Yes, it's a real pity that there's no way of instantly communicating with people on the other side of the world.
Seriously, apart from the military, who the cares whether they can fly half way round the world in an hour for a face to face meeting?
If it could be done for the same price as a current air fare, fair enough, we'd all like to get to our holiday destination quicker. But when you're talking about $100K+ a trip, it seems like a tiny and uninteresting market.
Leaving it in space for colonists to build with literally begs the question: what would be the economic reason those people to live in space? To mine more stuff so they can build more homes for more miners? That's a nice pyramid scheme, but we can already run those cheaply on Earth.
The stock space nutter response is that they will build starships. Which would be fine if (a) we could build starships and (b) there was anything within reasonable human travel distance worth visiting.
Ah yes, the ever-popular slashdot debating technique: "I can think of a theoretical way this is flawed, therefore it is perfectly useless". AKA "but I might get trapped in a burning car with two broken arms by my seatbelt".
so if they are at home whats to prevent them flashing the guns chip, or simply using another means of committing suicide. suicide is a form of killing that is independent of the means used to achieve it.
Not really, suicide is a lot more likely when it's easy. And picking up a gun and pulling the trigger is pretty easy compared with hanging yourself, or whatever. It is actually quite disturbing how spur of the moment many suicides are.
This is apart from the question of whether suicidal/depressed people should be permitted access to guns anyway.
Around 2,000 suicides are carried out by minors with a gun, those are the only ones you can say for sure are not authorized to use a gun.
That would still be 2000 lives saved. Doesn't seem bad to me against the 260 self defence ones potentially lost.
It's a utilitarian calculation: the greatest good of the greatest number of people. But I know for many slashdotters their individual freedom trumps everything.
For the gun you keep loaded under your pillow at night, fine, I can see why you want that one to fire without fail. Your Rambo self defense fantasy, while I think its deeply flawed, is not an entirely invalid concern.
Why do so many Americans persist in the fantasy that they live in Somalia or Iraq or somewhere and must be armed 24/7? I know the US has a high murder rate, but surely it's not that bad. And if it is, try moving somewhere a bit safer.
Presumably because people buy guns for security, not just for entertainment at a range.
I think the GP was indirectly pointing out how pathetic that is as a reason for having guns. Why do Americans persist in the Wild West fantasy that being quick on the draw is what makes you a real man?
Children accidentally killing themselves with guns is tragic, but no more so than a toddler that drinks bleach because the cupboard wasn't secured properly. People put baby locks on kitchen cabinets as a matter of course; make sure your guns are out-of-reach, too.
People have already posted in this thread that this negates the purpose of having a gun for home defence. Whether it's locked in a safe or wrapped up in a bag on the top of a wardrobe, you're not going to be able to ask a home invading burglar to hold on while you find your gun.
Basically, unless the gun is on your person or within arm's reach at all times, it's pointless.
Personally, I would say this is an argument for the futility of having guns for home defence, but most rugged individualistic slashdotters will just say that toddlers will just have to learn the hard way not to play with daddy's toys.
An expensive firearm locked inside of a safe has zero value. The intruder can come in, shoot you in the back while you're attempting to open the safe, then walk out with the safe, to open it up at his leisure at the auto wrecking yard.
If you weren't armed the intruder wouldn't need to shoot you in the back, would he?
Insularity. Being around people who think the same and shunning anyone who thinks otherwise. It leads to this sort of thing where the person cannot see outside the Self. It's called "solipsism" and is especially pronounced among the liberal media. There was a journalist who worked for the mainstream media who, 40 years ago, famously said "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them." The same attitude is alive and well today.
To be fair, if you're not self-obsessed you're probably not going to make it in the entertainment business. An absurdly over-inflated ego combined with an incredibly tough skin are both prerequisites for success in that field.
I think us non-Americans have to remember that "NSFW" in the US means a picture of a potential nip-slip from an "unlucky" actress in a bikini, not hardcore filth.
I like to think that geeks are a little bit ahead of the curve and have moved on from stand-up comics and improv (and sketch, for that matter -- which sort of peaked in the 90s) -- both of which I find extremely obnoxious and unfunny (with very few modern exceptions). I think most people tend to be growing into this same attitude, so there is not a broad enough space for that many successful "comics".
So geeks have moved on from boring old "funny" comedy to painful, puerile pseudo-Elizabethan smut? A-fucking-mazing.
That's about as much of a recommendation as saying he's quite a good crooner.
I would never knowingly watch a ventriloquist, either live or on the internet. Ventriloquists are like clowns, but even less funny. And I fucking hate clowns.
A comedian (like any other performer/entertainer) needs a combination of talent, timing (being in the right place at the right time) and luck to succeed. There are many good comedians, musicians, writers, actors and poets who have never made any money, and achieved no recognition whatsoever.
I've not seen his stuff live, but judging by the website examples it's quite a niche (pseudo-Seventeenth Century erotic verse). Good luck to him, but he doesn't scream out "mainstream TV comedy".
Oh, and I don't give a gibbon's toss whether he releases his DVDs for free under a Creative Commons licence, or charges twenty quid for a heavily DRM'd verson. Being in favour of piracy is totally orthoganal to being a good comedian. You're either funny or you're not, and being geek-friendly is totally irrelevant.
It's the same with musicians. If they want to give their CDs/downloads away for free, good for them. It makes absolutely no difference to how good they are. You could give me a dozen free albums of country and western or Justin Bieber songs and it wouldn't make me want to go and see them play live.
What gives this particular company any legitimate right to name planets? I say that the first one to land on it should get naming rights. That'll show whether they're serious about sponsoring space exploration, or are just ripping off feeble-minded individuals who think they also own a piece of the Moon and a star named after their cat.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that was what wikipedia was for.
Yes, the whole point of the internet is to have only one big website.
The SR-71 was deployed in 1964 and had an operational elevation limit of 80,0000ft. What excactly are we breaking out the champaign for?
It's Cham-pag-en
When pointing out a spelling mistake, it's customary to provide the correct answer.
Hint, it's not "Champagen".
Seriously, apart from the military, who the cares whether they can fly half way round the world in an hour for a face to face meeting?
If it could be done for the same price as a current air fare, fair enough, we'd all like to get to our holiday destination quicker. But when you're talking about $100K+ a trip, it seems like a tiny and uninteresting market.
Leaving it in space for colonists to build with literally begs the question: what would be the economic reason those people to live in space? To mine more stuff so they can build more homes for more miners? That's a nice pyramid scheme, but we can already run those cheaply on Earth.
The stock space nutter response is that they will build starships. Which would be fine if (a) we could build starships and (b) there was anything within reasonable human travel distance worth visiting.
So after exceeding the speed of sound the next step is the speed of light? ;-)
Yep, and you get a free lifetime subscription to the "space nutter club" . After all, it's just engineering.
Ah yes, the ever-popular slashdot debating technique: "I can think of a theoretical way this is flawed, therefore it is perfectly useless". AKA "but I might get trapped in a burning car with two broken arms by my seatbelt".
so if they are at home whats to prevent them flashing the guns chip, or simply using another means of committing suicide. suicide is a form of killing that is independent of the means used to achieve it.
Not really, suicide is a lot more likely when it's easy. And picking up a gun and pulling the trigger is pretty easy compared with hanging yourself, or whatever. It is actually quite disturbing how spur of the moment many suicides are.
This is apart from the question of whether suicidal/depressed people should be permitted access to guns anyway.
Around 2,000 suicides are carried out by minors with a gun, those are the only ones you can say for sure are not authorized to use a gun.
That would still be 2000 lives saved. Doesn't seem bad to me against the 260 self defence ones potentially lost.
It's a utilitarian calculation: the greatest good of the greatest number of people. But I know for many slashdotters their individual freedom trumps everything.
For the gun you keep loaded under your pillow at night, fine, I can see why you want that one to fire without fail. Your Rambo self defense fantasy, while I think its deeply flawed, is not an entirely invalid concern.
Why do so many Americans persist in the fantasy that they live in Somalia or Iraq or somewhere and must be armed 24/7? I know the US has a high murder rate, but surely it's not that bad. And if it is, try moving somewhere a bit safer.
Presumably because people buy guns for security, not just for entertainment at a range.
I think the GP was indirectly pointing out how pathetic that is as a reason for having guns. Why do Americans persist in the Wild West fantasy that being quick on the draw is what makes you a real man?
It is genuinely baffling to the rest of us.
Children accidentally killing themselves with guns is tragic, but no more so than a toddler that drinks bleach because the cupboard wasn't secured properly. People put baby locks on kitchen cabinets as a matter of course; make sure your guns are out-of-reach, too.
People have already posted in this thread that this negates the purpose of having a gun for home defence. Whether it's locked in a safe or wrapped up in a bag on the top of a wardrobe, you're not going to be able to ask a home invading burglar to hold on while you find your gun.
Basically, unless the gun is on your person or within arm's reach at all times, it's pointless.
Personally, I would say this is an argument for the futility of having guns for home defence, but most rugged individualistic slashdotters will just say that toddlers will just have to learn the hard way not to play with daddy's toys.
An expensive firearm locked inside of a safe has zero value. The intruder can come in, shoot you in the back while you're attempting to open the safe, then walk out with the safe, to open it up at his leisure at the auto wrecking yard.
If you weren't armed the intruder wouldn't need to shoot you in the back, would he?
Insularity. Being around people who think the same and shunning anyone who thinks otherwise. It leads to this sort of thing where the person cannot see outside the Self. It's called "solipsism" and is especially pronounced among the liberal media. There was a journalist who worked for the mainstream media who, 40 years ago, famously said "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them." The same attitude is alive and well today.
To be fair, if you're not self-obsessed you're probably not going to make it in the entertainment business. An absurdly over-inflated ego combined with an incredibly tough skin are both prerequisites for success in that field.
I think us non-Americans have to remember that "NSFW" in the US means a picture of a potential nip-slip from an "unlucky" actress in a bikini, not hardcore filth.
Am I the only one who thinks lowly of obscene comedy?
Not that it offends me, but for me the art is exactly in being funny *without* being obscene.
Judging by the examples on his website, he is actually less crude and smutty than the 16th and 17th century poets he is imitating.
Anyone who thinks that "obscenity" was invented in the late Twentieth Century hasn't read widely enough.
I like to think that geeks are a little bit ahead of the curve and have moved on from stand-up comics and improv (and sketch, for that matter -- which sort of peaked in the 90s) -- both of which I find extremely obnoxious and unfunny (with very few modern exceptions). I think most people tend to be growing into this same attitude, so there is not a broad enough space for that many successful "comics".
So geeks have moved on from boring old "funny" comedy to painful, puerile pseudo-Elizabethan smut? A-fucking-mazing.
he's a very talented ventriloquist
That's about as much of a recommendation as saying he's quite a good crooner.
I would never knowingly watch a ventriloquist, either live or on the internet. Ventriloquists are like clowns, but even less funny. And I fucking hate clowns.
Who hasn't heard of the dead terroist routine?
Me. I assume that everything on YouTube is amateurish shit.
How un-Zeitgeisty of me.
Thirdly WTF is this doing here?!??!?
I assume Dice Holdings has a stake in RenaissanceFairs.com
I now know that it is something to avoid like the Black Plague. Cosplay with fuckwits is not really my thing.
I've not seen his stuff live, but judging by the website examples it's quite a niche (pseudo-Seventeenth Century erotic verse). Good luck to him, but he doesn't scream out "mainstream TV comedy".
Oh, and I don't give a gibbon's toss whether he releases his DVDs for free under a Creative Commons licence, or charges twenty quid for a heavily DRM'd verson. Being in favour of piracy is totally orthoganal to being a good comedian. You're either funny or you're not, and being geek-friendly is totally irrelevant.
It's the same with musicians. If they want to give their CDs/downloads away for free, good for them. It makes absolutely no difference to how good they are. You could give me a dozen free albums of country and western or Justin Bieber songs and it wouldn't make me want to go and see them play live.
Uranus was discovered by an Englishman
As a consequence, we English get to decide on the pronunciation. It's "Yer Anus".
What gives this particular company any legitimate right to name planets? I say that the first one to land on it should get naming rights. That'll show whether they're serious about sponsoring space exploration, or are just ripping off feeble-minded individuals who think they also own a piece of the Moon and a star named after their cat.
Sure we can. Right up until your daughter's of dating age.
I'd be grateful if you could explain the difference between that statement and a piece of racist shit. Because I can't see one.
"Score +5, Informative" eh? I always forget that retards get modpoints too on slashdot.
Birds are reptiles now.
Yeah and my pet budgie's a fucking crocodile.