I know there are a lot more than 13 things that don't make sense, such as free markets, but, oxymorons aside, this is an interesting list, nevertheless.
Ooo... a clever way to stir the pot without seeming too trollish... Why don't we cue the requisite libertarian free-market crusader and then we can have one of those fun debates that the poster seems to be so keen on initiating?
Having a look at the Wikipedia Monopoly article, you can easily see that the London edition was the 2nd edition made, and came out the year after the Atlantic City edition. The London edition (which is also apparently the standard UK and Commonwealth edition) is the one the BBC uses so the street names are correct.
Not all the Commonwealth countries use the UK edition. I know in Canada, we use the American version.
As neat as this feature is, I certainly wouldn't want it in my house.
Correct, it'd be a horrible addition to a standard house. In some circumstances, where the lights never turn off, this adds another level of safety.
For example, I work in a bizzare housing complex near a Canadian public university. There are no windows, few doors and in many hallways absolutely zero sources of external light. While we do have emergency lights for power outages, tubes like these would certainly be useful to give confidence that one could count on a very low level of light to navigate within the first hour or so of a blackout.
basically unless you are a canadian citizen, chances are your government/country/culture/etc has done something similar to what the terrorists are doing now.
As a Canadian, just wanted to put in my two cents. It's silly to think that Canada is any different from the United States (or any other country, really, but we'll use the US as a point of comparison here). Was just reading an article today, actually, and this post brought the point up.
First of all, it's silly to discount the state discrimination against Canada's own natives - which has indeed led them to the present-day position of occupying a far disproportanate share of our corrections system as well as being plagued with a spate of socioeconomic disadvantages. In the 1930s, there are cases of academically achieving black and native students being denied scholarships/prizes by virtue of their races.
Second of all, and almost more importantly . . . the KKK was active in Canada as well as the United States - while there is a temptation to ascribe the KKK to a sort of spill-over from the United States, there has certainly been a Canadian movement. Much of this continues from Canada's own discrimination. Remember that Slavery was legal in Canada, even past the abolition movement in the northern United States. Indeed, there are tales of Canadian slaves fleeing to New England!
Sort of an unrelated, off-topic diatribte on the history of discrimination in Canada, but perhaps some food for thought.
While agreeing with the ACLU that this is a step in the wrong direction, it is not as troubling as one thinks. We must keep it in mind that Disney is a private corporation and is able to set barriers to access to its parks. As long as they're not discriminating based on protected categories, their requirement for fingerprints must be protested with lack of patronage but little else. Ultimately, I think in overly security-concious America, we'll see that the public views this as a 'lesser evil' in the broader war on 'terror'. Indeed, they'll gladly surrender their fingerprints in order for the mirage of safety within Disney - perhaps they prefer it to a seemingly non-secure environment like... oh Six Flags?
The only problem I could see is if this applies to season-ticket or regular-ticket owners who bought their tickets under circumstances that did notinvolve fingerprinting and are now faced with fingerprinting or being refused access to the park.
Let's remember that this is the NYT reporter who wrote stories citing that anonymous sources knew that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Oh, well by all means, then let's just have her thrown to the wolves then eh? Despite her other stories, the fact remains that Judith Miller is willing to take prison time for the sake of her professional ethics. I consider her reporting on the WMDs in Iraq to be incidental to the case - and a whole other bag of proverbial worms.
According to this ABC News article, a re-examination of the available data suggests obesity is still a health risk, but the 'pleasantly plump' among us 'do not have the same health risks as obese individuals.'
First off, there seems to be some number-shuffling here. This is a very politicized and personal topic for a lot of people, and different motivations are behind the different studies. This particular study has been trumpeted by the main-stream media (it's been out for a few days now) because it is different and will attract reader's interest. The scientists that told us that having a BMI over 25 will most likely still stick to their guns and say that we should be healthy. The danger of this study is the attitude that we even saw in the original post:
But, from the article: 'People shouldn't think that this study gives them a free trip to the pork rind buffet.' Believe what you want, but you'd better hope I don't get to the Twinkies aisle before you.
Come now, you may not be at as high a risk as previous studies had indicated - and may be even better off than an unhealthy skinflint, but there is no rational way that binging on the Twinkies aisle will benefit your health whatsoever. I know it was flippant and humorous, but it's still a dangerous idea to think that you can eat Joe Lois, maintain a BMI of 29 and be healthy. Indeed, it's not the BMI - it's the food you eat, the nutrition, etc.
I thought this was kind of neat. From the CNN article:
The LEGO competition is the brainchild of Dean Kaman, inventor of the Segway scooter. It's part of his FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) Championship -- a global robotics competition for middle school and high school students.
Good on him, I haven't heard much of him since his vaunted Segway scooter. That being said, I think that it'll help more people 'think outside of the box'. Imagine if you had started doing this sort of thing between the ages of 9 - 14; you'd either burn out and be sick of it, or you'd continue to build on your knowledge until your in university and can really compete/innovate!
It doesn't stop with the cited sources either, this proposal has an extremely wide scope. From TFA:
SOCAN's proposal does not stop with music download services. The new Tariff 22 also calls for a tariff of 15 percent of gross revenues from both audio webcast sites that feature content similar to conventional radio stations as well as from established radio stations that webcast their signal. Moreover, gaming sites that communicate musical works as part of their games face a potential tariff of ten percent of gross revenues. In fact, to ensure that no one escapes Tariff 22, SOCAN envisions a tariff of ten percent of gross revenues for all other sites that communicate music.
Ultimately, this is all a bunch of legal poppycock. It's a proposal, and I'd argue that it's a damn stupid, untenable proposal. We need to let the Canadian government know that its a stupid proposal, but I have a feeling that they'll see it for what it is. After all, they've ruled positively in downloading cases before - what with our tariff on blank media.
My exact thoughts on reading the article. This quotation spells out the beliefs of the project leadership:
Verton said the unit's capabilities are highly classified, but he believes they can destroy networks and penetrate enemy computers to steal or manipulate data. He said they may also be able to set loose a worm to take down command-and-control systems so the enemy is unable to communicate and direct ground forces, or fire surface-to-air missiles, for example.
Pure poppycock, IMHO. Most armies infrastructures are old enough that they have backup programs. The idea that a hacker could shut down an entire air-defence grid raises eyebrows, as most likely that air-defence grid was designed before the advent of computer networks - and military leaders are wary of trusting so much equipment.
India has gained global repute as a hub of software professionals while China is strong on computer hardware. Both countries' cheap and plentiful labor has undercut the tech industry in America and other Western countries through outsourcing.
Seems as if they're trading on the principle of 'comparative' advantage, something that makes perfect sense. Software in India, hardware in China. Now, I understand that we're going to see some misguided anti-Globalisation backlash on this site. Overall, firms will then get lower prices for their tech products. Everybody will win from this.
Just before people jump on the bashing Anarchy Online bandwagon, I just wanted to remind readers that Anarchy Online's advertisements are only for those who are taking advantage of their free-play initiative. Paying subscribers do not see the advertisements.
Seems to make sense to me.
That being said, I do think that contemporary advertisements are out of place in MMORPGs that do not take place in a contemporary environment! The case of the 'Nike Sword' is an apt analogy, as nothing would shatter the illusion of 'reality' (for whatever thats worse) anything more than an extremely ill-planned product placement.
does anyone else find it odd that he only planned on being in one season...
An insightful post. One has to wonder what Eccleson thought, signing on to a series that one must have thought he must have hoped would have been successful? Either he was banking on Dr. Who tanking (doubtful) or simply wasn't thinking ahead.
Now this is just a wild-assed guess, but perhaps he's trying to make the leap off the small screen and Dr. Who was seen as a mechanism for him to make the transition. He certainly has recieved more media attention in light of this move - the initial reports of his departure from the show as well as the reports of the BBC apology?
Suppose that's just free publicity. He did get two appearances on Slashdot however.... and that can't mean nothing can it?!
"The BBC regrets not speaking to Christopher before it responded to the press questions on Wednesday 30 March," the BBC's head of drama and commissioning, Jane Tranter, said in a statement. "The BBC further regrets that it falsely attributed a statement to Christopher and apologizes to him."
Good apology for the BBC. Now, I'd reckon that this is out of fear of a libel case being filed against the BBC. Eccleson should be rightly miffed that the BBC would slag his good name, which of course lead to great consternation and comment on Slashdot.
I guess he just pissed off the BBC management and they gave the green light on a report that just happened to jump the gun.
In Partial Disagreement With the Above
on
Our Ratings, Ourselves
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'll admit that you make several valid points, but overall your post reaks of intellectualistic superiority. First of all, it's dangerous to condemn the 'masses' for enjoying television after a long day at work. I'm sure you waste your time on something as well, although slashdot.org may seem like a more stimulating pursuit, for example, it is still really not accomplishing anything.
The TV could be so much more. Chances are you can get more from the editorial section of the newspaper than in a half hour news program. And where is the science and history on TV? Maybe we will get a science channel once cable hits channel 700. *sigh*
Perhaps it's because I'm up here in Canada, but it seems as if we have plenty of quality programing. Documentaries on CBC constantly interest; a recent one documented a National Guard battallion deploying to your ongoing War in Iraq. Television as a media can convey things that you can't read about to the same degree, and television allows lower-quality productions.
As for history, our History channel here does occasionally present valuable historical documentaries, although I'll conceed that their presentation of 'JAG' three times a day does diminish their esteem. But heck, sometimes it's fun to kick back and watch 'JAG', ridicule the rediculous plotlines and turn off the brain.
So while I do understand your argument, and conceed its validity in some parts, I find it hard to pass blanket condemnation of television.
The question is will we get to the point where our brains just can't take it? Will we have to pass such things onto computers, or find a way to enhance our brains to cope with it?
See, I take the opposite view on this. I feel that technology is actually making life a lot easier for our brains. Perhaps not for all of us, but take an average person. You can effectively run much of your life on autopilot. Driving a car, following mindless rules, technology providing cues and such. Really, many of the things that used to occupy time can now be done through automation - or at least are 'outsourced'. I'm of course looking at the middle-class of North America, but still. I think its hard to make a case that the average citizen is overworked and having trouble coping with technology.
Certainly there are cases of people feeling overwhelmed, but I think they are a minority - vocal, perhaps - but still a minority.
As the astronauts who walked on the moon found out, the dust scratched lenses and corroded seals within hours. Some of the particles are only microns across which means once they get into your lungs, they stay there. This could cause a lung disease similar to silicosis.
I wonder if breathing a vaccum without 'dust' in the air would cause a lung disease too?
The CBC is reporting that starting in 2007, most Canadians will require a passport to cross into the United States and by 2008 Americans who crossed freely into Canada will be unable to return to the United States without a passport. The tougher new rules still allow Canadians to cross without being fingerprinted, but every person from any other country will be required to submit to fingerprinting.
Now, it's my understanding that a sovereign country can control their borders in any way they see fit. Perhaps there's some sort of rights argument to be made about the americans who need a passport to re-enter their country, although it doesn't seem like a major issue, but Canadians.. heck, I'm a Canadian, and it doesn't really effect our rights. America can do whatever they want with their borders to non-citizens. If they don't want to let us come in, heck, that really is their perogative.
Slashdot Mirror
Which was based on David Simon's book Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, although anecdotally, so it has some credibility to it.
No, most of Canada is also nineteen. Only Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec have a drinking age of 18 if I remember correctly off the top of my head.
Or, more likely, you'd have more numerous single-casaulty shooting incidents as more weapons would result in possibly more ivolent flareups.
(I jest of course, being stuck in my own small town right now)
Not all the Commonwealth countries use the UK edition. I know in Canada, we use the American version.
Am I the only one who thinks it's funny that a town would be proud of such an achievement?
As neat as this feature is, I certainly wouldn't want it in my house.
Correct, it'd be a horrible addition to a standard house. In some circumstances, where the lights never turn off, this adds another level of safety.
For example, I work in a bizzare housing complex near a Canadian public university. There are no windows, few doors and in many hallways absolutely zero sources of external light. While we do have emergency lights for power outages, tubes like these would certainly be useful to give confidence that one could count on a very low level of light to navigate within the first hour or so of a blackout.
basically unless you are a canadian citizen, chances are your government/country/culture/etc has done something similar to what the terrorists are doing now.
As a Canadian, just wanted to put in my two cents. It's silly to think that Canada is any different from the United States (or any other country, really, but we'll use the US as a point of comparison here). Was just reading an article today, actually, and this post brought the point up.
First of all, it's silly to discount the state discrimination against Canada's own natives - which has indeed led them to the present-day position of occupying a far disproportanate share of our corrections system as well as being plagued with a spate of socioeconomic disadvantages. In the 1930s, there are cases of academically achieving black and native students being denied scholarships/prizes by virtue of their races.
Second of all, and almost more importantly . . . the KKK was active in Canada as well as the United States - while there is a temptation to ascribe the KKK to a sort of spill-over from the United States, there has certainly been a Canadian movement. Much of this continues from Canada's own discrimination. Remember that Slavery was legal in Canada, even past the abolition movement in the northern United States. Indeed, there are tales of Canadian slaves fleeing to New England!
Sort of an unrelated, off-topic diatribte on the history of discrimination in Canada, but perhaps some food for thought.
While agreeing with the ACLU that this is a step in the wrong direction, it is not as troubling as one thinks. We must keep it in mind that Disney is a private corporation and is able to set barriers to access to its parks. As long as they're not discriminating based on protected categories, their requirement for fingerprints must be protested with lack of patronage but little else. Ultimately, I think in overly security-concious America, we'll see that the public views this as a 'lesser evil' in the broader war on 'terror'. Indeed, they'll gladly surrender their fingerprints in order for the mirage of safety within Disney - perhaps they prefer it to a seemingly non-secure environment like ... oh Six Flags?
The only problem I could see is if this applies to season-ticket or regular-ticket owners who bought their tickets under circumstances that did notinvolve fingerprinting and are now faced with fingerprinting or being refused access to the park.
Let's remember that this is the NYT reporter who wrote stories citing that anonymous sources knew that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Oh, well by all means, then let's just have her thrown to the wolves then eh? Despite her other stories, the fact remains that Judith Miller is willing to take prison time for the sake of her professional ethics. I consider her reporting on the WMDs in Iraq to be incidental to the case - and a whole other bag of proverbial worms.
According to this ABC News article, a re-examination of the available data suggests obesity is still a health risk, but the 'pleasantly plump' among us 'do not have the same health risks as obese individuals.'
First off, there seems to be some number-shuffling here. This is a very politicized and personal topic for a lot of people, and different motivations are behind the different studies. This particular study has been trumpeted by the main-stream media (it's been out for a few days now) because it is different and will attract reader's interest. The scientists that told us that having a BMI over 25 will most likely still stick to their guns and say that we should be healthy. The danger of this study is the attitude that we even saw in the original post:
But, from the article: 'People shouldn't think that this study gives them a free trip to the pork rind buffet.' Believe what you want, but you'd better hope I don't get to the Twinkies aisle before you.
Come now, you may not be at as high a risk as previous studies had indicated - and may be even better off than an unhealthy skinflint, but there is no rational way that binging on the Twinkies aisle will benefit your health whatsoever. I know it was flippant and humorous, but it's still a dangerous idea to think that you can eat Joe Lois, maintain a BMI of 29 and be healthy. Indeed, it's not the BMI - it's the food you eat, the nutrition, etc.
I thought this was kind of neat. From the CNN article:
The LEGO competition is the brainchild of Dean Kaman, inventor of the Segway scooter. It's part of his FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) Championship -- a global robotics competition for middle school and high school students.
Good on him, I haven't heard much of him since his vaunted Segway scooter. That being said, I think that it'll help more people 'think outside of the box'. Imagine if you had started doing this sort of thing between the ages of 9 - 14; you'd either burn out and be sick of it, or you'd continue to build on your knowledge until your in university and can really compete/innovate!
No, the first time graphics popped up here at Slashdot was when they reviewed Halo 2 a few weeks ago.
Still a relatively new phenomenon however.
It doesn't stop with the cited sources either, this proposal has an extremely wide scope. From TFA:
SOCAN's proposal does not stop with music download services. The new Tariff 22 also calls for a tariff of 15 percent of gross revenues from both audio webcast sites that feature content similar to conventional radio stations as well as from established radio stations that webcast their signal. Moreover, gaming sites that communicate musical works as part of their games face a potential tariff of ten percent of gross revenues. In fact, to ensure that no one escapes Tariff 22, SOCAN envisions a tariff of ten percent of gross revenues for all other sites that communicate music.
Ultimately, this is all a bunch of legal poppycock. It's a proposal, and I'd argue that it's a damn stupid, untenable proposal. We need to let the Canadian government know that its a stupid proposal, but I have a feeling that they'll see it for what it is. After all, they've ruled positively in downloading cases before - what with our tariff on blank media.
My exact thoughts on reading the article. This quotation spells out the beliefs of the project leadership:
Verton said the unit's capabilities are highly classified, but he believes they can destroy networks and penetrate enemy computers to steal or manipulate data. He said they may also be able to set loose a worm to take down command-and-control systems so the enemy is unable to communicate and direct ground forces, or fire surface-to-air missiles, for example.
Pure poppycock, IMHO. Most armies infrastructures are old enough that they have backup programs. The idea that a hacker could shut down an entire air-defence grid raises eyebrows, as most likely that air-defence grid was designed before the advent of computer networks - and military leaders are wary of trusting so much equipment.
Makes sense.
India has gained global repute as a hub of software professionals while China is strong on computer hardware. Both countries' cheap and plentiful labor has undercut the tech industry in America and other Western countries through outsourcing.
Seems as if they're trading on the principle of 'comparative' advantage, something that makes perfect sense. Software in India, hardware in China. Now, I understand that we're going to see some misguided anti-Globalisation backlash on this site. Overall, firms will then get lower prices for their tech products. Everybody will win from this.
Just before people jump on the bashing Anarchy Online bandwagon, I just wanted to remind readers that Anarchy Online's advertisements are only for those who are taking advantage of their free-play initiative. Paying subscribers do not see the advertisements.
Seems to make sense to me.
That being said, I do think that contemporary advertisements are out of place in MMORPGs that do not take place in a contemporary environment! The case of the 'Nike Sword' is an apt analogy, as nothing would shatter the illusion of 'reality' (for whatever thats worse) anything more than an extremely ill-planned product placement.
does anyone else find it odd that he only planned on being in one season...
An insightful post. One has to wonder what Eccleson thought, signing on to a series that one must have thought he must have hoped would have been successful? Either he was banking on Dr. Who tanking (doubtful) or simply wasn't thinking ahead.
Now this is just a wild-assed guess, but perhaps he's trying to make the leap off the small screen and Dr. Who was seen as a mechanism for him to make the transition. He certainly has recieved more media attention in light of this move - the initial reports of his departure from the show as well as the reports of the BBC apology?
Suppose that's just free publicity. He did get two appearances on Slashdot however.... and that can't mean nothing can it?!
"The BBC regrets not speaking to Christopher before it responded to the press questions on Wednesday 30 March," the BBC's head of drama and commissioning, Jane Tranter, said in a statement. "The BBC further regrets that it falsely attributed a statement to Christopher and apologizes to him."
Good apology for the BBC. Now, I'd reckon that this is out of fear of a libel case being filed against the BBC. Eccleson should be rightly miffed that the BBC would slag his good name, which of course lead to great consternation and comment on Slashdot.
I guess he just pissed off the BBC management and they gave the green light on a report that just happened to jump the gun.
I'll admit that you make several valid points, but overall your post reaks of intellectualistic superiority. First of all, it's dangerous to condemn the 'masses' for enjoying television after a long day at work. I'm sure you waste your time on something as well, although slashdot.org may seem like a more stimulating pursuit, for example, it is still really not accomplishing anything.
The TV could be so much more. Chances are you can get more from the editorial section of the newspaper than in a half hour news program. And where is the science and history on TV? Maybe we will get a science channel once cable hits channel 700. *sigh*
Perhaps it's because I'm up here in Canada, but it seems as if we have plenty of quality programing. Documentaries on CBC constantly interest; a recent one documented a National Guard battallion deploying to your ongoing War in Iraq. Television as a media can convey things that you can't read about to the same degree, and television allows lower-quality productions.
As for history, our History channel here does occasionally present valuable historical documentaries, although I'll conceed that their presentation of 'JAG' three times a day does diminish their esteem. But heck, sometimes it's fun to kick back and watch 'JAG', ridicule the rediculous plotlines and turn off the brain.
So while I do understand your argument, and conceed its validity in some parts, I find it hard to pass blanket condemnation of television.
The question is will we get to the point where our brains just can't take it? Will we have to pass such things onto computers, or find a way to enhance our brains to cope with it?
See, I take the opposite view on this. I feel that technology is actually making life a lot easier for our brains. Perhaps not for all of us, but take an average person. You can effectively run much of your life on autopilot. Driving a car, following mindless rules, technology providing cues and such. Really, many of the things that used to occupy time can now be done through automation - or at least are 'outsourced'. I'm of course looking at the middle-class of North America, but still. I think its hard to make a case that the average citizen is overworked and having trouble coping with technology.
Certainly there are cases of people feeling overwhelmed, but I think they are a minority - vocal, perhaps - but still a minority.
This is this the most humorless poster I've read today.
Yes, the misspelling is intentional.
As the astronauts who walked on the moon found out, the dust scratched lenses and corroded seals within hours. Some of the particles are only microns across which means once they get into your lungs, they stay there. This could cause a lung disease similar to silicosis.
I wonder if breathing a vaccum without 'dust' in the air would cause a lung disease too?
The CBC is reporting that starting in 2007, most Canadians will require a passport to cross into the United States and by 2008 Americans who crossed freely into Canada will be unable to return to the United States without a passport. The tougher new rules still allow Canadians to cross without being fingerprinted, but every person from any other country will be required to submit to fingerprinting.
Now, it's my understanding that a sovereign country can control their borders in any way they see fit. Perhaps there's some sort of rights argument to be made about the americans who need a passport to re-enter their country, although it doesn't seem like a major issue, but Canadians.. heck, I'm a Canadian, and it doesn't really effect our rights. America can do whatever they want with their borders to non-citizens. If they don't want to let us come in, heck, that really is their perogative.