Very well stated, brother. I too get sick of people with knee-jerk reactions/opinions amounting to little more than "ok, now YOU GUYS are in control, and nothing's changed" attitude some people have. I had a guy bitching the other day that "well, you cowardly Democrats say you wanted to stop the war, and now you've approved spending for it". I couldn't make him realize that there isn't an EJECT button on this thing, and that while in a perfect world we could snap and it'd all be over, in the real world, it doesn't work that way.
I guess it depends. I've been a Fedora user for a while (still have it on my webserver box), but after hearing all the talk about Ubuntu, I thought I'd give it a shot on my dual boot/main PC. I have to say that I installed Dapper and then did the upgrade to Edgy and it was super easy with no problems. Granted, it took a little while (about an hour and a half), but there were no problems.
Kudos on trying out *nix. I am a novice at it myself but have begun playing around with different distros to learn it. While I have a server that relies on it, I have a couple of partitions on my dual boot machine that I can swap out installs whenever I want. I keep tinkering with them and if I screw something up, who cares?
So, if you're installing it to learn *nix, I'd recommend installing Edgy and then doing the upgrade (either via the command line or with a CD) for the experience. The worst thing that can happen is you have to trash an installation and start over, but you'll have learned something.
Great list, brother. I also am an "old school" metal fan. Not too crazy about most of what is called "metal" nowadays, but some of it's ok. To supplement your list I propose the following additions (in no particular order):
Coroner
King Diamond
Nuclear Assault
S.O.D. (even though they were almost Spinal Tap-ish, they still had an impact)
Forbidden
Metallica (probably left out for the obviousness factor)
Megadeth (ditto)
Godflesh (probaby the best Industrial Metal ever)
Pantera
Prong (such a great and underrated band..Beg to Differ in particular)
Wrathchild America
W.A.S.P. (ok, not speed or thrash, but they helped push metal's envelope)
Dio (again, not speed or thrash, but definitely one of the godfathers of metal)
Motorhead
Sepultura
Flotsam and Jetsam (both with and without Jason Newstead)
I'm sure I'm leaving some other great ones out, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head. Dammit, now I'm gonna have to dig through the closet looking for that old copy of South of Heaven! All this metal talk is making me nostalgic.
This is a slippery slope. I think that while on the surface, Internet radio and traditional, terrestrial, broadcast radio seem like the same thing, they've got some pretty significant differences. Obviously, terrestrial radio has a much larger share of the listeners. That is, while LOTS of people listen to Internet Radio, there are exponentially more Internet Radio "Stations" than there are terrestrial radio stations. Thus, the likelihood of 400,000 people listening to 1 terrestrial radio station (and thus being exposed to their advertising) is much higher than the same amount of people listening to the same Internet Radio Station. While not implausible that someone with a little money and marketing savvy might be able to make a dent with an Internet Radio Station, it hasn't happened yet.
That said, I think to apply the same (or at least similar) royalty fees to these Internet Radio Stations is pretty unfair. As a composer and a musician, I despise that I have to agree with Clear Channel on this one, because I think that they are RUINING terrestrial radio if in fact they haven't ruined it already. I side with Internet Radio as an artist because it is exactly the freedom from some of the industry regulation that makes it possible for someone without Warner Brothers or Sony behind him/her to get exposure. There's no friggin' way I'm going to get my music played/heard on a Clear Channel station or in a Warner Brothers movie soundtrack without EVERYBODY getting a piece of the pie. On the other hand, if I find a niche Internet Radio Station, I can submit my stuff and get it heard by a smaller, but hopefully more targeted audience and perhaps eventually generate some revenue from licensing deals with them or CD sales.
I guess my point is, while it would be easy to jump on the bandwagon as an artist and hope for the "big score" of more royalties, doing so would choke the "small time" Internet Radio Stations and make it once again a field of only "heavy hitters" with whom I stand little chance of getting heard. It may seem counterintuitive to some, but I think keeping things affordable with regard to royalties is exactly what's making it fertile ground for emerging artists and what's keeping Internet Radio a viable alternative for people looking for something more diverse and different than traditional radio.
There IS advertising on NPR. You know the little "bumper" at the end of each package that goes:
Support for NPR comes from the following...
There's usually some commission, retailer, foundation, company, etc whose business is essentially getting a "plug" and for which they're probably making a much larger donation than $120 per year. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think that this ruling is a good idea, but in fairness, I can understand how they might be trying to lump NPR into the fold as well.
I know it's weird to write this reply to a reply to a comment I made but, MOD PARENT UP!
Despite some of the crap that you sometimes get on this site, it's stuff like this that keeps me coming back. That is, a comment (in this case a reply) that is educated and cordial which genuinely enlightens me. Thanks for the lesson, goodben, I genuinely appreciate it. It's one of those pieces of information that'll probably only serve me if I'm ever on Jeopardy, but hey I've got it filed in my brain now.
From TFA We've reached a milestone with our ability to condense hydrogen into a usable solid,' said Dr. McGrady.
I'm not sure I trust a "doctor" who claims that he can condense a gas into a solid. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not a Physics professor, but doesn't condense refer exclusively to changing states from gas to liquid?
Some of us are just looking for one that lets us make calls
Just curious, are you having trouble finding a wireless phone provider that does not allow you to make calls? If you're paying for a wireless service that won't let you make calls, I have a bridge that's available that you might be interested in.
Finding an answer to that question is somewhat trickier than looking at who wrote the patches, mostly because very few developers say "I wrote this on behalf of my employer."
The approach taken by your editor was relatively simplistic, but, perhaps, the best that is practical. Any patch whose author's given email address indicates a corporate affiliation is assumed to have been developed by an employee of that corporation. So any patch posted by somebody with an ibm.com email address is accounted as having been done by an IBM employee.
While I still find the result interesting, and while I also would like to know which organizations contribute the most to the kernel, I don't know that this method is really a good way to reflect whether the work was done in a "sponsored" fashion.
That is, just because someone's email address shows that they're from IBM, doesn't necessarily mean that they were being paid by IBM to explicitly work on the kernel. For all we know, they might have "15 minutes of real, actual work" like this guy and are just hacking away in their cube because they're bored. Maybe not, but still, for he purpose of determining which companies contribute most (or the individuals motivations to contribute), that seems like a shaky method of proving or disproving things.
We're able to make copies of keys, yet they're still widely used as "security" measures in offices worldwide. Why is this any different? I've always been taught that a successful Security strategy is comprised of the 3 concepts:
What you have - your ID badge/card What you know - the PIN associated with that card Who you are - a fingerprint/retinal scan/etc to be used with that card
The point is, ok, someone figured out how to easily clone RFID enabled "access cards". Is it the manufacturer's fault that many places rely SOLELY on those badges for their perimiter/access control? If your facility is truly "secure", there should be at LEAST the requirement of a PIN typed in along with a card swipe as well as cameras, physical security, and other standard procedures. If your facility's management has opted to rely on the cards as the only means of controlling who enters and when, then blame that same management if a problem happens. The term "security" is very subjective. What might pass for your average office building would never pass at a serious Datacenter or other Critical Facility.
What are you talking about? $12.95/mo will not buy you a NEW CD. Sure, you might get ONE used one, or some piece of crap from the bargain bin. But suggesting that you have more variety than Sirius is just ridiculous. By all means, if you don't want to subscribe, then don't. But don't pretend that it's expensive or that the music selection isn't fantastic as the reason that you don't subscribe.
AVDP? This is your boss. This is the last time I'm going to tell you to stay out of my office and off my computer to look at that geeky site. You've got work to do, we're getting low on McMuffins. And for the last time, I don't care how good it is at google.
If evolution is true, you'd agree that God did not create Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, right?
Not necessarily. First of all, many people (clergy, theologians, etc) believe the story of Adam and Eve to be a parable . Even if one does choose to believe that Adam and Eve were real people, why is it impossible to believe that God created them through the process of evolution as s/he has done with all living things? Is it not possible that the authors of the parables/stories of Adam and Eve lacked the understanding or the ability to articulate HOW god made them? Could it not also be possible that despite being able to accurately describe HOW god created them, that they still existed even though they may have been created through the process of evolution (which again, is the process that god started)? While it's not something that I believe, I can see that a person might be able to make this leap of faith as easily as believing that they were made from dust.
If there is no original sin, then what was Jesus sent to save us from?
This is another one of those areas with many interpretations, even within the christian community. No one seems to be able to explain how Jesus' being "sent" to earth saved us from anything. As a recovering Catholic who endured 12 years of Catholic school and even has clergy in the family, no one has been able to articulate this idea. This is one of those, "god works in mysterious ways" areas that just doesn't cut the mustard for me (admitting that this is my choice to not accept this, not saying that no one should believe it). The point is, since there isn't a clear idea of the correlation between the existence of Original Sin and Jesus' arrival/departure from earth, and since Original Sin is still believed to exist (otherwise why would there be baptism?), why should the manner in which Original Sin is thought to have begun call into question whether christians still live their lives according to the major tenets of their faith?
I guess I'm saying that just because it's possible that god made Adam and Eve through the process of evolution shouldn't necessarily be construed to mean that the message (literal or not) of their story shouldn't still hold up, nor should it mean that the ideals of the religion ("love thy neighbor", "thou shalt not kill", etc) should be somehow invalidated. I do not think that it is the goal of science to undo or disprove god. I think the point of science is to explore the unknown and try to understand it which often puts us in the realm of things that had previously been attributed to god. It is not at attempt to attribute these phenomena to someone/something OTHER than god, merely to understand the mechanics of the process and leave the individual the right to decided whether s/he believes that god is ultimately behind the process "turning the gears" or not.
10. Underground cave/rave scene with Neo and Morpheus at Zion was based on real life and we're hearing everyone stomping/drumming.
9. The Earth is secretly a member of a barbershop quartet.
8. The earth's crust is filled with "space worm" creatures like the one that almost swallowed the Millenium Falcon.
7. It's been over 3,000,000,000,000 years since the earth was brought in for an alignment.
6. It turns out that it's not the Earth but the Sun that is humming. No one has replaced its "old fashioned" magnetic ballast with an electronic one.
5. The Earth is actually ET's alarm clock and it's going off, but we can't seem to locate the Snooze Bar (although some people believe that it's West Virginia).
4. There is no hum, a bunch of scientists got together and took bets as to whether or not they could get us all discussing their imaginary hum idea.
3. The Earth gets crappy reception because the moon keeps interrupting our "line of sight" required by DirectTV.
2. No one told us, but apparently they've put a HUGE intergalactic superhighway right through out backyard and we're hearing the freight cars roaring by.
1. Mother Earth is a little lonely lately and is experimenting with her vibrating "lonely person device".
You know what? There is no Easter Bunny, that over there is just a guy in a suit.
Oh yeah, and isn't it "You dumb bastard, that's not a sailboat, it's a schooner"?
How much space to kids in a backseat need, anyway?
You obviously don't have kids, or you've long since forgotten how much more than just the kid(s) comes with them when you're in the car. Diaper bags, strollers, carseats (and their respective bases), sports equipment, schoolbags/books, toys, etc. Not to mention anything that YOU might need to bring on the way to school/work (laptop, workout bag, overcoat, briefcase, etc). My Nissan X-Terra has much more space in it. The back seats are a great size and the "trunk" area is huge. I take issue with the fact that you think that SUV's are exclusively a "status symbol". My Nissan is neither expensive nor fancy. It is also surprisingly good on gas compared with your "oh-so-much-better" minivan.
I get pretty tired of listening to people with nothing significant to say just piling on this latest trend of dumping on SUV's and characterizing all of us who own them as uncaring, uneducated people. I'll even give you a little ammo here, NO, minivans are not "cool". OK, you happy? I must be a horrible person to want to own a vehicle that I actually LIKE!! I mean, wow, the nerve of me!! How dare I? People like you never bother to consider that
minivans tend to be much more expensive than the smaller
SUVs (often significantly so). Not to mention that the gas mileage is often the same and sometimes BETTER in a smaller SUV. (My X-terra gets around 22 mpg, how's your minivan doing? I can guarantee if there's a difference, it's not some monumental number that you're characterizing it to be).
So an SUV is required to get groceries if the store is 7 miles away?
No, again, I never said that. But, when people like you jump on this "let's bash SUV's" bandwagon, you all like to make weird assumptions. And while we're on it, why don't people like you bash people that own things like this
or this
or this
or this...I could keep going and going here. All of those cars get worse gas mileage than my SUV **GASP** how can that be???
Basically people, shut up about SUV's causing all the problems that you're seeing with our dependence on foreign oil and global warming. It's not as simple as eliminating 1 type of vehicle and we don't really care that you prefer to buy a minivan. Some of us don't like them and can't afford the BIG $$$$ for a good one anyway. I'm not saying everyone should own a Hummer, but geez, lay off if an X-Terra is a better fit for me huh?
but please stop with the false claims that most families need SUVs as that is complete garbage.
I never claimed that. Nevertheless, you seem to get my basic point which is, let's solve the PARENT issue of what powers these vehicles and stop bickering over whether this person NEEDS the extra space/horsewpower/4x4/etc. I think the idea of conservation is obviously a good one, but I think that sometimes people like to throw this argument up as a red herring to distract from the much harder to answer question of "what are we going to do to reduce out dependency on oil?". I'm not suggesting that I have the answer (I wish I did), I just would like to see us all work on the same team toward a common goal rather than just start with the infighting.
While I agree that the orbiting umbrellas is a ridiculous proposal, I think you're looking at things from a skewed perspective with regard to automobiles.
First of all, you obviously live in a major metropolitan area to be able to not own a car (that is, you must have copious and effective mass transit available to you). For many people across the country, owning a car is not an option if they are to be able to get ANYWHERE (see work, school, hospital, etc). While I agree that if one can feasibly find alternative means of transportation, then one should opt for that method, but we shouldn't demonize the very idea of owning a car under the assumption that the only reason people do so is out of selfishness/laziness.
Second, the problem isn't in owning SUV's or other gas guzzling cars, it's the fact that those cars (and car makers, oil companies, and government decision makers) are forcing us to power those vehicles with petroleum. The idea of getting rid of these vehicles is a crude attempt to treat the symptom and not the disease. Don't make it a bad thing for the family with 4 kids to drive an SUV because they need the space, make it bad that no one seems interested in solutions to powering these vehicles differently.
In short, just keep in mind that your particular circumstance (i.e. being able to walk to the store and carry your groceries home) isn't necessarily everyone else's (like the mother of 4 with the SUV...imagine her carrying those groceries when the nearest store is 7 miles away)
Slashdot Mirror
No way, it's a pylon that the Sleestack use to teleport.
Very well stated, brother. I too get sick of people with knee-jerk reactions/opinions amounting to little more than "ok, now YOU GUYS are in control, and nothing's changed" attitude some people have. I had a guy bitching the other day that "well, you cowardly Democrats say you wanted to stop the war, and now you've approved spending for it". I couldn't make him realize that there isn't an EJECT button on this thing, and that while in a perfect world we could snap and it'd all be over, in the real world, it doesn't work that way.
I guess it depends. I've been a Fedora user for a while (still have it on my webserver box), but after hearing all the talk about Ubuntu, I thought I'd give it a shot on my dual boot/main PC. I have to say that I installed Dapper and then did the upgrade to Edgy and it was super easy with no problems. Granted, it took a little while (about an hour and a half), but there were no problems.
Kudos on trying out *nix. I am a novice at it myself but have begun playing around with different distros to learn it. While I have a server that relies on it, I have a couple of partitions on my dual boot machine that I can swap out installs whenever I want. I keep tinkering with them and if I screw something up, who cares?
So, if you're installing it to learn *nix, I'd recommend installing Edgy and then doing the upgrade (either via the command line or with a CD) for the experience. The worst thing that can happen is you have to trash an installation and start over, but you'll have learned something.
Great list, brother. I also am an "old school" metal fan. Not too crazy about most of what is called "metal" nowadays, but some of it's ok. To supplement your list I propose the following additions (in no particular order):
Coroner
King Diamond
Nuclear Assault
S.O.D. (even though they were almost Spinal Tap-ish, they still had an impact)
Forbidden
Metallica (probably left out for the obviousness factor)
Megadeth (ditto)
Godflesh (probaby the best Industrial Metal ever)
Pantera
Prong (such a great and underrated band..Beg to Differ in particular)
Wrathchild America
W.A.S.P. (ok, not speed or thrash, but they helped push metal's envelope)
Dio (again, not speed or thrash, but definitely one of the godfathers of metal)
Motorhead
Sepultura
Flotsam and Jetsam (both with and without Jason Newstead)
I'm sure I'm leaving some other great ones out, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head. Dammit, now I'm gonna have to dig through the closet looking for that old copy of South of Heaven! All this metal talk is making me nostalgic.
You mean something like this?
This is a slippery slope. I think that while on the surface, Internet radio and traditional, terrestrial, broadcast radio seem like the same thing, they've got some pretty significant differences. Obviously, terrestrial radio has a much larger share of the listeners. That is, while LOTS of people listen to Internet Radio, there are exponentially more Internet Radio "Stations" than there are terrestrial radio stations. Thus, the likelihood of 400,000 people listening to 1 terrestrial radio station (and thus being exposed to their advertising) is much higher than the same amount of people listening to the same Internet Radio Station. While not implausible that someone with a little money and marketing savvy might be able to make a dent with an Internet Radio Station, it hasn't happened yet.
That said, I think to apply the same (or at least similar) royalty fees to these Internet Radio Stations is pretty unfair. As a composer and a musician, I despise that I have to agree with Clear Channel on this one, because I think that they are RUINING terrestrial radio if in fact they haven't ruined it already. I side with Internet Radio as an artist because it is exactly the freedom from some of the industry regulation that makes it possible for someone without Warner Brothers or Sony behind him/her to get exposure. There's no friggin' way I'm going to get my music played/heard on a Clear Channel station or in a Warner Brothers movie soundtrack without EVERYBODY getting a piece of the pie. On the other hand, if I find a niche Internet Radio Station, I can submit my stuff and get it heard by a smaller, but hopefully more targeted audience and perhaps eventually generate some revenue from licensing deals with them or CD sales.
I guess my point is, while it would be easy to jump on the bandwagon as an artist and hope for the "big score" of more royalties, doing so would choke the "small time" Internet Radio Stations and make it once again a field of only "heavy hitters" with whom I stand little chance of getting heard. It may seem counterintuitive to some, but I think keeping things affordable with regard to royalties is exactly what's making it fertile ground for emerging artists and what's keeping Internet Radio a viable alternative for people looking for something more diverse and different than traditional radio.
There IS advertising on NPR. You know the little "bumper" at the end of each package that goes:
Support for NPR comes from the following...
There's usually some commission, retailer, foundation, company, etc whose business is essentially getting a "plug" and for which they're probably making a much larger donation than $120 per year. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think that this ruling is a good idea, but in fairness, I can understand how they might be trying to lump NPR into the fold as well.
I know it's weird to write this reply to a reply to a comment I made but, MOD PARENT UP!
Despite some of the crap that you sometimes get on this site, it's stuff like this that keeps me coming back. That is, a comment (in this case a reply) that is educated and cordial which genuinely enlightens me. Thanks for the lesson, goodben, I genuinely appreciate it. It's one of those pieces of information that'll probably only serve me if I'm ever on Jeopardy, but hey I've got it filed in my brain now.
From TFA
We've reached a milestone with our ability to condense hydrogen into a usable solid,' said Dr. McGrady.
I'm not sure I trust a "doctor" who claims that he can condense a gas into a solid. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not a Physics professor, but doesn't condense refer exclusively to changing states from gas to liquid?
Don't forget to post some pictures on the web using your computer running Ulubuntu!
Some of us are just looking for one that lets us make calls
Just curious, are you having trouble finding a wireless phone provider that does not allow you to make calls? If you're paying for a wireless service that won't let you make calls, I have a bridge that's available that you might be interested in.
we've got to find better bashing material on MS (and I believe there be plenty)
Aargh, maytee, I too believe there be plenty. Ye OS shall be no match fer me sword, ya scallywag!
From TFA
Finding an answer to that question is somewhat trickier than looking at who wrote the patches, mostly because very few developers say "I wrote this on behalf of my employer." The approach taken by your editor was relatively simplistic, but, perhaps, the best that is practical. Any patch whose author's given email address indicates a corporate affiliation is assumed to have been developed by an employee of that corporation. So any patch posted by somebody with an ibm.com email address is accounted as having been done by an IBM employee.
While I still find the result interesting, and while I also would like to know which organizations contribute the most to the kernel, I don't know that this method is really a good way to reflect whether the work was done in a "sponsored" fashion.
That is, just because someone's email address shows that they're from IBM, doesn't necessarily mean that they were being paid by IBM to explicitly work on the kernel. For all we know, they might have "15 minutes of real, actual work" like this guy and are just hacking away in their cube because they're bored. Maybe not, but still, for he purpose of determining which companies contribute most (or the individuals motivations to contribute), that seems like a shaky method of proving or disproving things.
We're able to make copies of keys, yet they're still widely used as "security" measures in offices worldwide. Why is this any different? I've always been taught that a successful Security strategy is comprised of the 3 concepts:
What you have - your ID badge/card
What you know - the PIN associated with that card
Who you are - a fingerprint/retinal scan/etc to be used with that card
The point is, ok, someone figured out how to easily clone RFID enabled "access cards". Is it the manufacturer's fault that many places rely SOLELY on those badges for their perimiter/access control? If your facility is truly "secure", there should be at LEAST the requirement of a PIN typed in along with a card swipe as well as cameras, physical security, and other standard procedures. If your facility's management has opted to rely on the cards as the only means of controlling who enters and when, then blame that same management if a problem happens. The term "security" is very subjective. What might pass for your average office building would never pass at a serious Datacenter or other Critical Facility.
What are you talking about? $12.95/mo will not buy you a NEW CD. Sure, you might get ONE used one, or some piece of crap from the bargain bin. But suggesting that you have more variety than Sirius is just ridiculous. By all means, if you don't want to subscribe, then don't. But don't pretend that it's expensive or that the music selection isn't fantastic as the reason that you don't subscribe.
Geez, mods, go get a sense of humor, huh? I was just kidding. The guy just sounded a little jealous is all. Sounds like someone needs another latte.
I hope they don't have one of these.
AVDP? This is your boss. This is the last time I'm going to tell you to stay out of my office and off my computer to look at that geeky site. You've got work to do, we're getting low on McMuffins. And for the last time, I don't care how good it is at google.
If evolution is true, you'd agree that God did not create Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, right?
Not necessarily. First of all, many people (clergy, theologians, etc) believe the story of Adam and Eve to be a parable . Even if one does choose to believe that Adam and Eve were real people, why is it impossible to believe that God created them through the process of evolution as s/he has done with all living things? Is it not possible that the authors of the parables/stories of Adam and Eve lacked the understanding or the ability to articulate HOW god made them? Could it not also be possible that despite being able to accurately describe HOW god created them, that they still existed even though they may have been created through the process of evolution (which again, is the process that god started)? While it's not something that I believe, I can see that a person might be able to make this leap of faith as easily as believing that they were made from dust.
If there is no original sin, then what was Jesus sent to save us from?
This is another one of those areas with many interpretations, even within the christian community. No one seems to be able to explain how Jesus' being "sent" to earth saved us from anything. As a recovering Catholic who endured 12 years of Catholic school and even has clergy in the family, no one has been able to articulate this idea. This is one of those, "god works in mysterious ways" areas that just doesn't cut the mustard for me (admitting that this is my choice to not accept this, not saying that no one should believe it). The point is, since there isn't a clear idea of the correlation between the existence of Original Sin and Jesus' arrival/departure from earth, and since Original Sin is still believed to exist (otherwise why would there be baptism?), why should the manner in which Original Sin is thought to have begun call into question whether christians still live their lives according to the major tenets of their faith?
I guess I'm saying that just because it's possible that god made Adam and Eve through the process of evolution shouldn't necessarily be construed to mean that the message (literal or not) of their story shouldn't still hold up, nor should it mean that the ideals of the religion ("love thy neighbor", "thou shalt not kill", etc) should be somehow invalidated. I do not think that it is the goal of science to undo or disprove god. I think the point of science is to explore the unknown and try to understand it which often puts us in the realm of things that had previously been attributed to god. It is not at attempt to attribute these phenomena to someone/something OTHER than god, merely to understand the mechanics of the process and leave the individual the right to decided whether s/he believes that god is ultimately behind the process "turning the gears" or not.
Just my opinion.
10. Underground cave/rave scene with Neo and Morpheus at Zion was based on real life and we're hearing everyone stomping/drumming.
9. The Earth is secretly a member of a barbershop quartet.
8. The earth's crust is filled with "space worm" creatures like the one that almost swallowed the Millenium Falcon.
7. It's been over 3,000,000,000,000 years since the earth was brought in for an alignment.
6. It turns out that it's not the Earth but the Sun that is humming. No one has replaced its "old fashioned" magnetic ballast with an electronic one.
5. The Earth is actually ET's alarm clock and it's going off, but we can't seem to locate the Snooze Bar (although some people believe that it's West Virginia).
4. There is no hum, a bunch of scientists got together and took bets as to whether or not they could get us all discussing their imaginary hum idea.
3. The Earth gets crappy reception because the moon keeps interrupting our "line of sight" required by DirectTV.
2. No one told us, but apparently they've put a HUGE intergalactic superhighway right through out backyard and we're hearing the freight cars roaring by.
1. Mother Earth is a little lonely lately and is experimenting with her vibrating "lonely person device".
You know what? There is no Easter Bunny, that over there is just a guy in a suit. Oh yeah, and isn't it "You dumb bastard, that's not a sailboat, it's a schooner"?
Such a great flick.
How much space to kids in a backseat need, anyway?
...I could keep going and going here. All of those cars get worse gas mileage than my SUV **GASP** how can that be???
You obviously don't have kids, or you've long since forgotten how much more than just the kid(s) comes with them when you're in the car. Diaper bags, strollers, carseats (and their respective bases), sports equipment, schoolbags/books, toys, etc. Not to mention anything that YOU might need to bring on the way to school/work (laptop, workout bag, overcoat, briefcase, etc). My Nissan X-Terra has much more space in it. The back seats are a great size and the "trunk" area is huge. I take issue with the fact that you think that SUV's are exclusively a "status symbol". My Nissan is neither expensive nor fancy. It is also surprisingly good on gas compared with your "oh-so-much-better" minivan.
I get pretty tired of listening to people with nothing significant to say just piling on this latest trend of dumping on SUV's and characterizing all of us who own them as uncaring, uneducated people. I'll even give you a little ammo here, NO, minivans are not "cool". OK, you happy? I must be a horrible person to want to own a vehicle that I actually LIKE!! I mean, wow, the nerve of me!! How dare I? People like you never bother to consider that minivans tend to be much more expensive than the smaller SUVs (often significantly so). Not to mention that the gas mileage is often the same and sometimes BETTER in a smaller SUV. (My X-terra gets around 22 mpg, how's your minivan doing? I can guarantee if there's a difference, it's not some monumental number that you're characterizing it to be).
So an SUV is required to get groceries if the store is 7 miles away?
No, again, I never said that. But, when people like you jump on this "let's bash SUV's" bandwagon, you all like to make weird assumptions. And while we're on it, why don't people like you bash people that own things like this or this or this or this
Basically people, shut up about SUV's causing all the problems that you're seeing with our dependence on foreign oil and global warming. It's not as simple as eliminating 1 type of vehicle and we don't really care that you prefer to buy a minivan. Some of us don't like them and can't afford the BIG $$$$ for a good one anyway. I'm not saying everyone should own a Hummer, but geez, lay off if an X-Terra is a better fit for me huh?
but please stop with the false claims that most families need SUVs as that is complete garbage.
I never claimed that. Nevertheless, you seem to get my basic point which is, let's solve the PARENT issue of what powers these vehicles and stop bickering over whether this person NEEDS the extra space/horsewpower/4x4/etc. I think the idea of conservation is obviously a good one, but I think that sometimes people like to throw this argument up as a red herring to distract from the much harder to answer question of "what are we going to do to reduce out dependency on oil?". I'm not suggesting that I have the answer (I wish I did), I just would like to see us all work on the same team toward a common goal rather than just start with the infighting.
While I agree that the orbiting umbrellas is a ridiculous proposal, I think you're looking at things from a skewed perspective with regard to automobiles.
First of all, you obviously live in a major metropolitan area to be able to not own a car (that is, you must have copious and effective mass transit available to you). For many people across the country, owning a car is not an option if they are to be able to get ANYWHERE (see work, school, hospital, etc). While I agree that if one can feasibly find alternative means of transportation, then one should opt for that method, but we shouldn't demonize the very idea of owning a car under the assumption that the only reason people do so is out of selfishness/laziness.
Second, the problem isn't in owning SUV's or other gas guzzling cars, it's the fact that those cars (and car makers, oil companies, and government decision makers) are forcing us to power those vehicles with petroleum. The idea of getting rid of these vehicles is a crude attempt to treat the symptom and not the disease. Don't make it a bad thing for the family with 4 kids to drive an SUV because they need the space, make it bad that no one seems interested in solutions to powering these vehicles differently.
In short, just keep in mind that your particular circumstance (i.e. being able to walk to the store and carry your groceries home) isn't necessarily everyone else's (like the mother of 4 with the SUV...imagine her carrying those groceries when the nearest store is 7 miles away)
I wouldn't count your chickens just yet.