The Church of Scientology is a cult. Plain and simple.
However - that's probably just fine as long as they don't start screwing up the lives of other people.
Now that is harsh. Pool of Radiance was an incredible game on my C64. I can't believe you would ever say such harsh things.
Sure - clearing the slums was tedius but it was oh so fun to finally get rid of those Kobalds. More games should be like POR.
Wet down the ground - give one of the rocks a bit of a shove and see what happens.
In fact the concept is the same as why curling rocks slide - the ice is actually 'pebbled' in a similar fashion as the cracked mud in these pics.
These are the kinds of fringe things that people remember and talk about. There was a discount brokerage firm back in the tech times (won't name it) that had an option to hear a duck quack. After word got out it crashed the phone system from volume of calls - people who otherwise wouldn't have a need to call just called and heard a duck quack.
Not that I think it was a great business move - it is fun, refreshing and i'm sure people loved the humor that the company showed and opened an account.
"one of the most celebrated works of architecture unveiled in years, caused leaks to spring, masonry to crack, mold to grow, and drainage to back up..... The complex.....includes the William H. Gates Building."
Sort of reads like a commentary on a popular PC operating system.
Gehry should do an upgrade of the William H. Gates building that will look 90% different, be strangely larger for no reason, have no flow to it, cost you every time you walk in the door even if you work there, the lights take 6 minutes to turn on in the morning and even then won't go on 30% of the time, and you have to hit 3 buttons to un-jam the elevator every 45 minutes.
I always tell people I'm going to pick the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 (and 7 if it's a 7 digit lottery).
They look at me like I'm a crazy man. How could those numbers come out like that... impossibly remote.
But the odds say it's as likely as any other.
Disclaimer: I'm not in my IT dept. I first thought it was spyware (not knowing why it was suddenly there). I disabled it. It's annoying - I forever hate things changing 'for the sake of change'.
I disabled it but our IT dept tells me the icon will likely reappear periodically (they sort of throw up their arms at this stuff). I have 8 little icons on the bottom right of my machine - most of them aren't intrusive. I'm sure this little MS one will be more annoying than most (dog... paperclip). Stupid idiots.
I agree with your comments that the article is light on fact and makes quite a jump from the protest to 'here's the current tech'- but it's a very legit newspaper known for invesitating stories thoroughly before publishing them. Peer pressure more than the people from above coming down on you would probably be enough for anyone at the paper to be sure of their facts before they put them to print (unless the author wanted to be known as a whacko).
It's not World Weekly News anyhow - BUT - show me the evidence.
Maybe next time the political protestors will show up with bug nets and catch one of them robotic bug-bugs.
Funny though how people think this will flop when in reality Google seems to make gold out of anything and do it in a 'non invasive' way. Gmail is great and google is the leading search engine. Sure there are a few people freaking about rights and whatnot but they search about those rights violations on google.
I'm betting they'll do this, do it right, and revolutionize the cell phone - putting the crap old guard out of business or at least change them into something better. I for one would welcome free calls on my cell phone if they did it in such a non invasive way - so that it was as nice to use as Gmail.
This post is perhaps the most interesting one (to me) I've ever read on slashdot. Nice write-up! Beowolf cluster comments are funny but for insight this has them beat.
I work in the financial field - there is a number of very fascinating behavioural issues that creep in to people with their money and investing. Your comments are very relevant to decision making of all sorts.
Man, how things have changed. When I went to University in 1993... the internet was JUST coming onto the scene (no GUI and I still remember my bizarre email address from undergrad.)
I kid you not about this: Back in those days were weren't concerned about this bandwidth issue for computers - we were ready to revolt because the PHONE LINES got overloaded each night from 8 pm - 1am from people calling in Pizza orders. We thought it was the end of the world - and the seniors just laughed and explained how back in their day it wasn't just the phones - at least we had a line per room because they made due with party lines 1 line for each 2 rooms.
I don't want to come down on people currently in school or sound preachy that's not my point here: In a few years it'll be something else that is causing campus life to suck somewhat. Overall it's a blast of a time and part of the 'fond' recollection is in how we did without some things and how we had fun in spite of it all. (And wow how insignificant it will feel in 4 years that you couldn't frag dudes on the fastest network going).
To dust it off and figure out how it works was actually what I meant - I don't have a desire to sell it or any of my other keepsakes. It's sitting in with my Atari 2600, my commodore 64 with 2000+ games, my 4 gretzky rookie cards and the first X-files comic. MY grandkids will enjoy that treasure trunk.
I somehow became owner of my grandfather's slide rule - I grew up with computers and calculators so it collects dust - It's still in its case and has the manual and everything. After reading this whole thread I might just have to go home tonight and dust it off.
I'm not an expert but have a specific question - Would Wimax be easily able to say, penetrate easily though the concrete of an underground parking garage?
Maybe the RIAA should release an album - If it was a hit and not downloaded too much they could collet enough royalties enough to pay for their court cases.
"The nation of Afghanistan is 652,090 square km. Whatever happened to that Lake Afghanistan idea that the air force was working on right after 9/11? Covering a lake that size with algae would provide a whole lotta jet fuel, not to mention getting rid of a whole lotta Islamic fundamentalists,...;-)"
Lets weigh this idea for a bit...
Pro: Would probably unite Afghanistan under on gov't Con: That gov't (surely to me 'western-esque'!!) would have the worlds' largest supply of jet fuel-- which can, if burned inside buildings, cause office towers to collapse.
Pro: No more Poppy farming. Con: Newly-minted Jet fuel farmers would produce the worlds' largest supply of jet fuel -- which can, if burned inside buildings, cause office towers to collapse.
Pro: Air Afghanistan would have the least expensive fuel costs of any airline. Con: They could actually fly into places loaded with jet fuel -- which can, if burned inside buildings, cause office towers to collapse.
I didn't miss your point at all. Look at what I'm saying:
<They have to reduce consumption OR cancel the effects of their consumption. And if they do cut their consumption, we have to calculate the efficiency>
Why to we *have* to calculate the efficiency. *this* is why I compared your mental equation to that of the *methods* of the smoking lobbyists and people who deny the world is heating up. (not as you seem to be saying that I called you a smoking lobbyist. you're just using their methodology).
We don't necessarily need to quantify / calculate anything to the extent that we don't move ahead unless we know the precise impact.
This is the crutch that people lean on when they want to defend the status quo: "not enough evidence yet so we shouldn't act". In reality - 'real world' decisions are made by you and everyone every day - This isn't rocket science: In fact a monk in the 1600's put the process down on paper for you quantifying-minded people:
The point is again... It's not so bad and if a few people can get over the whole idea that the government is out to get them then they might just find out the govt' acted on a strong bit of evidence and a bit of intuition and did something proactive for a change.
""And with all due respect, I don't understand why so many people miss the point I made""
Actually... I think a lot of people - the dozen or so replied to you understood your point - and to a tee most people disagree with you. Interesting how fiercely you started bashing them.
You can sit back under the bright light of an old-school 120W lightbulb and start beancounting all you want about quantifying the damages this regulation is apparently causing, and you can discuss until the end of time the 'externalities' or whatnot, and you can even sit through an arctic winter with your house heated to tropical talking about 'total consumption not changing'....
We all see the point you made.. it's wrong. Human nature in general will not mean 100% of the citizens in Australia will now light their homes 24 hours per day to make up for the missed opportunity to consume energy. Somewhere some of them will actually reduce consumption... so it's a pretty nifty idea - yet too bad it has to come to government regulation.
Government regulation in this situation is actually ideal. I guess in your reality no government at all would be best but that wouldn't really help the environment now would it?
But I guess we're all wrong in thinking you're wrong.
Disclaimer : I'm no treehugger. I am simply open-minded to all this talk.
OK so yes the government is getting involved in people's lives a little bit here - but arguing that that this will have no impact on energy consumption overall is a faulty premise.
Sure some people will run their heaters more... but out of 30 million people what if 1% of them actually saved and didn't consume more - then I would say this project is a success.
The whole idea of not doing it because there are a few skeptics out there who will stand on the edge of the cliff refusing to see the obviousness of it all is just silly. That is the stand of the Smoking lobbyists "Smoking doesn't cause cancer" and the people who refuse to admit that the world is getting warmer. Whether you believe the greenhouse effect is being caused by people or not - one must admit that it wouldn't be such a bad thing to harm the environment a little less.
So in this lightbulb case - the government does rather efficiently what people won't do themselves.
I read somewhere once that if all the streetlights in North America were converted to LED lights we would have scads of surplus energy. (I can't find the source... someone from slashdot might be able to confirm this?)
" A truly free election allows any issues such as foreign policy to be corrected"
That is a very one-sided and closed minded viewpoint. One could easily argue the opposite. (not that I'm a communist). A communist government can easily, almost instantly 'correct' its foreign policy. I don't see the US doing much to correct it's foreign policy. Who is to say the US foreign policy is correct and China's wrong. The US foreign policy is possibly as far 'incorrect' as China's . They are both just different.
Slashdot Mirror
"if they chose the eclipse date on purpose. We'll wait and see what they say AFTER it all happens".
I agree - I think they should totally pick another date for the eclipse.
The Church of Scientology is a cult. Plain and simple. However - that's probably just fine as long as they don't start screwing up the lives of other people.
Now that is harsh. Pool of Radiance was an incredible game on my C64. I can't believe you would ever say such harsh things. Sure - clearing the slums was tedius but it was oh so fun to finally get rid of those Kobalds. More games should be like POR.
Wet down the ground - give one of the rocks a bit of a shove and see what happens. In fact the concept is the same as why curling rocks slide - the ice is actually 'pebbled' in a similar fashion as the cracked mud in these pics.
Hell- Just duct tape a camera to the dang rock.
These are the kinds of fringe things that people remember and talk about. There was a discount brokerage firm back in the tech times (won't name it) that had an option to hear a duck quack. After word got out it crashed the phone system from volume of calls - people who otherwise wouldn't have a need to call just called and heard a duck quack.
Not that I think it was a great business move - it is fun, refreshing and i'm sure people loved the humor that the company showed and opened an account.
Torontoman.
Wow the cop'll get a nice popping surprise when he searches the trunk.
"one of the most celebrated works of architecture unveiled in years, caused leaks to spring, masonry to crack, mold to grow, and drainage to back up..... The complex.....includes the William H. Gates Building."
Sort of reads like a commentary on a popular PC operating system.
Gehry should do an upgrade of the William H. Gates building that will look 90% different, be strangely larger for no reason, have no flow to it, cost you every time you walk in the door even if you work there, the lights take 6 minutes to turn on in the morning and even then won't go on 30% of the time, and you have to hit 3 buttons to un-jam the elevator every 45 minutes.
Hey - Gehry is the Gates of Architecture.
I always tell people I'm going to pick the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 (and 7 if it's a 7 digit lottery). They look at me like I'm a crazy man. How could those numbers come out like that... impossibly remote. But the odds say it's as likely as any other.
Disclaimer: I'm not in my IT dept. I first thought it was spyware (not knowing why it was suddenly there). I disabled it. It's annoying - I forever hate things changing 'for the sake of change'. I disabled it but our IT dept tells me the icon will likely reappear periodically (they sort of throw up their arms at this stuff). I have 8 little icons on the bottom right of my machine - most of them aren't intrusive. I'm sure this little MS one will be more annoying than most (dog... paperclip). Stupid idiots.
I'm just counting down the days until the AI starts building it's own robots...
I agree with your comments that the article is light on fact and makes quite a jump from the protest to 'here's the current tech'- but it's a very legit newspaper known for invesitating stories thoroughly before publishing them. Peer pressure more than the people from above coming down on you would probably be enough for anyone at the paper to be sure of their facts before they put them to print (unless the author wanted to be known as a whacko). It's not World Weekly News anyhow - BUT - show me the evidence. Maybe next time the political protestors will show up with bug nets and catch one of them robotic bug-bugs.
Funny though how people think this will flop when in reality Google seems to make gold out of anything and do it in a 'non invasive' way. Gmail is great and google is the leading search engine. Sure there are a few people freaking about rights and whatnot but they search about those rights violations on google.
I'm betting they'll do this, do it right, and revolutionize the cell phone - putting the crap old guard out of business or at least change them into something better. I for one would welcome free calls on my cell phone if they did it in such a non invasive way - so that it was as nice to use as Gmail.
Torontoman.
This post is perhaps the most interesting one (to me) I've ever read on slashdot. Nice write-up! Beowolf cluster comments are funny but for insight this has them beat. I work in the financial field - there is a number of very fascinating behavioural issues that creep in to people with their money and investing. Your comments are very relevant to decision making of all sorts.
Man, how things have changed. When I went to University in 1993... the internet was JUST coming onto the scene (no GUI and I still remember my bizarre email address from undergrad.) I kid you not about this: Back in those days were weren't concerned about this bandwidth issue for computers - we were ready to revolt because the PHONE LINES got overloaded each night from 8 pm - 1am from people calling in Pizza orders. We thought it was the end of the world - and the seniors just laughed and explained how back in their day it wasn't just the phones - at least we had a line per room because they made due with party lines 1 line for each 2 rooms. I don't want to come down on people currently in school or sound preachy that's not my point here: In a few years it'll be something else that is causing campus life to suck somewhat. Overall it's a blast of a time and part of the 'fond' recollection is in how we did without some things and how we had fun in spite of it all. (And wow how insignificant it will feel in 4 years that you couldn't frag dudes on the fastest network going).
To dust it off and figure out how it works was actually what I meant - I don't have a desire to sell it or any of my other keepsakes. It's sitting in with my Atari 2600, my commodore 64 with 2000+ games, my 4 gretzky rookie cards and the first X-files comic. MY grandkids will enjoy that treasure trunk.
I somehow became owner of my grandfather's slide rule - I grew up with computers and calculators so it collects dust - It's still in its case and has the manual and everything. After reading this whole thread I might just have to go home tonight and dust it off.
I'm not an expert but have a specific question - Would Wimax be easily able to say, penetrate easily though the concrete of an underground parking garage?
We even gladly accept draft dodgers.
Maybe the RIAA should release an album - If it was a hit and not downloaded too much they could collet enough royalties enough to pay for their court cases.
"The nation of Afghanistan is 652,090 square km. Whatever happened to that Lake Afghanistan idea that the air force was working on right after 9/11? Covering a lake that size with algae would provide a whole lotta jet fuel, not to mention getting rid of a whole lotta Islamic fundamentalists,... ;-)"
Lets weigh this idea for a bit...
Pro: Would probably unite Afghanistan under on gov't
Con: That gov't (surely to me 'western-esque'!!) would have the worlds' largest supply of jet fuel-- which can, if burned inside buildings, cause office towers to collapse.
Pro: No more Poppy farming.
Con: Newly-minted Jet fuel farmers would produce the worlds' largest supply of jet fuel -- which can, if burned inside buildings, cause office towers to collapse.
Pro: Air Afghanistan would have the least expensive fuel costs of any airline.
Con: They could actually fly into places loaded with jet fuel -- which can, if burned inside buildings, cause office towers to collapse.
Torontoman.
I didn't miss your point at all. Look at what I'm saying:
H istorical_remarks>
<They have to reduce consumption OR cancel the effects of their consumption. And if they do cut their consumption, we have to calculate the efficiency>
Why to we *have* to calculate the efficiency. *this* is why I compared your mental equation to that of the *methods* of the smoking lobbyists and people who deny the world is heating up. (not as you seem to be saying that I called you a smoking lobbyist. you're just using their methodology).
We don't necessarily need to quantify / calculate anything to the extent that we don't move ahead unless we know the precise impact.
This is the crutch that people lean on when they want to defend the status quo: "not enough evidence yet so we shouldn't act". In reality - 'real world' decisions are made by you and everyone every day - This isn't rocket science: In fact a monk in the 1600's put the process down on paper for you quantifying-minded people:
<url:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem#
The point is again... It's not so bad and if a few people can get over the whole idea that the government is out to get them then they might just find out the govt' acted on a strong bit of evidence and a bit of intuition and did something proactive for a change.
Torontoman.
""And with all due respect, I don't understand why so many people miss the point I made""
Actually... I think a lot of people - the dozen or so replied to you understood your point - and to a tee most people disagree with you. Interesting how fiercely you started bashing them.
You can sit back under the bright light of an old-school 120W lightbulb and start beancounting all you want about quantifying the damages this regulation is apparently causing, and you can discuss until the end of time the 'externalities' or whatnot, and you can even sit through an arctic winter with your house heated to tropical talking about 'total consumption not changing'....
We all see the point you made.. it's wrong. Human nature in general will not mean 100% of the citizens in Australia will now light their homes 24 hours per day to make up for the missed opportunity to consume energy. Somewhere some of them will actually reduce consumption... so it's a pretty nifty idea - yet too bad it has to come to government regulation.
Government regulation in this situation is actually ideal. I guess in your reality no government at all would be best but that wouldn't really help the environment now would it?
But I guess we're all wrong in thinking you're wrong.
Torontoman.
Disclaimer : I'm no treehugger. I am simply open-minded to all this talk.
OK so yes the government is getting involved in people's lives a little bit here - but arguing that that this will have no impact on energy consumption overall is a faulty premise.
Sure some people will run their heaters more... but out of 30 million people what if 1% of them actually saved and didn't consume more - then I would say this project is a success.
The whole idea of not doing it because there are a few skeptics out there who will stand on the edge of the cliff refusing to see the obviousness of it all is just silly. That is the stand of the Smoking lobbyists "Smoking doesn't cause cancer" and the people who refuse to admit that the world is getting warmer. Whether you believe the greenhouse effect is being caused by people or not - one must admit that it wouldn't be such a bad thing to harm the environment a little less.
So in this lightbulb case - the government does rather efficiently what people won't do themselves.
I read somewhere once that if all the streetlights in North America were converted to LED lights we would have scads of surplus energy. (I can't find the source... someone from slashdot might be able to confirm this?)
" A truly free election allows any issues such as foreign policy to be corrected" That is a very one-sided and closed minded viewpoint. One could easily argue the opposite. (not that I'm a communist). A communist government can easily, almost instantly 'correct' its foreign policy. I don't see the US doing much to correct it's foreign policy. Who is to say the US foreign policy is correct and China's wrong. The US foreign policy is possibly as far 'incorrect' as China's . They are both just different.