Nah, I like our current model of selecting women with hips too narrow to bear children and increasing survival rates for terminal illness such that everybody can survive long enough to pass on genes for early onset cancers, diabetes, effective blindness, and all the other wonderful things we have developed once we started living past 35.
Seriously tho. I'm the only person in my circle of friends with 20/20 vision. And none of them have light prescriptions. None of them can drive without their glasses. how fucked up is that, evolution?
I have no problem with M$ or Apple bundling however much of whatever software they want with their own OS. I'm sure there would be no danger of/. bitching if M$ suddenly decided, "fuckit, we're just bundling office with windows." The problem is when you cannot uninstall bundled software, or when installing competitor's software fucks everything up. M$ does that. Apple does not. I deleted safari from my mini. Why? cause I hate it. Now firefox is my only browser. If you dont like something apple put in the applications folder, you can just erase it. Or not use it.
There's a big difference between bundling and integrating.
Mr. President, we cannot allow a mine-shaft gap!!!
A system of opposing and hostile centers of power is not a recipe for survival, its a recipe for destruction. Its what caused WWI, or at the very least facilitated WWI, and with the very survival at stake, not simple political/governmental power, I fail to see how your "worst-case" scenario could possibly be the leveling-off point of the destabilization of human society.
If each of those "warlords" as you call them have nukes, what keeps them from blowing each other up when everything goes apeshit?
Also, i think there's a difference between 'survival of humans' and 'survival of human society.' but that may just be me
Well, carrying capacity. The carrying capacity of the planet has been estimated any number of ways by any number of groups. At some point, Earth will not be able to sustain our numbers. Maybe that point has been passed, maybe it is still several billion away. Either way, at some point, we will need to cap population if we do not wish to extinct ourselves. And as we only hit 1 Billion global population just over 150 years ago... I'm a little concerned about our prospects of doing so w/in the next 100. Tho I take issue with your extreme wording. Viability as the test, very nice way of shoehorning those who disagree with your sentiment into "saying" that we're all doomed. And who needs to listen to crazy doomsayers, right? Quite the polemic, dont you think? Viability and Sustainability are two entirely different things, but you dont get to preclude debate if you use the latter, do you?
You are, of course, correct that larger human populations make possible greater distribution of labor, and the perfection of technology that allows 99% (i dont think its appropriate to say 100% of the worlds population is being fed when there are demonstrable areas dying of famine) to be fed by the labor of 2% of the population. But Long-term Viability is something you have completely ignored. So food is being produced more effeciently than ever before. Great. But if that effeciency is predicated on fossil ground-water, as in the mid-west, or on the complete draining of a major river, as with the Colorado river, can those practices really be counted on to sustain us into the future?
You want to rely on market forces and human ingenuity to see us through? Wow, how short-sighted can you possibly be? Our economic model will not create Sustainably Viable human society any faster than Free-Market insantity or World Socialism. We will only do so by changing the ways we interact with our environment, by ceasing to treat the environment as a cornucopia of resources there to be plucked at need, and rather as a finite and delicate system that should be managed with more than quarterly earnings and shareholder value in mind. And human ingenuity? the Great Power of Humanity Working Together? Where exactly is that happening? Sustainability isn't profitable, because exploitation *always* garners a greater short-term profit. Sustainability is up agains a Prisoners' Dilemma on a global scale, and just like the game from intro to economics, we're all fucked. Have a nice day
(mild insanity) oh jesus, WE ALREADY HAVE THE BOMB!! What the fuck should we do? uninvent the thing? perhaps we should go for something a little more logical... like making sure the countries LESS STABLE than us dont get it!!! And we're FUCKING INSANE, OBVIOUSLY. WE'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO'VE EVER USED THE FUCKING THINGS!!!
Now I dont exactly trust us to have the bomb, but given that we do, I'm glad that WE do and IRAN doesnt. And I for one would like it to stay that way. If there's anything that creeps me out than my own out of control quasi-dictatorial govt, its other peoples' out of control quasi-dictatorial govts. JESUS.
Now moving beyond knee-jerk bleeding heart BS and onto the actual topic of the article, I'm glad we're redesigning our nukes. It would be pretty embarrasing when we get invaded by aliens if the largest store of H-Bombs in the world dont work because some narrow-minded idealists protested keeping the tech current. Honestly, any liberal who *actually* thinks that not updating the tech in our nuclear arsenal is a good way to transition us into not having them at all is just as naive, ignorant, and self-defeating as those idiot republicans who keep pushing drastic tax cuts as a way of forcing the "small" governemnt they say they really want. Besides, as I mentioned, if we get rid of our nukes, the very next day... possibly even the *same* day, you *know* we'll be invaded by an alien race immune to all standard munitions but with no concept of nuclear warfare. And then we're fucked.
As a complete tangent, I'm also againt any gun laws that prevent me from having a magazine fed automatic shotgun. I dont have one, but I'd like to. For when we get Zombies. I just know that the second we limit every one to bolt action hunting rifles, or do away with all together, BAM: Z-Day. And when I'm sitting there with my fucking shotgun and you wimps are running around with your fucking protest signs from the day's rally, we'll see who has a better chance of removing the head or destroying the brain of the fucker trying to eat us, K? (/mild insanity)
first off, lets just let the profanity flow. you FUCKING cannot believe such SHIT is ruling the agenda. there we go, I feel...well, a little better.
Apparently the net neutrality amendment to the cable tv bill this morning only got 20 min of floor "debate" before being tossed. Rep. Markey said that they usually give twice that to mundane issues like naming a new post office somewhere.
You're not actually disagreeing with me. I'm talking about doing something that we have decided is wrong, conducting wiretaps without judicial oversight, because to do something right, conducting wiretaps with judicial oversight, "wouldnt work."
This is not analogous to telling a little white lie, say to spare someone's feelings. Little white lies are a social convention, an accepted practice that is a norm in our society. The legal analogy to this phenomenon is a law. The bush administration, like many administrations of both parties before it, is, through its arrogance and conceit, breaking a law that it finds to be inconvenient.
Additionally, if you really think about it, it is anything but easy to hold to the idea of the ends never justify the means. I think you are attributing an understanding of this idea to me that I do not hold. You seem to be arguing against an absolutist notion of the universality of a given means, that one can decide a priori whether or not a given means is ethical. This would be narrow minded. The situation is always fluid. the situation is comprised both of ends and means. and focussing on one as the determinant of an ethical good will always leave something. My position is that by saying the Ends justify the Means in the way the Bush Administration has, you focus entirely on the validity of the end, at the expense of any consideration of the means. The means do not matter, because the End is Good. I just think thats bullshit.
Um, yes, divulging classified information certainly can be whistleblowing, depending on how you look at it.
Step 1: Government does something unconstitutional. Step 2: Government classifies the fact that it did that thing. Step 3: Someone with both clearance and a conscience exposes said unconstitutional act, so that they responsible parties might be brought to justice.
*YES* he said it couldnt be done, no matter how you looked at it. But I showed that it could be done!!! go ME!!!! *self-five*
In all seriousness, however, if you'd like to chime back in and answer how the fuck exposing an unconstitutional domestic spying operatin by the government is going to directly lead to the death of servicemen abroad, I'd like to hear it. This is nothing like a leak exposing an undercover operative who had worked abroad. *cough* this is a domestic operation, engaged in primarily by hackers at computer terminals. The inviolable nature of the "state security" cry is necessary only in so far as it is justifiably used. Given this, and most other, administration's complete lack of credibility, I will automatically call bullshit when they invoke state security to avoid explaining something illegal/embarrasing they have done to us.
Just to preempt the "well, if we dont unconstitutionally spy on our own populace, we'll have incomplete intell, and our servicemen will walk into ambushes, and terrorists will bomb every major american city into rubble" argument: The ends to not justify the means.
That is why we have a constitution guaranteeing certain freedoms from government oppression.
That is why we are supposedly better than the terrorists: We consider certain actions beneath us.
well, my stocks are only vaguely in the ballpark that they were in before the first president with an MBA took over. And I spent a pretty long time unemployed last year, so the personal effects of this great stock market and low unemployment havent really trickled down to me yet. but thats not really here nor there.
Um, perhaps murder is a rather harsh term, but hey, we don't even count fatalities from collateral damage. WTF is up with that? Not really confined to this administration, *obviously*, but they do seem particularly Fuck You about rubbing it in everybody's face that they just dont give a fuck. At least Clinton didn't smirk when talking about military operations and collateral damages.
people get stupid when they act in groups. I reserve the right to bitch about what people do when they get stupid together. For example, I reserve the right to bitch about the results of a democratic election; to bitch about the campaign tactics used by one party in said democratic election; and to bitch about the edicts promulgated by the winner of said democratic election. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with an attack on the priciples of democracy. Its just sour grapes, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Its a total bullshit rhetorical style to slam-dunk an argument that was not given, rather than addressing what was actually said. You think you're being clever, but you're not. You're just proving that you dont really have anything to say besides, "i disagree with your idealogy." and there's nothing wrong with that, either, just dont try to masquerade it as intelligent discourse, 'cause its not.
There are, as a matter of fact, dire short-term consequences, ecologically speaking, they just dont get as much attention as shit blowing up, or the ice caps melting. Uranium mining is one of the more polluting forms of mining in the world. The tailings from Uranium mining are just about as radioactive as the or itself. Not enough to kill you just chillin next to it, but enough to bioaccumulate in fish in lakes and rivers and the ocean, and enough to enter the food-chain through said fish. Is this a good enough reason to not be using nuclear power? No. But to ignore the existence of a whole axis of pollution from something leaves a key factor out of the equation. People like to talk about Nuclear power as if once the yucca mountain site is set we've got negative-free nuclear power for life. Like any other system of power production, you have to look at what it takes to procure the raw materials to run the plants as well as the energy deficit incurred both getting said raw materials and in the construction of the plant. I.E. how long will a nuclear power plant have to run before it has produced the energy that went into its construction?
Just because nuclear power doesnt immediately produce any greenhouse gasses doesnt by any means make it a "green option." have a little more common sense.
wait, wait, I thought capitalism was supposed to ensure that private corporate interests were aligned with the interests of their customers through a system of market feedback and self-interest... oh wait, I was confusing reality with bullshit again. sorry, my bad
"After years of controversy, 71 percent of Americans now say they think global warming is real."
Maybe I'm just too much of a lefty-whacko, but to be perfectly honest, only 71% of the population having a decent enough grip on the fucking obvious to THINK that global warming is real is a source of significant irritation to me.
I'm 24 years old. I claim to have little or no enduring, deep wisdom about the world or life. I do, however, remember the early '80's when Seattle had, each winter, at least a week of snow on the ground, sometimes 2 weeks in a row. I remember missing a week and a half of 1st grade because not enough of the streets could get plowed for the busses to run (I know thats lame but seattle is ill prepared for weather). What I cannot remember is anything of the same sort of cold-weather happening anytime in the last 10 years.
The ability of human society to ignore its own best interests is truly one of our most fundamental characterists.
totally. Tho I do understand a lot of what this guy was saying with regards to truly ugly sites (that dating site he linked actually hurt my eyes). I dont understand grouping imdb and craigslist in with those. to me, barebones design does not equal no design. I personally find craigslist to be one of the more well designed websites out there. It serves a utilitarian purpose, and is designed to do so very, very well. They don't waste time, bandwidth, and server space on any flash bullshit, or even animated backgrounds, because they dont need to. how much would craigslist suck if you had to sift through bullshit animations and flash prologues about the city you're in, or scroll down 3 page lenghts because the sitemap page was displayed in a more aesthetically pleasing manner? I'd hate it. but thats just me.
did you? that was one of the first things taco said. he said they'll review anything they get given. Its good pr for them to do so. It keeps people sending them their products when they review everything, even if its not the coolest shit ever. So this drive is not exactly what you'd want to pay $500 bucks for, so what? By reviewing it, taco is guaranteeing that other gear will be reviewed in the future, cause lets face it, they're not gonna go buy all this stuff themselves.
Just cause you want to be a negative nancy doesnt mean there is no point in the exercise.
well, I'm not trying to be a jackass or anything, but did you even read the review? That is exactly what Taco said. Overpriced very small niche market just go out and get a bigger cheaper drive unless you need exactly this setup.
I can understand people who dont RTFA when you have to link to an external site, but the review is right underneath the summary. Gimme a break.
Well here's my counter vote, based on ACTUALER INFORMATION. As "the hottest on record" guy, I do have to retract my earlier statement. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 2005 is, in fact, not THE hottest on record, its tied for hottest with 1998. My bad. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recor dtemp2005.html Now, if you'd like to maybe, i dunno, reference any actual information on which you based your other statements, I'm all ears. And no, the almight "THEY" did not change global warming to climate change, the republicans, and specifically the bush administration did, as a rhetorical device to disarm and what became after the '80's a loaded term. Global warming has very negative connotations in our society, and they never like to discuss problems on anyone's terms but their own. Therefore they have favored the value-neutral "climate change" as a way to shape the rhetoric so as to disarm their critics. There's nothing evil about that, its just politics. but it doesnt make it any less bullshit. until we start seeing any other form of climate change besides global warming, I will continue to refer to it as such. when The Day After Tommorow comes true, and we have to call in Randy Quaid to save his son from certain doom in NY, then we can start talking about climate change.
The Day After Tomorrow notwithstanding, which one are we in the middle of right now? I'm just wondering. Oh, thats right, we're in the middle of Global Warming. That is the threat WHICH WE ARE ACTUALLY FACING. Not a new ice age. obviously we're just as fucked if the temp drops 5 degrees. wait, was this past year the coldest on record? no it was the hottest on record. But all of this is besides the point, because "climate change" is the favored euphemism of the W. administration for global warming. when they talk about climate change they, unlike you are not refering to the combined threat of warming or cooling, they're talking about global warming, but they're too big of pussies to actually say it. so they say climate change. until this changes, you can just fuck right off with your "global warming isnt the threat" nonsense. At this particular juncture in history it is. deal with it.
Can we slashdotters just never, ever, refer to global warming as "climate change" ever again? I know that not all of us here area as environmentally minded as me, but at least everyone here can recognize the sillyness of calling global warming something that could just as well apply to a fucking ice age, right? I mean, just because you dont want to sound like a dirty hippie is no reason to be so imprecise with your language. its global fucking warming, ok?
I would be of the opinion that when the google bot trawls the net caching sites, they are accessing websites whose owners have already paid for access, both up and down, to the network on which they reside. Google is not doing anything, accessing any network, in any way which has not already been paid for. If I have a website on ISP X's network, I'm already paying for ALL the bandwidth that site uses. I'm already paying for ALL traffic accessing ISP X's network in order to access my site. If ISP X thinks it should charging google to access its network to access and cache my site, then I should not be charged for that access. As I'm already being charged for said access, charging google as well would be inappropriate. As I said earlier, no matter which way they word it, it boils down to wanting to charge both ends of a shipment, when one end has already been informed its paying the whole postage. Its bullshit and it will not stand.
it gets hilarious if you think about it interms of how the internet shunts content around as packets. just substitute packets for packages, and the internet for mail services. This is as if you paid either FedEx, UPS, or DHL not just for sending a package, but as if the recepient also paid for the package. As it stands, I pay for my access to the comcast network. Google isnt accessing the comcast network when I google something. I AM. the network that I pay to access is interacting with the network that Google is paying to access, and hence we get the internets. Furthermore, if we're going to go to such a colossaly stupid system as the ISPs want, I'd better fucking see a reduction in my fucking bill, for ALL the down bandwidth that I should no longer be paying for. Thats right, if Google has to pay for what they send onto comcast's network when I google something then I'd better not be fucking charged for that same access. When will the ISPs realize that we already have the most effecient business model possible, with everyone paying both for up and down bandwidth at their point of entry to the network? when will they realize that if they succeed in pushing this bullshit through into law that all they're going to do is force google to start building its own networks and offering its own internet access... that will actually work at advertized speeds... and without retarded bandwidth shaping... wait a minute... I've forgotten why I was complaining...
"The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge, and I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon" the doctor
hrm, Am I the only one who thinks that Losses and lost profits are different things? Not making as many billions of dollars in profits is different from losing money. how about the difference between Losses and "lost projected earnings?" should you really be able to bitch about losing something you never had in the first place? If they can sue Samsung for lost projected earnings, can I sue them for lost projected dividends on my stocks? I dont fucking think so. Someone with a decent stake in one of the studios should cowboy up and sue their asses next time they report lower than expected earnings for lost dividends... see if we can get some precedent established that one cant "lose" something that is only "projected." and until then, I bid the studios a very warm, Fuck You.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, I like our current model of selecting women with hips too narrow to bear children and increasing survival rates for terminal illness such that everybody can survive long enough to pass on genes for early onset cancers, diabetes, effective blindness, and all the other wonderful things we have developed once we started living past 35.
Seriously tho. I'm the only person in my circle of friends with 20/20 vision. And none of them have light prescriptions. None of them can drive without their glasses. how fucked up is that, evolution?
I have no problem with M$ or Apple bundling however much of whatever software they want with their own OS. I'm sure there would be no danger of /. bitching if M$ suddenly decided, "fuckit, we're just bundling office with windows."
The problem is when you cannot uninstall bundled software, or when installing competitor's software fucks everything up.
M$ does that. Apple does not.
I deleted safari from my mini. Why? cause I hate it. Now firefox is my only browser.
If you dont like something apple put in the applications folder, you can just erase it.
Or not use it.
There's a big difference between bundling and integrating.
Mr. President, we cannot allow a mine-shaft gap!!!
A system of opposing and hostile centers of power is not a recipe for survival, its a recipe for destruction.
Its what caused WWI, or at the very least facilitated WWI, and with the very survival at stake, not simple political/governmental power, I fail to see how your "worst-case" scenario could possibly be the leveling-off point of the destabilization of human society.
If each of those "warlords" as you call them have nukes, what keeps them from blowing each other up when everything goes apeshit?
Also, i think there's a difference between 'survival of humans' and 'survival of human society.'
but that may just be me
Well, carrying capacity. The carrying capacity of the planet has been estimated any number of ways by any number of groups. At some point, Earth will not be able to sustain our numbers. Maybe that point has been passed, maybe it is still several billion away. Either way, at some point, we will need to cap population if we do not wish to extinct ourselves. And as we only hit 1 Billion global population just over 150 years ago... I'm a little concerned about our prospects of doing so w/in the next 100.
Tho I take issue with your extreme wording. Viability as the test, very nice way of shoehorning those who disagree with your sentiment into "saying" that we're all doomed. And who needs to listen to crazy doomsayers, right?
Quite the polemic, dont you think?
Viability and Sustainability are two entirely different things, but you dont get to preclude debate if you use the latter, do you?
You are, of course, correct that larger human populations make possible greater distribution of labor, and the perfection of technology that allows 99% (i dont think its appropriate to say 100% of the worlds population is being fed when there are demonstrable areas dying of famine) to be fed by the labor of 2% of the population. But Long-term Viability is something you have completely ignored. So food is being produced more effeciently than ever before. Great. But if that effeciency is predicated on fossil ground-water, as in the mid-west, or on the complete draining of a major river, as with the Colorado river, can those practices really be counted on to sustain us into the future?
You want to rely on market forces and human ingenuity to see us through?
Wow, how short-sighted can you possibly be?
Our economic model will not create Sustainably Viable human society any faster than Free-Market insantity or World Socialism. We will only do so by changing the ways we interact with our environment, by ceasing to treat the environment as a cornucopia of resources there to be plucked at need, and rather as a finite and delicate system that should be managed with more than quarterly earnings and shareholder value in mind.
And human ingenuity? the Great Power of Humanity Working Together? Where exactly is that happening? Sustainability isn't profitable, because exploitation *always* garners a greater short-term profit. Sustainability is up agains a Prisoners' Dilemma on a global scale, and just like the game from intro to economics, we're all fucked.
Have a nice day
dual wield is well and good for the barbarians, but I'll be satisfied as long as it has a decent wireless radius, for distance casting.
(mild insanity)
oh jesus, WE ALREADY HAVE THE BOMB!!
What the fuck should we do? uninvent the thing? perhaps we should go for something a little more logical... like making sure the countries LESS STABLE than us dont get it!!! And we're FUCKING INSANE, OBVIOUSLY. WE'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO'VE EVER USED THE FUCKING THINGS!!!
Now I dont exactly trust us to have the bomb, but given that we do, I'm glad that WE do and IRAN doesnt. And I for one would like it to stay that way. If there's anything that creeps me out than my own out of control quasi-dictatorial govt, its other peoples' out of control quasi-dictatorial govts. JESUS.
Now moving beyond knee-jerk bleeding heart BS and onto the actual topic of the article, I'm glad we're redesigning our nukes. It would be pretty embarrasing when we get invaded by aliens if the largest store of H-Bombs in the world dont work because some narrow-minded idealists protested keeping the tech current. Honestly, any liberal who *actually* thinks that not updating the tech in our nuclear arsenal is a good way to transition us into not having them at all is just as naive, ignorant, and self-defeating as those idiot republicans who keep pushing drastic tax cuts as a way of forcing the "small" governemnt they say they really want.
Besides, as I mentioned, if we get rid of our nukes, the very next day... possibly even the *same* day, you *know* we'll be invaded by an alien race immune to all standard munitions but with no concept of nuclear warfare. And then we're fucked.
As a complete tangent, I'm also againt any gun laws that prevent me from having a magazine fed automatic shotgun. I dont have one, but I'd like to. For when we get Zombies. I just know that the second we limit every one to bolt action hunting rifles, or do away with all together, BAM: Z-Day. And when I'm sitting there with my fucking shotgun and you wimps are running around with your fucking protest signs from the day's rally, we'll see who has a better chance of removing the head or destroying the brain of the fucker trying to eat us, K?
(/mild insanity)
first off, lets just let the profanity flow.
you FUCKING cannot believe
such SHIT is ruling the agenda.
there we go, I feel...well, a little better.
Apparently the net neutrality amendment to the cable tv bill this morning only got 20 min of floor "debate" before being tossed. Rep. Markey said that they usually give twice that to mundane issues like naming a new post office somewhere.
The entire thing is complete bullshit.
You're not actually disagreeing with me.
I'm talking about doing something that we have decided is wrong, conducting wiretaps without judicial oversight, because to do something right, conducting wiretaps with judicial oversight, "wouldnt work."
This is not analogous to telling a little white lie, say to spare someone's feelings. Little white lies are a social convention, an accepted practice that is a norm in our society.
The legal analogy to this phenomenon is a law. The bush administration, like many administrations of both parties before it, is, through its arrogance and conceit, breaking a law that it finds to be inconvenient.
Additionally, if you really think about it, it is anything but easy to hold to the idea of the ends never justify the means. I think you are attributing an understanding of this idea to me that I do not hold. You seem to be arguing against an absolutist notion of the universality of a given means, that one can decide a priori whether or not a given means is ethical. This would be narrow minded. The situation is always fluid. the situation is comprised both of ends and means. and focussing on one as the determinant of an ethical good will always leave something.
My position is that by saying the Ends justify the Means in the way the Bush Administration has, you focus entirely on the validity of the end, at the expense of any consideration of the means. The means do not matter, because the End is Good. I just think thats bullshit.
Um, yes, divulging classified information certainly can be whistleblowing, depending on how you look at it.
Step 1: Government does something unconstitutional.
Step 2: Government classifies the fact that it did that thing.
Step 3: Someone with both clearance and a conscience exposes said unconstitutional act, so that they responsible parties might be brought to justice.
*YES* he said it couldnt be done, no matter how you looked at it. But I showed that it could be done!!! go ME!!!!
*self-five*
In all seriousness, however, if you'd like to chime back in and answer how the fuck exposing an unconstitutional domestic spying operatin by the government is going to directly lead to the death of servicemen abroad, I'd like to hear it. This is nothing like a leak exposing an undercover operative who had worked abroad. *cough* this is a domestic operation, engaged in primarily by hackers at computer terminals.
The inviolable nature of the "state security" cry is necessary only in so far as it is justifiably used. Given this, and most other, administration's complete lack of credibility, I will automatically call bullshit when they invoke state security to avoid explaining something illegal/embarrasing they have done to us.
Just to preempt the "well, if we dont unconstitutionally spy on our own populace, we'll have incomplete intell, and our servicemen will walk into ambushes, and terrorists will bomb every major american city into rubble" argument: The ends to not justify the means.
That is why we have a constitution guaranteeing certain freedoms from government oppression.
That is why we are supposedly better than the terrorists: We consider certain actions beneath us.
whoops, *ideology*
well, my stocks are only vaguely in the ballpark that they were in before the first president with an MBA took over. And I spent a pretty long time unemployed last year, so the personal effects of this great stock market and low unemployment havent really trickled down to me yet. but thats not really here nor there.
Um, perhaps murder is a rather harsh term, but hey, we don't even count fatalities from collateral damage. WTF is up with that? Not really confined to this administration, *obviously*, but they do seem particularly Fuck You about rubbing it in everybody's face that they just dont give a fuck. At least Clinton didn't smirk when talking about military operations and collateral damages.
people get stupid when they act in groups. I reserve the right to bitch about what people do when they get stupid together. For example, I reserve the right to bitch about the results of a democratic election; to bitch about the campaign tactics used by one party in said democratic election; and to bitch about the edicts promulgated by the winner of said democratic election. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with an attack on the priciples of democracy. Its just sour grapes, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Its a total bullshit rhetorical style to slam-dunk an argument that was not given, rather than addressing what was actually said. You think you're being clever, but you're not. You're just proving that you dont really have anything to say besides, "i disagree with your idealogy." and there's nothing wrong with that, either, just dont try to masquerade it as intelligent discourse, 'cause its not.
Average joe will probably be working out with vince vaughn, or possibly stephen root, and as such will probably not care about HD.
There are, as a matter of fact, dire short-term consequences, ecologically speaking, they just dont get as much attention as shit blowing up, or the ice caps melting.
Uranium mining is one of the more polluting forms of mining in the world. The tailings from Uranium mining are just about as radioactive as the or itself. Not enough to kill you just chillin next to it, but enough to bioaccumulate in fish in lakes and rivers and the ocean, and enough to enter the food-chain through said fish.
Is this a good enough reason to not be using nuclear power? No. But to ignore the existence of a whole axis of pollution from something leaves a key factor out of the equation.
People like to talk about Nuclear power as if once the yucca mountain site is set we've got negative-free nuclear power for life. Like any other system of power production, you have to look at what it takes to procure the raw materials to run the plants as well as the energy deficit incurred both getting said raw materials and in the construction of the plant. I.E. how long will a nuclear power plant have to run before it has produced the energy that went into its construction?
Just because nuclear power doesnt immediately produce any greenhouse gasses doesnt by any means make it a "green option." have a little more common sense.
wait, wait, I thought capitalism was supposed to ensure that private corporate interests were aligned with the interests of their customers through a system of market feedback and self-interest... oh wait, I was confusing reality with bullshit again.
sorry, my bad
"After years of controversy, 71 percent of Americans now say they think global warming is real."
Maybe I'm just too much of a lefty-whacko, but to be perfectly honest, only 71% of the population having a decent enough grip on the fucking obvious to THINK that global warming is real is a source of significant irritation to me.
I'm 24 years old. I claim to have little or no enduring, deep wisdom about the world or life. I do, however, remember the early '80's when Seattle had, each winter, at least a week of snow on the ground, sometimes 2 weeks in a row. I remember missing a week and a half of 1st grade because not enough of the streets could get plowed for the busses to run (I know thats lame but seattle is ill prepared for weather). What I cannot remember is anything of the same sort of cold-weather happening anytime in the last 10 years.
The ability of human society to ignore its own best interests is truly one of our most fundamental characterists.
totally.
Tho I do understand a lot of what this guy was saying with regards to truly ugly sites (that dating site he linked actually hurt my eyes). I dont understand grouping imdb and craigslist in with those.
to me, barebones design does not equal no design.
I personally find craigslist to be one of the more well designed websites out there. It serves a utilitarian purpose, and is designed to do so very, very well. They don't waste time, bandwidth, and server space on any flash bullshit, or even animated backgrounds, because they dont need to.
how much would craigslist suck if you had to sift through bullshit animations and flash prologues about the city you're in, or scroll down 3 page lenghts because the sitemap page was displayed in a more aesthetically pleasing manner? I'd hate it.
but thats just me.
did you?
that was one of the first things taco said.
he said they'll review anything they get given. Its good pr for them to do so. It keeps people sending them their products when they review everything, even if its not the coolest shit ever.
So this drive is not exactly what you'd want to pay $500 bucks for, so what?
By reviewing it, taco is guaranteeing that other gear will be reviewed in the future, cause lets face it, they're not gonna go buy all this stuff themselves.
Just cause you want to be a negative nancy doesnt mean there is no point in the exercise.
well, I'm not trying to be a jackass or anything, but did you even read the review?
That is exactly what Taco said.
Overpriced
very small niche market
just go out and get a bigger cheaper drive unless you need exactly this setup.
I can understand people who dont RTFA when you have to link to an external site, but the review is right underneath the summary. Gimme a break.
Well here's my counter vote, based on ACTUALER INFORMATION.r dtemp2005.html
As "the hottest on record" guy, I do have to retract my earlier statement. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 2005 is, in fact, not THE hottest on record, its tied for hottest with 1998. My bad. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/reco
Now, if you'd like to maybe, i dunno, reference any actual information on which you based your other statements, I'm all ears.
And no, the almight "THEY" did not change global warming to climate change, the republicans, and specifically the bush administration did, as a rhetorical device to disarm and what became after the '80's a loaded term. Global warming has very negative connotations in our society, and they never like to discuss problems on anyone's terms but their own. Therefore they have favored the value-neutral "climate change" as a way to shape the rhetoric so as to disarm their critics. There's nothing evil about that, its just politics.
but it doesnt make it any less bullshit.
until we start seeing any other form of climate change besides global warming, I will continue to refer to it as such. when The Day After Tommorow comes true, and we have to call in Randy Quaid to save his son from certain doom in NY, then we can start talking about climate change.
The Day After Tomorrow notwithstanding, which one are we in the middle of right now? I'm just wondering.
Oh, thats right, we're in the middle of Global Warming. That is the threat WHICH WE ARE ACTUALLY FACING. Not a new ice age.
obviously we're just as fucked if the temp drops 5 degrees.
wait, was this past year the coldest on record?
no
it was the hottest on record.
But all of this is besides the point, because "climate change" is the favored euphemism of the W. administration for global warming. when they talk about climate change they, unlike you are not refering to the combined threat of warming or cooling, they're talking about global warming, but they're too big of pussies to actually say it. so they say climate change.
until this changes, you can just fuck right off with your "global warming isnt the threat" nonsense. At this particular juncture in history it is. deal with it.
Can we slashdotters just never, ever, refer to global warming as "climate change" ever again?
I know that not all of us here area as environmentally minded as me, but at least everyone here can recognize the sillyness of calling global warming something that could just as well apply to a fucking ice age, right?
I mean, just because you dont want to sound like a dirty hippie is no reason to be so imprecise with your language.
its global fucking warming, ok?
I would be of the opinion that when the google bot trawls the net caching sites, they are accessing websites whose owners have already paid for access, both up and down, to the network on which they reside. Google is not doing anything, accessing any network, in any way which has not already been paid for.
If I have a website on ISP X's network, I'm already paying for ALL the bandwidth that site uses. I'm already paying for ALL traffic accessing ISP X's network in order to access my site. If ISP X thinks it should charging google to access its network to access and cache my site, then I should not be charged for that access.
As I'm already being charged for said access, charging google as well would be inappropriate.
As I said earlier, no matter which way they word it, it boils down to wanting to charge both ends of a shipment, when one end has already been informed its paying the whole postage.
Its bullshit and it will not stand.
it gets hilarious if you think about it interms of how the internet shunts content around as packets. just substitute packets for packages, and the internet for mail services. This is as if you paid either FedEx, UPS, or DHL not just for sending a package, but as if the recepient also paid for the package.
As it stands, I pay for my access to the comcast network. Google isnt accessing the comcast network when I google something. I AM. the network that I pay to access is interacting with the network that Google is paying to access, and hence we get the internets. Furthermore, if we're going to go to such a colossaly stupid system as the ISPs want, I'd better fucking see a reduction in my fucking bill, for ALL the down bandwidth that I should no longer be paying for.
Thats right, if Google has to pay for what they send onto comcast's network when I google something then I'd better not be fucking charged for that same access.
When will the ISPs realize that we already have the most effecient business model possible, with everyone paying both for up and down bandwidth at their point of entry to the network? when will they realize that if they succeed in pushing this bullshit through into law that all they're going to do is force google to start building its own networks and offering its own internet access... that will actually work at advertized speeds... and without retarded bandwidth shaping... wait a minute...
I've forgotten why I was complaining...
"The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge, and I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon"
the doctor
hrm, Am I the only one who thinks that Losses and lost profits are different things? Not making as many billions of dollars in profits is different from losing money.
how about the difference between Losses and "lost projected earnings?"
should you really be able to bitch about losing something you never had in the first place?
If they can sue Samsung for lost projected earnings, can I sue them for lost projected dividends on my stocks? I dont fucking think so.
Someone with a decent stake in one of the studios should cowboy up and sue their asses next time they report lower than expected earnings for lost dividends... see if we can get some precedent established that one cant "lose" something that is only "projected."
and until then, I bid the studios a very warm, Fuck You.