honest and really do seem to believe in what they're doing. They have long records of backing and supporting these positions. They're not just stump speeches.
Yes, even the most honest candidates will split hairs, or frame an event in the very best light, but rarely have we had a politician who has nothing but attacks and insults. When we do, they typically fall to the sidelines fairly early because they're exposed as people with no real policy. They don't rise to the top.
But then we had Obama, and now we have Trump. They're really the same person. Their campaign styles are similar. Their followers have the same fervent, blind idolatry. If you disagree with their candidate, you don't just have a different opinion - you are flat out wrong, and not only are you wrong, but you're stupid, and evil, and should be silenced.
It's certainly already starting. He's recently been threatening to use libel laws to silence news organizations that publish inconvenient content about him.
His tactics to win an argument include: Threats of lawsuits, flat out lies, insults, and talking over you so that you can't get your own point across.
If this guy wins then sane political discourse in America is well and truly dead.
It would take an act of God for Sanders to be the (D) nominee. Clinton has a large majority of the super delegates supporting her (I wonder how much blackmail is involved), all she needs to do is more or less tie Sanders. After all, the (D) party wouldn't want the "wrong" candidate to be the nominee, yes? We can't have those silly people picking the nominee, they don't know what is best for them.
Trump is the end result of lots of people feeling disenfranchised and angry over many, many years. To be fair, there's a lot to be angry about, but I don't think that Trump's supporters are really thinking this one through. People who are angry rarely do. They just want "something" to be done.
Welcome to the second wave of "Hope and Change" as a political platform.
So what you're telling me is that when the market offers a product or service that is superior to other products and services, it will eventually gain dominance?
There was no government subsidy for LCD computer monitors (that I am aware of, anyway). We shouldn't have subsidies for electric vehicles either. Or Ethanol. Or anything else. Let the product stand on its own; when it is good enough people will adopt it on their own.
Would you have to get a vaccination to prevent viruses?
So, Software Freedom means that you can't do what you want with your software? Is this one of those Richard Stalin - I mean, Stallman - groups or something?
As far as I'm concerned the true motive is to force larger transactions to use electronic transfers, allowing the government to track more transactions.
This is purely a push for more tracking. The government wants ALL your transactions to be electronic so that you cannot ever have a private monetary transaction.
Or better yet, just redirect it to FanFiction.net. Those Love Bots will be coming for us before we know it!
I wonder how many sites will decide to simply block users that are on Three's address space.
Then the issue becomes, "Who will want to use Three's service when all the sites I like to use aren't available?"
This could be very interesting.
Well, according to this comment from a few weeks back, it really may not be possible to just load new firmware onto the phone. It's a great read.