"Wanna file a FAFSA form and go to school? The paper form will be discontinued in the next few years, meaning you'll have to go online to do it."
I don't think having to fill out one form a year online is enough to change a person's lifestyle from just going online for a few minutes to read one's email into something more familiar to your average/. reader.
"Did you go to college to be a fast food or a manual minimum wage laborer? "
Me? No, I went to college to be a software engineer. Obviously I am not one of those I was talking about.
"Do you expect to raise a family on your job at McDonalds or retail?"
Again, no I don't, but others do. There is a big world out there outside of your cubicle.
"Right, but do you really want to waste time in line at the bank. Do you want to carry wads of cash around or do you just want to use your Debit card to pay for your groceries so you don't even have to deal with change or running out of cash while out and about."
Point is as long as ATMs are available, the Internet is not needed for these activities.
Its not that hard to fill out a W-2 form. And even with tax programs, you are still going to need to enter the same information. If your taxes are a bit more complex, those programs are very useful, but not everyone is going to need that.
"Are you serious? "
Yes. If you are in a lower bracket, you won't be paying much in taxes in the first place. And if you don't have business expenses to write off or charitable donations to consider, those calculations are not exactly rocket science. And as you pointed out, there are plenty of professionals out there who you can get to do your taxes for you.
"but how many of those people could have saved time and the cost of having prepared taxes by doing them online... for free."
Please provide a link to the free tax preperation software you are talking about here. I would like to save the $40 price of TurboTax.
"
You know. I remember seeing BBC story about seeing ATM's in the Gaza strip. One of the more poorer places in the middle east with lack of technological infrastructure. If they have these things, then I'm pretty sure its going to be ubiquitous everywhere else."
WTF? How did we get from discussing the use of home Internet access to the availability of ATMs? You think only computer geeks can operate an ATM? Wow, you really can't comprehend how others live.
Obviously you have never worked a part time job in a fast food restaurant. The guys flipping burgers are not going to be the ones in charge of ordering supplies. That will be left to the manager/owner. And they will likely have a computer hooked up in the store. They won't need home access to order a new case of secret sauce. And the Wi-Fi would almost certainly be left to a contractor or IT specialist.
I wasn't arguing against the idea that dial up will fade into obscurity, but rather I was arguing against the idea that everyone in the nation will use the Internet with the same frequency as the average/.er.
Of course at some point broadband will simply become too cheap for dialup to continue to survive, but that doesn't mean there won't be people who just use it for 5 minutes a day to check their email.
"More and more companies will reach the point where it's almost impossible to get your business done without using the internet. How long will companies accept resumes on paper?"
Yes, many jobs will require Internet access. Many jobs today require Internet access. But are you seriously going to tell me that day laborers or fast food restaurant workers are going to need access to the Internet in order to do their jobs?
"How long will banking without the internet be reasonable?"
Probably for a very long time. Unless banks can find a way to print money over the Internet, ATMs and physical banks will need to continue to exist.
"When will doing your taxes without it become impractical?"
Its not that hard to fill out a W-2 form. And even with tax programs, you are still going to need to enter the same information. If your taxes are a bit more complex, those programs are very useful, but not everyone is going to need that.
"any more than I can really comprehend people who don't use ATMs."
Well that just means you are not very good at comprehending other people's lifestyles.
Why would it be "almost unimaginable" that there will be people who won't make much use of the Internet 15 years from now? Believe it or not, there is a world outside of/., where people don't use the Internet for much more than occasionally checking their email, and that world will likely continue to exist. Today there are plenty of people who watch very little TV or who don't own CD players, and they are not all crazy wacko Luddites who live in cabins in Montana.
And what, you think that the people who spend their time online reading up progress made on the NP problem (as opposed to those who spend their time playing games, viewing porn, or reading gossip on celebrities) are in the majority?
So you are whining about semantics because your parents don't approve of the way you waste your time? It sounds like you have bigger problems than finding a PC term for your leisure activity, including moving out of your parent's basement.
Its one thing to learn from experts in the world, its another to blindly trust anything that anyone with the label 'expert' says. Some skeptisism is still needed. For instance, there is a theory out there that at the center of the earth a nuclear reaction generates heat. There is very little evidence for it and is highly disputed amoung scientists. But I've heard people repeat that theory as if it were proven.
No, you don't have to play Descartes and doubt everything except that you yourself exist in some form. But don't just repeat everything you hear on the Discovery Channel as if it is unassailable fact.
It is certainly logically possible to develop a valid scientific theory of the origin of the species that goes against evolution.
Just most who advocate such positions do not develop valid scientific theories. And the fact that you refer to evolution as "Darwinism" suggests you are among the majority in that group.
"Volcanic activity does release CO2. But we are releasing it at 10 times the rate volcanos are."
Actually I believe it is the sulfer dioxide that really worries scientists when it comes to volcanic eruptions. It produces a dimming effect which can result in a cooler climate, which causes crop failures, famines, death, etc.
"Glaciers absorbs heat by melting. more heat means less glaciers (and higher sea levels) and less heat absorption."
The net effect of glacier ice on the climate is actually that it reflects sunlight and thus cools the climate (yes, it absorbs some heat, but grasslands and asphalt absorb more). It is an example of positive feedback, which some scientists believe was the cause of a massive ice age in the Earth's distant past in which the entire planet was covered in ice.
Ironically, had what you said been true, that would be a example of negative feedback, which would help prevent global warming.
And sea levels would not rise much at all if the glaciers in the Northern hemisphere melted (and as you mentioned in your last post, during the medival warm period there was very little glacier ice in areas like Greenland, and its not like half of Europe was below sea level back then). It is Antartica which could cause disasters if its ice ever melted, and thats not going to happen soon (in fact many scientists predict global warming would increase the amount of ice down there as it would increase precipitation in an area which is much too cold to melt from a change of temperature of a few degrees).
"How is it misleading to say that it is warmer now than it was in any time in the last 1200 years?"
Well for starters, thats not true, and is not what the article said. It said that the past century was warmer than any century in the past 1200 years. As for what was misleading about that, it is taking one measure of time (centuries), and then using another measure of time (years) in the comparision. As my first post said, it would have been much more appropriate to say "20th Century Warmest in past 12 centuries". Moving from one measure to another makes the data look much more extreme, and was even able to fool you into thinking that it was saying "it is warmer now".
"We don't know what's on the way. It could be horrible, or it could be fine. We Don't Know. Are you willing to gamble that things will turn out ok? I'm not. "
See, I didn't argue that. Claiming that I'm "willing to gamble that things will turn out ok" is an example of dishonesty in a debate. Thats another thing climate alarmists use that I disagree with.
How is reducing reliance on greenhouse gases "running around with our heads vut off"(sic)? I would say that being dependent on oil has resulted in more irrational (and costly) behaviour than anything else.
Build some nuke plants. Use ethanol based fuel for cars. Encourage mass transit. Are these things crazier than being in a constant state of war in the middle east to get the last drops of oil?
Obviously small rational steps to reduce our use of fossil fuels was not what I was referring to. Instead, I was referring to actions such as ratifying something like the Kyoto protocol which would have no effect on the Earth's climate except that it would devestate our economy which would make it less likely that we could actually move beyond fossil fuels.
Throughout the Earth's history, its climate has been constantly changing. There are many factors that can influence it, including (but not limited to) the sun, volcanoes, naturally occuring cycles of weather patterns, changes in how the landscape absorbs heat (think about how much heat a glacier absorbs vs. a grassland vs. an asphalt parking lot), and even the buildup of human-related emissions. Its a very dynamic system, and has been since our planet was born. Yes, if we look at the climate from the perspective human beings are used to (from one year to the next), its fairly consistent, but if you look out further, you will see that is in no way the case.
Since you brought up the current debate over global warming, let me reiterate my point of view (even though here on/., the debate is always framed as either you feel we are all going to die the day after tomorrow, or you are a religous nut who thinks God created the world 6000 years ago). I accept the following statements:
The Earth's climate changes constantly changes
Human activity can affect the Earth's climate
Climate change can endanger the human species
The following I do not accept:
It is ok to present intentionally misleading statistics (like the one in this headline) to back a cause
Human activity is the only thing altering the otherwise perfectly balanced Earth
Any percieved change in the climate is an indication that horrible things are on the way
We should all run around like chickens with our heads cut off to protect the 'fragile environment'
Also, this is just a BS statistic. Wouldn't it have been more consistent to say "20th Century Warmest in past 12 centuries"? By using a much smaller interval in the comparision, you get something that sounds much more extreme than it really is. 1200 years really isn't that long, especially considering half of that was during the little ice age.
Who the hell modded this a troll? You don't agree with the guy so he must be trolling? WTF? I hope you were not one of the ones whining about NASA being "censored" regarding their statements on global warming...
"Nothing new here, except that this particular species has found a way to use the roaches power to move the body to a premade burrow instead of digging the burrow on the spot."
Yeah, hence why the headline read "Wasp Larvae Feed on Zombie Roaches" instead of simply "Wasp Larvae Feed on Roaches". This particular mechanism is the interesting aspect of this article.
"Unless Slashdot has a very high percentage of entymologists, I don't think it is that newsworthy for slashdot readers."
We may not have a large percentage of entymologists here, but it does have a large percentage of science nerds who enjoy reading about novel discoveries in the world of science (of course until the site recovers from being/.ed, its hard to determine whether or not this is indeed a novel discovery or just a reprint of something that was discovered some time ago).
...talk to your employer about the issue. See why they want a patent porfolio. If they just want to be patent trolls, then if you are not going to work on patents you might as well quit for both your sakes. You are not going to enjoy working there, and they will not benefit from employing you. However, many companies build up patent portfolios for other reasons, such as for protection from other companies filing patent-related lawsuits.
Of course this all requires you to recognize that taking unwaivering ideological positions and refusing to listen to anyone with a different position is immature and irrational.
"Or the top summary for this article is inaccurate"
You must be new here. Welcome to/. The article summaries are always inaccurate.
From TFA:
As part of its e-mail security practices, AOL blocks the display of images and hyperlinks on most high-volume messages, except if senders are on the AOL Enhanced whitelist and maintain very low complaint rates. Beginning today, AOL will also allow senders who have undergone accreditation through Goodmail to display images and hyperlinks by default. Goodmail charges accredited companies a fraction of a cent per message sent.
"The folk who will be left in the cold will be those that host free mailing lists - that could be your local church, local voluntary associations, schools, folk who freely manage topical lists of interest etc. These folk won't make back the money because email isn't a revenue stream. They're the only ones who will see any effect."
First of all, the emails not on this whitelist are not blocked, they merely have any images or links hidden (and while I am not an AO(hel)L user so I cannot know for sure, I'm guessing there is a way for the user to enable them once they have verified that they do indeed want this particular email). Thats the way they currently have it set up, only now it requries senders to go through a lengthy certification process which they have determined is even harder to go through and less effective.
So no, it will not kill of small free mailing lists.
That analogy would have been more on the mark had the title of this game been "Shoot the Injuns"...
For the record, I have not played this game, nor do I plan on playing it (hell I still have barely even started Half Life 2, I don't have time for a new video game since getting an actual job), so I cannot speak on the content of this game and whether or not it portreys the slaughter of native Americans as a historical reality, as a gruesome dark chapter in our nation's history (both of which would be ok in a game), or as a heroic and worthy objective (which would not be ok).
Stupid lawsuits are filed all the time. And not just in America, see the guy in Italy who is suing the Catholic Church because they told him Jesus is real, or (my favorite) that chick in Russia who is suing NASA for messing with her horoscope by studying a comet.
Although part of me does want this to go through (although maybe a class action lawsuit would be more appropriate). Then maybe publishers wouldn't think fact-checking as that costly anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
They were not state level. They were county level. Unless Montgomery County has recently seceded from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
I don't think having to fill out one form a year online is enough to change a person's lifestyle from just going online for a few minutes to read one's email into something more familiar to your average /. reader.
Me? No, I went to college to be a software engineer. Obviously I am not one of those I was talking about.
"Do you expect to raise a family on your job at McDonalds or retail?"
Again, no I don't, but others do. There is a big world out there outside of your cubicle.
"Right, but do you really want to waste time in line at the bank. Do you want to carry wads of cash around or do you just want to use your Debit card to pay for your groceries so you don't even have to deal with change or running out of cash while out and about."
Point is as long as ATMs are available, the Internet is not needed for these activities.
Its not that hard to fill out a W-2 form. And even with tax programs, you are still going to need to enter the same information. If your taxes are a bit more complex, those programs are very useful, but not everyone is going to need that. "Are you serious? "
Yes. If you are in a lower bracket, you won't be paying much in taxes in the first place. And if you don't have business expenses to write off or charitable donations to consider, those calculations are not exactly rocket science. And as you pointed out, there are plenty of professionals out there who you can get to do your taxes for you.
"but how many of those people could have saved time and the cost of having prepared taxes by doing them online... for free."
Please provide a link to the free tax preperation software you are talking about here. I would like to save the $40 price of TurboTax.
" You know. I remember seeing BBC story about seeing ATM's in the Gaza strip. One of the more poorer places in the middle east with lack of technological infrastructure. If they have these things, then I'm pretty sure its going to be ubiquitous everywhere else."
WTF? How did we get from discussing the use of home Internet access to the availability of ATMs? You think only computer geeks can operate an ATM? Wow, you really can't comprehend how others live.
Obviously you have never worked a part time job in a fast food restaurant. The guys flipping burgers are not going to be the ones in charge of ordering supplies. That will be left to the manager/owner. And they will likely have a computer hooked up in the store. They won't need home access to order a new case of secret sauce. And the Wi-Fi would almost certainly be left to a contractor or IT specialist.
Thats what, about $70 in US dollars? Thats about what it would cost around here. Thats a lot of money for some people.
Of course at some point broadband will simply become too cheap for dialup to continue to survive, but that doesn't mean there won't be people who just use it for 5 minutes a day to check their email.
For the record, I was not intending to dismiss all Montana residents as crazy wacko Luddites, just one in particular.
Yes, many jobs will require Internet access. Many jobs today require Internet access. But are you seriously going to tell me that day laborers or fast food restaurant workers are going to need access to the Internet in order to do their jobs?
"How long will banking without the internet be reasonable?"
Probably for a very long time. Unless banks can find a way to print money over the Internet, ATMs and physical banks will need to continue to exist.
"When will doing your taxes without it become impractical?"
Its not that hard to fill out a W-2 form. And even with tax programs, you are still going to need to enter the same information. If your taxes are a bit more complex, those programs are very useful, but not everyone is going to need that.
"any more than I can really comprehend people who don't use ATMs."
Well that just means you are not very good at comprehending other people's lifestyles.
Why would it be "almost unimaginable" that there will be people who won't make much use of the Internet 15 years from now? Believe it or not, there is a world outside of /., where people don't use the Internet for much more than occasionally checking their email, and that world will likely continue to exist. Today there are plenty of people who watch very little TV or who don't own CD players, and they are not all crazy wacko Luddites who live in cabins in Montana.
And what, you think that the people who spend their time online reading up progress made on the NP problem (as opposed to those who spend their time playing games, viewing porn, or reading gossip on celebrities) are in the majority?
So you are whining about semantics because your parents don't approve of the way you waste your time? It sounds like you have bigger problems than finding a PC term for your leisure activity, including moving out of your parent's basement.
No, you don't have to play Descartes and doubt everything except that you yourself exist in some form. But don't just repeat everything you hear on the Discovery Channel as if it is unassailable fact.
Just most who advocate such positions do not develop valid scientific theories. And the fact that you refer to evolution as "Darwinism" suggests you are among the majority in that group.
Actually I believe it is the sulfer dioxide that really worries scientists when it comes to volcanic eruptions. It produces a dimming effect which can result in a cooler climate, which causes crop failures, famines, death, etc.
"Glaciers absorbs heat by melting. more heat means less glaciers (and higher sea levels) and less heat absorption."
The net effect of glacier ice on the climate is actually that it reflects sunlight and thus cools the climate (yes, it absorbs some heat, but grasslands and asphalt absorb more). It is an example of positive feedback, which some scientists believe was the cause of a massive ice age in the Earth's distant past in which the entire planet was covered in ice.
Ironically, had what you said been true, that would be a example of negative feedback, which would help prevent global warming.
And sea levels would not rise much at all if the glaciers in the Northern hemisphere melted (and as you mentioned in your last post, during the medival warm period there was very little glacier ice in areas like Greenland, and its not like half of Europe was below sea level back then). It is Antartica which could cause disasters if its ice ever melted, and thats not going to happen soon (in fact many scientists predict global warming would increase the amount of ice down there as it would increase precipitation in an area which is much too cold to melt from a change of temperature of a few degrees).
"How is it misleading to say that it is warmer now than it was in any time in the last 1200 years?"
Well for starters, thats not true, and is not what the article said. It said that the past century was warmer than any century in the past 1200 years. As for what was misleading about that, it is taking one measure of time (centuries), and then using another measure of time (years) in the comparision. As my first post said, it would have been much more appropriate to say "20th Century Warmest in past 12 centuries". Moving from one measure to another makes the data look much more extreme, and was even able to fool you into thinking that it was saying "it is warmer now".
"We don't know what's on the way. It could be horrible, or it could be fine. We Don't Know. Are you willing to gamble that things will turn out ok? I'm not. "
See, I didn't argue that. Claiming that I'm "willing to gamble that things will turn out ok" is an example of dishonesty in a debate. Thats another thing climate alarmists use that I disagree with.
How is reducing reliance on greenhouse gases "running around with our heads vut off"(sic)? I would say that being dependent on oil has resulted in more irrational (and costly) behaviour than anything else.
Build some nuke plants. Use ethanol based fuel for cars. Encourage mass transit. Are these things crazier than being in a constant state of war in the middle east to get the last drops of oil?
Obviously small rational steps to reduce our use of fossil fuels was not what I was referring to. Instead, I was referring to actions such as ratifying something like the Kyoto protocol which would have no effect on the Earth's climate except that it would devestate our economy which would make it less likely that we could actually move beyond fossil fuels.
Throughout the Earth's history, its climate has been constantly changing. There are many factors that can influence it, including (but not limited to) the sun, volcanoes, naturally occuring cycles of weather patterns, changes in how the landscape absorbs heat (think about how much heat a glacier absorbs vs. a grassland vs. an asphalt parking lot), and even the buildup of human-related emissions. Its a very dynamic system, and has been since our planet was born. Yes, if we look at the climate from the perspective human beings are used to (from one year to the next), its fairly consistent, but if you look out further, you will see that is in no way the case.
Since you brought up the current debate over global warming, let me reiterate my point of view (even though here on /., the debate is always framed as either you feel we are all going to die the day after tomorrow, or you are a religous nut who thinks God created the world 6000 years ago). I accept the following statements:
The following I do not accept:
Does any of that make sense?
This is slashdot. News gets here a little slower than most sites.
Also, this is just a BS statistic. Wouldn't it have been more consistent to say "20th Century Warmest in past 12 centuries"? By using a much smaller interval in the comparision, you get something that sounds much more extreme than it really is. 1200 years really isn't that long, especially considering half of that was during the little ice age.
My history book says otherwise...
Who the hell modded this a troll? You don't agree with the guy so he must be trolling? WTF? I hope you were not one of the ones whining about NASA being "censored" regarding their statements on global warming...
Yeah, hence why the headline read "Wasp Larvae Feed on Zombie Roaches" instead of simply "Wasp Larvae Feed on Roaches". This particular mechanism is the interesting aspect of this article.
"Unless Slashdot has a very high percentage of entymologists, I don't think it is that newsworthy for slashdot readers."
We may not have a large percentage of entymologists here, but it does have a large percentage of science nerds who enjoy reading about novel discoveries in the world of science (of course until the site recovers from being /.ed, its hard to determine whether or not this is indeed a novel discovery or just a reprint of something that was discovered some time ago).
Of course this all requires you to recognize that taking unwaivering ideological positions and refusing to listen to anyone with a different position is immature and irrational.
You must be new here. Welcome to /. The article summaries are always inaccurate.
From TFA:
First of all, the emails not on this whitelist are not blocked, they merely have any images or links hidden (and while I am not an AO(hel)L user so I cannot know for sure, I'm guessing there is a way for the user to enable them once they have verified that they do indeed want this particular email). Thats the way they currently have it set up, only now it requries senders to go through a lengthy certification process which they have determined is even harder to go through and less effective.
So no, it will not kill of small free mailing lists.
For the record, I have not played this game, nor do I plan on playing it (hell I still have barely even started Half Life 2, I don't have time for a new video game since getting an actual job), so I cannot speak on the content of this game and whether or not it portreys the slaughter of native Americans as a historical reality, as a gruesome dark chapter in our nation's history (both of which would be ok in a game), or as a heroic and worthy objective (which would not be ok).
Although part of me does want this to go through (although maybe a class action lawsuit would be more appropriate). Then maybe publishers wouldn't think fact-checking as that costly anymore.