BTW, I realise 'Bowling for Columbine' isn't a particularly good reference to cite, but its better than making a claim without saying where the claim came from, because that would make refuting it more difficult.
The US is the ONLY western country I can think of where it is common for people to own guns, the ONLY ONE. And, it has by far the highest rate of gun deaths. Now, I'm not trying to infer causality here, it may be a coincidence. But it's one big fucking coincidence if you ask me.
Watching Bowling for Columbine changed my mind about this. Sure, it might be incorrect, but according to that, the ratio of guns to people in Candada is higher than in the US, and far, far less people are killed by guns there. (Of course, maybe they have more rifles and less handguns?). This seems to suggest that it is not just the existence of guns that is the problem.
However, I feel that less guns is better. I live in Australia, we have very very tight gun laws, and I think its great. Only the army, police, farmers and gun hobbists (who use them only on firing ranges), aswell as those who have them illegally. Someone might then say, "But that means law-abiding citizens on the street can't defend themselves, since criminals will have guns". Well, the chances of a petty criminal having a gun is much lower, so overall its much safer.
Dunno why I mentioned that last part, I'm actually just trying to say its not the quantity of guns that is important, its something else. (But my view that less guns = good).
I don't like the word agnostic. Or atheist. Everyone has their own definition of the words. If I say 'Im agnostic', someone might think I'm undecided on the issue, or I simply deny certainty or maybe that I consider religion and science to be equally valid, or something like that. If I say 'I'm an atheist', they may think I believe god doesn't exist, don't believe in god (different), or something similar.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I think it gets sort of pointless to chuck yourself in a group just because it has a word to describe it, and to spend too much time defining them is pointless, since not everyone will ever see each group in the same light.
Only ones I've ever seen are jars of peanuts saying 'warning: may contain traces of nuts'. Which is fair enough because PEANUTS ARE NOT NUTS, THEY ARE LEGUMES!
I think its fair enough that warning like that exist, because its technically correct. (yeah, parent's warning is a bit different though).
:)
Thats an interesting idea, but I doubt that theory works for the majority of people who hate ads. Most people are probably just sick of seeing stupid ads all the time, they don't worry that they might click them.
Looks like I was missing something important:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
So, in the case of the star, both are correct. Time is moving slower on star from our pov, and slower on earth from star's pov.
I was going to say "they are both right", but I'm not sure if it works like you said for time. I know that for length constraction, both frames are correct, both actually do get shorter from each others POV, but not their own.
I don't gethow they can both be right since: John has a twin Fred. Fred flies off in his uber1337 ship that travels around for a while at 0.99c, while John stays on earth. Fred returns later and finds that John has aged 10 years, while fred has only aged 1 year.
This only seems to make sense if from fred's POV john's time was moving faster, and from john's view fred's time was moving slower. I'm pretty sure thats right, but in that case why can't it be the other way around?
I think I'm missing someone with this, and could probably google it, but I'm too tired and will do it tommorow, and maybe reply to Parent and myself:P
But still, games were better back then, when they concentrated more on the gameplay and/or story before the prettiness of the graphics.
I'm not entirely disagreeing with you here, but lets look at an example: Doom.
I played doom1, loved it. I've played doom3 for a bit, and it got boring. Why is that? Doom1 and doom3 both have the same gameplay, doom3 has prettier graphics. I enjoyed doom because it was original, but if I played it now, I'd get sick of it quickly, just like doom3.
I personally think gameplay for some genres has improved (not for every game though). Having said that some games are nothing more than fancy graphics.
Anyway, I tend to prefer multiplayer games, so maybe my point of view doesn't count:P
Sadly, it seems that the people in power think along the lines of 'wow, computers are high-tech. High-tech is better, and faster, and must be better for elections'. Actually, I can't see how anyone could be that stupid. I mean its not hard, just read about the problems with electronic voting. Listen to the people explaining how hard it is to do it in a secure manner. Well, actually, it seems to me that Diebold did a pretty shitty job. If that was a project at uni, I'm sure they would have failed, or had the pay the person marking it or something...
Your right. The problem with many discussions of voting machines is that it gets media coverage AFTER the election. People supporting the voting method just say 'you're just crying because your party lost'. The point is people knew of problems BEFORE the election, but I doubt most of the public will want to hear that.
Lets assume that Bush actually won (I'm not infering he didn't, just there's a tiny possibility that he didn't). If we found that a fault/tampering caused kerry to get more votes than were actually due (by comparing say, the electronic votes to the paper trai.....*cough*...ok, just _somehow_) then THAT IS STILL A PROBLEM. The point of a democracy is that everyone has a vote, and that vote counts, and their vote should represent their opinion, not someone else's or an error (yeah, paper ballots have errors too...) *sigh* Its sucks when the most powerful nation on Earth can't organise its own elections properly:(
This is not a word. When you learn to form your thoughts into correctly spelled words, then you can come back and share your wisdom on global climate issues.
Re:Okay, I need to come out and say this..
on
Bad Science Awards
·
· Score: 1
But how is the update sent to users? I know IE bugs are fixed by windows updates, but firefox doesn't have that advantage.
I haven't noticed firefox updating itself recently, but maybe I'm just not observant:)
Reminds me of something that happened years ago. Had IE and Netscape open at the same time. I left the room, and when I came back, netscape had crashed. I swear IE murdered it.
The plural of virus is not "virii". As cool as it sounds, the correct plural is simply "viruses". Of course, I guess if enough people use "virii", people know what you mean, but it can make you look silly.
Sorry, just had to say it:P (If you don't believe me, look up OED)
Re:Cockroach bomb shelters and buttered kitten pow
on
The Year In Ideas
·
· Score: 1
Compared to the failed dog-deadfish reactor, yes, very clean.
If you want to see one, go and buy one... ? They are pretty common.
Re:Cockroach bomb shelters and buttered kitten pow
on
The Year In Ideas
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Yes, many many people have considered and attempted to build the butter-cat core reactors. Currently more energy must be put into the system than can be drawn from it.
As the core spins, the butter is flung outwards, causing the system to shut down quickly. Researchers have overcome this problem by cooling the system and containing the core inside a super-conductive bread 'bottle'. As any final year physics student will tell you, cold butter can not be spread onto bread, infact, it is repelled by it. By surrounding the core with high-intensity bread fields, the butter is pushed towards the centre of the reactor, sticking to the cat. Of course, this system requires large amounts of energy.
Much research has gone into this technology, and scientists believe that they have a design that will produce more energy than is put into the system.
Construction of the prototype is due to commence shortly, however it is an international effort. Currently progress has been halted because France and Japan are arguing over who should have the reactor on their soil. Supporters of the french claim that their skills in making french toast will allow for a higher quality core. On the other hand, Japan's extensive collection of 'hello kitty' products puts them at the forefront of feline technology.
Where ever the prototype is constructed, this is an exciting time to be alive. Cheap, clean power is just around the corner.
Emergency number here in Australia is 000
Seems to make a lot more sense to me, maybe theres some technical reason for not using the simplest combination? Or maybe a different reason?
Depends what you mean by 'children'. A parent should gradually introduce the child to the real world, where they aren't always been looked after by mummy and daddy. If you don't give your children any responsibility of their own when they are younger, when they hit 18 (or 21, depending on your country), they aren't going to magically be responsible!
Sure, for younger children (I'm not specifying a particular age, thats my point), they should be monitored all the time. But as they grow up, they should be treated more and more like adults, and that includes respecting their privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, I realise 'Bowling for Columbine' isn't a particularly good reference to cite, but its better than making a claim without saying where the claim came from, because that would make refuting it more difficult.
Watching Bowling for Columbine changed my mind about this. Sure, it might be incorrect, but according to that, the ratio of guns to people in Candada is higher than in the US, and far, far less people are killed by guns there. (Of course, maybe they have more rifles and less handguns?).
This seems to suggest that it is not just the existence of guns that is the problem.
However, I feel that less guns is better. I live in Australia, we have very very tight gun laws, and I think its great. Only the army, police, farmers and gun hobbists (who use them only on firing ranges), aswell as those who have them illegally. Someone might then say, "But that means law-abiding citizens on the street can't defend themselves, since criminals will have guns". Well, the chances of a petty criminal having a gun is much lower, so overall its much safer.
Dunno why I mentioned that last part, I'm actually just trying to say its not the quantity of guns that is important, its something else. (But my view that less guns = good).
I don't like the word agnostic. Or atheist. Everyone has their own definition of the words. If I say 'Im agnostic', someone might think I'm undecided on the issue, or I simply deny certainty or maybe that I consider religion and science to be equally valid, or something like that. If I say 'I'm an atheist', they may think I believe god doesn't exist, don't believe in god (different), or something similar.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I think it gets sort of pointless to chuck yourself in a group just because it has a word to describe it, and to spend too much time defining them is pointless, since not everyone will ever see each group in the same light.
Only ones I've ever seen are jars of peanuts saying 'warning: may contain traces of nuts'. Which is fair enough because PEANUTS ARE NOT NUTS, THEY ARE LEGUMES!
:)
I think its fair enough that warning like that exist, because its technically correct. (yeah, parent's warning is a bit different though).
Thats an interesting idea, but I doubt that theory works for the majority of people who hate ads. Most people are probably just sick of seeing stupid ads all the time, they don't worry that they might click them.
Looks like I was missing something important:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
So, in the case of the star, both are correct. Time is moving slower on star from our pov, and slower on earth from star's pov.
I was going to say "they are both right", but I'm not sure if it works like you said for time. I know that for length constraction, both frames are correct, both actually do get shorter from each others POV, but not their own. :P
I don't gethow they can both be right since: John has a twin Fred. Fred flies off in his uber1337 ship that travels around for a while at 0.99c, while John stays on earth. Fred returns later and finds that John has aged 10 years, while fred has only aged 1 year.
This only seems to make sense if from fred's POV john's time was moving faster, and from john's view fred's time was moving slower. I'm pretty sure thats right, but in that case why can't it be the other way around?
I think I'm missing someone with this, and could probably google it, but I'm too tired and will do it tommorow, and maybe reply to Parent and myself
I played doom1, loved it. I've played doom3 for a bit, and it got boring. Why is that? Doom1 and doom3 both have the same gameplay, doom3 has prettier graphics. I enjoyed doom because it was original, but if I played it now, I'd get sick of it quickly, just like doom3.
I personally think gameplay for some genres has improved (not for every game though). Having said that some games are nothing more than fancy graphics.
Anyway, I tend to prefer multiplayer games, so maybe my point of view doesn't count
Sadly, it seems that the people in power think along the lines of 'wow, computers are high-tech. High-tech is better, and faster, and must be better for elections'. Actually, I can't see how anyone could be that stupid. I mean its not hard, just read about the problems with electronic voting. Listen to the people explaining how hard it is to do it in a secure manner. Well, actually, it seems to me that Diebold did a pretty shitty job. If that was a project at uni, I'm sure they would have failed, or had the pay the person marking it or something...
Your right. The problem with many discussions of voting machines is that it gets media coverage AFTER the election. People supporting the voting method just say 'you're just crying because your party lost'. The point is people knew of problems BEFORE the election, but I doubt most of the public will want to hear that.
:(
Lets assume that Bush actually won (I'm not infering he didn't, just there's a tiny possibility that he didn't). If we found that a fault/tampering caused kerry to get more votes than were actually due (by comparing say, the electronic votes to the paper trai.....*cough*...ok, just _somehow_) then THAT IS STILL A PROBLEM. The point of a democracy is that everyone has a vote, and that vote counts, and their vote should represent their opinion, not someone else's or an error (yeah, paper ballots have errors too...) *sigh* Its sucks when the most powerful nation on Earth can't organise its own elections properly
...These in a rubiks cube! Move them around to find the best connections incase important bricks' connections fail :P
Well put Jerf. You hit the nail on the head.
Yes, I can't understand why people would use it, unless they are looking at /. at work or something.
:P
I think you shouldn't be allowed to post on slashdot if you use IE
But how is the update sent to users? I know IE bugs are fixed by windows updates, but firefox doesn't have that advantage. I haven't noticed firefox updating itself recently, but maybe I'm just not observant :)
Yeah, but it wouldn't be murder, it would be euthanasia
Meh, fair enough.
Reminds me of something that happened years ago. Had IE and Netscape open at the same time. I left the room, and when I came back, netscape had crashed. I swear IE murdered it.
The plural of virus is not "virii". As cool as it sounds, the correct plural is simply "viruses". Of course, I guess if enough people use "virii", people know what you mean, but it can make you look silly.
:P (If you don't believe me, look up OED)
Sorry, just had to say it
Compared to the failed dog-deadfish reactor, yes, very clean.
If you want to see one, go and buy one... ? They are pretty common.
Yes, many many people have considered and attempted to build the butter-cat core reactors. Currently more energy must be put into the system than can be drawn from it.
As the core spins, the butter is flung outwards, causing the system to shut down quickly. Researchers have overcome this problem by cooling the system and containing the core inside a super-conductive bread 'bottle'. As any final year physics student will tell you, cold butter can not be spread onto bread, infact, it is repelled by it. By surrounding the core with high-intensity bread fields, the butter is pushed towards the centre of the reactor, sticking to the cat. Of course, this system requires large amounts of energy.
Much research has gone into this technology, and scientists believe that they have a design that will produce more energy than is put into the system.
Construction of the prototype is due to commence shortly, however it is an international effort. Currently progress has been halted because France and Japan are arguing over who should have the reactor on their soil. Supporters of the french claim that their skills in making french toast will allow for a higher quality core. On the other hand, Japan's extensive collection of 'hello kitty' products puts them at the forefront of feline technology.
Where ever the prototype is constructed, this is an exciting time to be alive. Cheap, clean power is just around the corner.
Ahhh. That makes sense.
Emergency number here in Australia is 000 Seems to make a lot more sense to me, maybe theres some technical reason for not using the simplest combination? Or maybe a different reason?
Depends what you mean by 'children'. A parent should gradually introduce the child to the real world, where they aren't always been looked after by mummy and daddy. If you don't give your children any responsibility of their own when they are younger, when they hit 18 (or 21, depending on your country), they aren't going to magically be responsible!
Sure, for younger children (I'm not specifying a particular age, thats my point), they should be monitored all the time. But as they grow up, they should be treated more and more like adults, and that includes respecting their privacy.