You just don't get it do you? You can't say no if your alternative is starvation.
First off, if your only alternative really is starving to death, then by offering you a terrible job, that company has saved your life. That crappy job is far better than not having that crappy job, so they are improving your situation. You then respond to that by bitching about it.
Secondly, that is almost never the only alternative. There are very few situations in which one particular job is the only one available to a particular person. There is almost always some other possibility, it just might be less appealing. For example, if I get frustrated with my IT job, I could probably get a job working the register at McDonalds. It would pay much less, and not be as rewarding, but that option is there. I may look for better options than my current job, but if it's really my best one, then maybe I shouldn't complain about it all the time.
Even in an economy where people aren't surrounded by as many corporations offering positions as I am, there are still opportunities. At rock bottom, there's still self-employment. Maybe you find out that the guy with all the food needs more water, so you travel to the neighboring village to get water from their well, and you bring it to the food guy in exchange for some of his food. Whatever form it takes, "having a job" is ultimately about providing something of value to other human beings. If you're really, truly incapable of finding a way to do that, then you shouldn't be so convinced that other people owe it to you to provide you with a living.
Cross-platform means "runs on more than one platform." Windows, Mac, and Linux are more than one platform, and an app that would run on new Macs as well as Windows and Linux is pretty impressive. If you want to define "cross-platform" as "runs on all platforms", then I don't think anyone has ever developed a cross-platform application.
The researchers also claim that my holy quartz crystal doesn't actually heal wounds. Pffft. What do they know - lousy "researchers" with their fancy "science".
As if analysis of EMF intensity and human physiology is anywhere near as reliable as the vaguely uncomfortable feeling you get when thinking about the crazy radiation coming from those new-fangled wireless doo-hickeys.
MightyMait, you are of course right, and the "researchers" are obviously fools for not agreeing with your completely un-backed assertions about how you "can't help but think we biological beings are much more sensitive to EMFs than the biologists assume." I mean, what would biologists know about biological beings that any electrical-engineer-turned-programmer doesn't?
And to think that the AC had the gall to question the rigor of your scientific training. Inconceivable.
Re:human-powered vehicles as "zero emission"
on
10 Technologies MIA
·
· Score: 1
Nope, they're emissions from the engine that drives the vehicle. The vehicle doesn't go unless the rider exerts energy, which increases metabolism and burns calories. The energy moving the vehicle is generated by a chemical process which has waste products. No such thing as "zero emission" transportation anymore than there's perpetual motion machines. It's just a question of how much emission, and what kind.
human-powered vehicles as "zero emission"
on
10 Technologies MIA
·
· Score: 1
Nope, he still has you. The waste products are: carbon dioxide perspiration urine feces
Grandparent poster: "Why don't we come up with a better alternative, rather than foolishly demanding completely free access to their work product, which they're never realistically going to give us? Maybe if we came up with a workable way for them to continue providing us the content we want and making money doing so, they would do the smart thing and choose our better way?"
How about we get over the notion that taking a feature from another OS is a bad thing?
Grandparent complains about them "ripping off" KDE, only to find out that KDE "ripped off" Mac OS 8 or 9, which may in turn have "ripped off" some other OS in turn and we just haven't seen the Next or BeOS user post about it yet.
If Linux removed all the features it had taken from Windows and Mac OS, and Windows removed all the features it had taken from Linux and Mac OS, and Mac OS removed all the features it had taken from Windows and Linux, all you would achieve is certainty that all three would now suck.
I WANT my OS to incorporate good ideas that were had by other OSes. This is a good thing, and leads to the improvement of all of them. Stop complaining about it.
Ahhh, there's no evidence like anecdotal evidence.
With any luck, they'll replace MTTF (Mean Time To Failure) with MFOSPD (Mean Friends Of Slashdot Posters Dissatisfied) and we'll get some reliable data.
"This is the first time I've seen that conflict be able to move away from the violent, and that's a big step for video games."
That's kind of an absurd statement.
There have been multiplayer sports and puzzle games, adventure games, racing games, etc. for years and years. Just because the violent games get all the media attention doesn't mean that's what most video games are. There have been video games with non-violent conflict and competition for as long as there have been video games.
Pong, for god's sake!
You seem to have misinterpreted it. First off, I don't think it implies that "anti-globalization" groups are inherently "anti-American". The fact that the two terms are joined with an "and" makes it clear that they are two separate concepts, both of which are being examined here.
Secondly, those are the groups these attacks are likely to come from. If you're a logging company, your security scenarios would largely focus on attacks by eco-terrorists. Not because ecologists or environmentalists are necessarily bad guys, but because those extremists are the ones likely to target you.
If you're a large corporation or the US government, your IT is likely to be targeted by anti-American groups and anti-globalization groups. That's statistical evaluation based on profiling. It's not an evaluation of the moral standing of those groups, it's just a tactical decision.
What's the point of earning money and stats, if you can simply buy them?
The point is that now you can sell them too. If you're a poor player, you can be the one getting that punk kid's paycheck. I'd like to think that if I was really poor, I wouldn't turn my nose up at the prospect of making a good living off playing MMORPGs.
I think where you went off track was when you assumed that energy == oil. Oil is simply one currently used method of producing energy. To quote the grandparent directly: "We need to find new, safe, and more plentiful ways to produce as much energy as possible."
That doesn't sound to me like he's saying "let's use more oil."
Yeah, so the problem is that while some of us cashed out at the right time, we reinvested it in the stock market and lost our collective asses just like everybody else.
I think you don't understand the phrase "cashed out"
As in, traded in your chips for cash, and walked away from the table, holding cash. If you win a hand of poker and use the winnings to bet on the next hand, that's not "cashing out"
What the poster obviously meant was that there are some people who cashed out of the bubble, leaving themselves with lots of cash, which they can now spend on frivilous auctions. You are obviously not one of those people.
I know of no non-religious person that thinks a clump of cells has moral status.
[Raises hand]
Then that's a failing in your knowledge. Slashdot user "Leo McGarry" posted a bunch of comments above this thread, outlining his opposition, and the fact that he is agnostic.
Regardless of the points he made, I personally am atheistic, not merely agnostic, and I am uncertain about the legal and moral issues involved.
You seem to have reached a point in your mind where "everybody, or at least all people who aren't dumb, agree with me" and that's a problem. You need to be exposed to a larger vareity of people.
This would not have happened under a Clinton, Gore, or Kerry administration, and the ethical objections are certainly not held by a majority of the population.
That's an interesting assertion, and setting aside the hypothetical actions of Gore and Kerry administrations, could you explain how you know that the majority of the population agrees with you? They elected Bush twice, and even if you still maintain issues with the first election, 51-49 vs. 49-51 hardly makes this a one-sided issue. The population of the US seems fairly divided on this, and other issues, to me.
The denigration of the UN, so mindlessly echoed by many on here, is a neocon tactic
I am not a neocon, and my opinions about the UN are not a tactic, but rather my actual opinions, based on all the information I have observed throughout my life.
It's sad when people are so ignorant of history that they forget why the UN was created in the first place
Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they're ignorant of history. I think there are a lot of things the UN does well, and I think it is important, but it wasn't created to be "the World's Government", which is the role it's trying to grow into.
Next time you have a problem with assertions people make about the UN, try rebutting their assertions instead of trying to label them "neocons" and implying that they are only asserting their views as part of a conspiracy with an agenda of building the First American Reich.
Spot on. I switched to Mozilla more than a year ago, and it wasn't because it was more secure than IE, or that it was open-source. It was because I liked the interface better.
Slashdot Mirror
Fantastic on-topic Mycon reference.
Wish I had mod points today.
You just don't get it do you? You can't say no if your alternative is starvation.
First off, if your only alternative really is starving to death, then by offering you a terrible job, that company has saved your life. That crappy job is far better than not having that crappy job, so they are improving your situation. You then respond to that by bitching about it.
Secondly, that is almost never the only alternative. There are very few situations in which one particular job is the only one available to a particular person. There is almost always some other possibility, it just might be less appealing. For example, if I get frustrated with my IT job, I could probably get a job working the register at McDonalds. It would pay much less, and not be as rewarding, but that option is there. I may look for better options than my current job, but if it's really my best one, then maybe I shouldn't complain about it all the time.
Even in an economy where people aren't surrounded by as many corporations offering positions as I am, there are still opportunities. At rock bottom, there's still self-employment. Maybe you find out that the guy with all the food needs more water, so you travel to the neighboring village to get water from their well, and you bring it to the food guy in exchange for some of his food. Whatever form it takes, "having a job" is ultimately about providing something of value to other human beings. If you're really, truly incapable of finding a way to do that, then you shouldn't be so convinced that other people owe it to you to provide you with a living.
Yes, if you define "cross platform" as being restricted to Windows, Mac and Linux.
Why shouldn't I? Google does.
Cross-platform means "runs on more than one platform." Windows, Mac, and Linux are more than one platform, and an app that would run on new Macs as well as Windows and Linux is pretty impressive. If you want to define "cross-platform" as "runs on all platforms", then I don't think anyone has ever developed a cross-platform application.
The researchers also claim that my holy quartz crystal doesn't actually heal wounds. Pffft. What do they know - lousy "researchers" with their fancy "science".
As if analysis of EMF intensity and human physiology is anywhere near as reliable as the vaguely uncomfortable feeling you get when thinking about the crazy radiation coming from those new-fangled wireless doo-hickeys.
MightyMait, you are of course right, and the "researchers" are obviously fools for not agreeing with your completely un-backed assertions about how you "can't help but think we biological beings are much more sensitive to EMFs than the biologists assume." I mean, what would biologists know about biological beings that any electrical-engineer-turned-programmer doesn't?
And to think that the AC had the gall to question the rigor of your scientific training.
Inconceivable.
Nope, they're emissions from the engine that drives the vehicle. The vehicle doesn't go unless the rider exerts energy, which increases metabolism and burns calories. The energy moving the vehicle is generated by a chemical process which has waste products. No such thing as "zero emission" transportation anymore than there's perpetual motion machines. It's just a question of how much emission, and what kind.
Nope, he still has you. The waste products are:
carbon dioxide
perspiration
urine
feces
To summarize,
Grandparent poster: "Why don't we come up with a better alternative, rather than foolishly demanding completely free access to their work product, which they're never realistically going to give us? Maybe if we came up with a workable way for them to continue providing us the content we want and making money doing so, they would do the smart thing and choose our better way?"
Parent poster: "Not my problem. Fuck them."
Well, I guess you had to see that one coming.
they ignore Bush's wholesale and blatant lies to start the war in Iraq
Out of curiosity, what exactly makes a lie "wholesale"?
How about we get over the notion that taking a feature from another OS is a bad thing?
Grandparent complains about them "ripping off" KDE, only to find out that KDE "ripped off" Mac OS 8 or 9, which may in turn have "ripped off" some other OS in turn and we just haven't seen the Next or BeOS user post about it yet.
If Linux removed all the features it had taken from Windows and Mac OS, and Windows removed all the features it had taken from Linux and Mac OS, and Mac OS removed all the features it had taken from Windows and Linux, all you would achieve is certainty that all three would now suck.
I WANT my OS to incorporate good ideas that were had by other OSes. This is a good thing, and leads to the improvement of all of them. Stop complaining about it.
Ahhh, there's no evidence like anecdotal evidence.
With any luck, they'll replace MTTF (Mean Time To Failure) with MFOSPD (Mean Friends Of Slashdot Posters Dissatisfied) and we'll get some reliable data.
Yes, we must all learn to ignore these biased studies and trust the really reliable source of information - anecdotal evidence.
I believe that was Ms. Chanandler Bong, actually.
"This is the first time I've seen that conflict be able to move away from the violent, and that's a big step for video games."
That's kind of an absurd statement. There have been multiplayer sports and puzzle games, adventure games, racing games, etc. for years and years. Just because the violent games get all the media attention doesn't mean that's what most video games are. There have been video games with non-violent conflict and competition for as long as there have been video games.
Pong, for god's sake!
Of course, the atomic bomb is responsible for saving more lives than any other thing in history.
I don't disagree that in the long run it saved lives, but I think the top honor probably goes to dwarf wheat.
You seem to have misinterpreted it.
First off, I don't think it implies that "anti-globalization" groups are inherently "anti-American". The fact that the two terms are joined with an "and" makes it clear that they are two separate concepts, both of which are being examined here.
Secondly, those are the groups these attacks are likely to come from. If you're a logging company, your security scenarios would largely focus on attacks by eco-terrorists. Not because ecologists or environmentalists are necessarily bad guys, but because those extremists are the ones likely to target you.
If you're a large corporation or the US government, your IT is likely to be targeted by anti-American groups and anti-globalization groups. That's statistical evaluation based on profiling. It's not an evaluation of the moral standing of those groups, it's just a tactical decision.
What's the point of earning money and stats, if you can simply buy them?
The point is that now you can sell them too. If you're a poor player, you can be the one getting that punk kid's paycheck. I'd like to think that if I was really poor, I wouldn't turn my nose up at the prospect of making a good living off playing MMORPGs.
If you can't be troubled to RTFA, at least read the summary.
It's mostly about Norris' "AirScooter", NOT Moller's Skycar, and Norris DID demo the AirScooter, with a 60 minute flight in front of press.
It may not be in a dealership near you yet, but it really does fly, it's not vapor.
I think where you went off track was when you assumed that energy == oil. Oil is simply one currently used method of producing energy. To quote the grandparent directly:
"We need to find new, safe, and more plentiful ways to produce as much energy as possible."
That doesn't sound to me like he's saying "let's use more oil."
"Spook" refers an agent of the CIA, not the FBI.
Yeah, so the problem is that while some of us cashed out at the right time, we reinvested it in the stock market and lost our collective asses just like everybody else.
I think you don't understand the phrase "cashed out"
As in, traded in your chips for cash, and walked away from the table, holding cash. If you win a hand of poker and use the winnings to bet on the next hand, that's not "cashing out"
What the poster obviously meant was that there are some people who cashed out of the bubble, leaving themselves with lots of cash, which they can now spend on frivilous auctions. You are obviously not one of those people.
So its like a pay BT site?
You misspelled "legal"
I know of no non-religious person that thinks a clump of cells has moral status.
[Raises hand]
Then that's a failing in your knowledge. Slashdot user "Leo McGarry" posted a bunch of comments above this thread, outlining his opposition, and the fact that he is agnostic.
Regardless of the points he made, I personally am atheistic, not merely agnostic, and I am uncertain about the legal and moral issues involved.
You seem to have reached a point in your mind where "everybody, or at least all people who aren't dumb, agree with me" and that's a problem. You need to be exposed to a larger vareity of people.
This would not have happened under a Clinton, Gore, or Kerry administration, and the ethical objections are certainly not held by a majority of the population.
That's an interesting assertion, and setting aside the hypothetical actions of Gore and Kerry administrations, could you explain how you know that the majority of the population agrees with you? They elected Bush twice, and even if you still maintain issues with the first election, 51-49 vs. 49-51 hardly makes this a one-sided issue. The population of the US seems fairly divided on this, and other issues, to me.
The denigration of the UN, so mindlessly echoed by many on here, is a neocon tactic
I am not a neocon, and my opinions about the UN are not a tactic, but rather my actual opinions, based on all the information I have observed throughout my life.
It's sad when people are so ignorant of history that they forget why the UN was created in the first place
Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they're ignorant of history. I think there are a lot of things the UN does well, and I think it is important, but it wasn't created to be "the World's Government", which is the role it's trying to grow into.
Next time you have a problem with assertions people make about the UN, try rebutting their assertions instead of trying to label them "neocons" and implying that they are only asserting their views as part of a conspiracy with an agenda of building the First American Reich.
Spot on.
I switched to Mozilla more than a year ago, and it wasn't because it was more secure than IE, or that it was open-source. It was because I liked the interface better.
USA:
Population - 293,027,571
Land - 9,161,923 sq km
Density - 32 persons/sq.km
France:
Population - 60,424,213
Land - 545,630 sq km
Density - 110.75 persons/sq.km
Germany:
Population - 82,424,609
Land - 349,223 sq km
Density - 236 persons/sq.km
Spain:
Population - 40,280,780
Land - 499,542 sq km
Density - 80.6 persons/sq.km
sparse.
adj.
"Occurring, growing, or settled at widely spaced intervals; not thick or dense."
Sorry I couldn't find a consolidated stat for EU, but is that justified enough?