No, we can't predict exactly how much warmer it will be, or exactly what the rate of change will be. We don't know exactly how much humans contribute to this anyway.
The problem with this argument is that it's just as politicized as the pro arguments it attempts to politicize. You attack those who support the theory of global warming by saying scientists can't predict this exactly? They just did! The facts have been laid at your feet! Read the article! Scientists have been collecting global warming data for years now. The fact is that global warming is here. It's getting warmer, and human activity is to blame. I'm sorry we can't measure the impact down to the tiniest fern or in terms of micrograms of pollution, but the facts have been pounded on over and over and over, and people like you say "I'm sorry you haven't given me any facts." Typical political denial.
Conservatives politicized this, by being in the pocket of corporations that want to fight this because they feel that this will hurt their profits tremendously. They cast doubt. They drag the issue through the muck, then blame anyone for continuing to push the issue as "liberals" who are dragging the issue thru the muck. It's clever, but I see right through it.
Enough facts have been laid out on this problem. However, no one wants to try the solution until it's too late. Companies demand a holy grail of absolute proof, which consists of a middle school science project that demonstrates global warming is real. None exists, and they know it, so they demand the proof to hold off on any attempt to reduce emissions in order to save their own profits.
And that's the only thing that's stopping us here, are personal and corporate profits. Emission controls could be put in place for the same price as all the effort that is going into litigation and spreading FUD and long term profits would not be affected. You don't have to spend huge amounts of money to cut down on your own carbon emissions, and often it just requires some mental effort to think about and you'll end up not spending anything.
This just levels the field. What happens when one of the formats wins, and in a year or two after that DVD makers try to save money by making DVD players that only play the winning format. The reason why DVD makers support VCD, CD, MP3, MPEG, AVI and all those other damn formats is because those formats live and customers ask for them, not because they have any sympathy for a customer who might be one of those few who has a betamax.
In other words, you have no evidence, there are any difficulties... Maybe, you should take my word for it? Someone's who can read Ukrainian and Russian, and converses regularly with friends abroad?
My point is that I have no evidence, and you haven't provided any evidence. So at the beginning of this discussion there is no evidence. And the lack of evidence supports my point that we have no idea what might happen, and that your comment it's just an emotional plea over the issue. But then again it's beside the point because you've taken my comment out of context and of course dodged all the important points in my post.
And one should never take someone elses word for it. I'm a skeptic. I'd ask you to debate it but that point is neither in debate nor is it central to the issue.
What FUD? That Russia kills overly critical reporters, and sues overly outspoken businesmen into bancruptcy? Or that China has political prisoners and blocks access to certain political sites? Or that they both threaten neighbors with military force?
You took my comment out of context, and what's worse you completely misinterpreted my comment.
My points:
1) China and Russia don't give a shit how the internet is run right now, because they can censor, kill, bully or do whatever the hell they want right now. All those things do happen regardless of the very existence of the internet, much less who controls it. The internet is about total freedom, and with that also comes people, organizations, and regimes, which exploit that. Evidence suggests China and Russia like things just fine. As I said, nations of the EU are behind the push to make the internet regulated by an international body. Russia and China aren't part of that.
2) The EU nations have a gripe over the internet. They want a stake, they want a say, and they don't trust the US. Most of the information I have surrounding the reasons for this are sketchy and I made a point to say that why the EU wants this is unclear, except that the US acts like the school yard bully and doesn't like to share it's toys, and the EU is worried one day they will stop sharing. What needs to be made most clear is what they want and how they want to do it. One has no proof if giving control to a UN body would be bad or good. And that's the key. I did NOT say give control to China/Russia, which is what your emotional plea is saying. I said UN body, which is a different animal all together, and it's what the EU has been calling for.
3) Your FUD is the emotional plea that if this happened, somehow Russia and China would subvert the internet would collapse or something. I seriously doubt that. Like I said, everything seems to point to the fact that Russia and China like the internet the way it is. They can control the traffic within their servers just the way they want to. You basically in order to make a point, made the jump that a UN body governing will make the internet something it's not right now. You don't know that, so your plea is simply an emotional plea against change. It's a hyperbole, and exaggeration. It could be true but I doubt it.
As a preface, I, as of yet, do not have a specific opinion on US vs UN governorship over the Internet.
To say that if decisions controlling the internet were made by a UN body would somehow make things worse is typical political bi-polar thinking. "Everything's perfect now, obviously. So if we give it to someone else, it will obviously be worse." Could things get worse? Maybe, but they could get better. You simply can't make that assertion without making a well founded logical argument with reasonable facts.
Now, idealistically, a process that has it's roots in a democratic system and overseen by a stable, minimally corrupt UN would be a good thing. The UN isn't perfect, because it's made up of representatives from selfish countries. Well, how does that differ from the US, because it's made up of representatives from one selfish country? Being in the US, I can say the internet is working okay now, but I worry about it's future with tiered internet access being pushed on a government body proven time and again to be corrupt and full of corporate shills. Also, being in the US, I have no knowledge of the problems other companies run into. Because I can't seem to find a good article describing the issues other countries have with the way the US runs the internet, I can't make a judgement here, but neither can someone spreading Russia and China FUD.
Also, to say Russia and China would have a say is stupid on two levels. One, they already do have a say. China pushes companies to censor content on the internet constantly. They have control over the content in the domain. Two, the major push for taking control of the internet out of US hands is being done by European powers in the EU, which doesn't include Russia! China and Russia are happy at the moment to "stay the course." What if the new UN government body, if it comes into existance, says that in order to be on the internet you cannot censor and you cannot influence or coerce companies to censor? That would be bad for China if the penalty was having their TLD turned off. Suddenly China would no longer be so economically attractive to international investors if it wasn't connected to the same internet.
Let's have a discussion of the facts for once and stay in the 21st century. One red scare was enough.
In honor of this situation, I say we rename the disease to Dilbert's Syndrome. Note how Dilbert has no mouth? Think about it:)
You think this is callous? Far from it! Again we name it this way in order to honor the first person who kicked it. And I think Scott would enjoy the irony of having a neurological disease named after one of his characters. Scott Adams is all about Irony;)
I've been fascinated with speech conditions, primarily because of the nature of how people end up compensating and communicating. It's definitely related to something neurological, because scientists have shown that, for example, you use different parts of your brain when you speak personally vs when you sing. I've also seen people who, when they act on stage or in screen, speak in perfect diction, tone, and with great command, but if asked to improvise or speak informally, they say umm a lot and/or seem very nervous. A prepared speech in front of many people would often work, neurologically, the same way as an acting or singing performance.
I wish Scott Adams the best. He's one of the gods in the geek pantheon, and it would be sad for him to suffer so when he brings joy to so many of us.
IANAPhysist. In fact, when the article began to spew forth quantum mechanics info, my eye began to develop a twitch and I started to drool.
However, I am a self proclaimed computer geek. The main benefit of quantum computers, as I understand it, is an exponential leap in computing power and storage of such systems. If I understand correctly, a qubit can be altered by it's environment and change it's state, thus ruining it's data. I fail to see how this differs from computers today. Run a magnet over a hard drive enough times and good by data. Hard drives fail and lose data all the time, but we have sophisticated data checking algorythms designed to catch this kind of thing so that it doesn't get out of hand. It looks like they are doing something similar here.
I don't understand how one creates a worm with this either. If you know qubit for qubit, what data you want to change, then perhaps, but that requires knowing the qubits ahead of time, doesn't it? Same way with bits today. People create worms due to vulnerabilities within the hardware and software that they can program in. I know of no viruses which rewrite data specifically on their knowledge of ones and zeros.
Could a worm try to attack the physical nature of a quantum computer and run the data by physically attacking it? I don't know in quantum computers, but maybe that's what they are saying. The article is sufficiently arcane that it's difficult to see if it's just an attempt at fear mongering among us lessers, by saying "ooooo quantum computers are vulnerable to worms!" or if there is any real value to this article.
Peter Jackson's track record as a director is firmly established. However, as the submission said, he's not the director here. Slide Peter into the director's chair, and yes the equation does change.
You have to understand, Hollywood's track record with movies based on game adaptations is not good. So when you say "I'm going to make a movie based on a game" you are already starting in a hole. To dig out of the hole, you have to get a great script, a strong proven director, and reasonably good cast.
Then real hard part begins. You have to make sure the movie itself provides enough material to entertain fans of the game, stick to the over all idea of the original story, and then include enough quality to stand on a movie on it's own to draw in nonfans to make money. This is the hard part because while games don't typically require the same capital investment as movies (big name stars, directors, creative crew require much larger sums of money than your top notch game programmers).
I'm not saying Neil is bad, but he's not got Peter's reputation. Writing a script that can do all this is hard, and the IMDB link says they've changed scriptwriters at least once. They haven't dug out of the hole, and Fox looks like it's not going to take the risk.
If Peter looked like he had the same level of involvment in this project like he did in LotR, then this would be a great movie. It doesn't look like he does, and well he can't be perfect in all of his releases:) If it did come out bad, I'd rather it be axed now then damage his reputation later.
This is one reason why I plan to live in the South as long as I live in America. Most of the South is still relatively sane. Someone comes at you with any sort of axe, ice pick, knife, etc. you're going to be hard-pressed to find a jury that will convict you for blowing their head off.
And us yankees are up here are tilting our eyebrows at the fact that in the south you have people that are coming at you with a pick axe in the first place.
This is typical short sighted thinking. I'm not trying to start a yankee/southern war, just saying this is short sighted in general. The internet is only inflaming already existant problems in any society when things like this happen.
1) The idiot who got into the argument who got beaten didn't think that there were repercussions on the internet. Lots of people think they have total anonymity. They do not.
2) The idiot who did the beating has a severe problem with reality and anger management. He's a problem that needs to be dealt with, using whatever conservative or liberal means you deem fit. The internet just allowed him to see the fucknut in #1 as an object of anger and not as a human, and the internet enabled him to find this guy and unleash his rage, which he obviously doesn't know how to control.
3) I try very hard not to put myself in either of these positions. It's really easy. 99.99999% of the time people have an easy to descern reason as to why they want to hurt you if they indeed are going to try to hurt you. None of this "whackos are stalking you randomly" bullshit, that's the remaining.00001% percent. Don't put yourself in this situation, and there's really no need to own a gun to blow someone's brain out.
Once again, a rude slashdotter assumes the only people who read slashdot are white male human computer geeks living in the United States. As a purple hermaphroditic Jupitarian meteorological geek living on Europa, I find your comment distasteful and thoughtless. When are you going to learn, you narrow-minded Terrans?!?!
The article has things oversimplified. It's not a larger monitor that makes you more productive. It's more real estate that makes you more productive. With that 30 inch monitor came a higher resolution. A 30 inch monitor at 800x600 is not much more productive than a 15 incher.
A larger monitor is easier on the eyes, and if it's easier on the eyes, you can make the resolution higher, thus gaining more real estate and being able to put more windows on your screen.
Dual monitors always increase real estate so it's easy to see how they increase productivity. Getting a larger monitor doesn't always increase productivity unless it includes an increase in resolution.
Once again this proves that it's not the size that matters, it's how you use it.
"Bock says that when she moved back to her repaired house over the summer, she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked."
Bock is the Defendant and Scheff is the plaintiff. Bock basically was in Louisiana when Katrina hit and had to evacuate. When she got some of her lift back on track, it looks like she just say "awww fuck it, my life is turned upside-down, I can't deal with this" and simply let it go. Bock didn't even show up for the trial and had to let go of her lawyer!
If you make no effort to show up for a trial in order to present a defense, then you will lose by default. Scheff won essentially on a technicality, not the facts of the case. I took a prior landlord to court once and he lost because he didn't show up for trial. The Judge ruled in favor of him simply because he didn't show up, and didn't even bother to look at the facts of the case. You have to show up to defend yourself or you are in contempt of court. The reason why the judgement was so large was probably because that was the maximum Scheff asked for or could get, and with no one to defend the outcome, no one was there to defend the penalty either!
Here's more details from the article:
Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another.
Basically we make a jump from Scheff providing services to help Bock to Bock becoming critical of Scheff, with no facts in between as to why. I can't blame the author of the article because she's not reporting on a violation of free speech, jus the facts of the case. I also can't judge if she was able to obtain why Bock was critical and what comments she made and where. Obviously the submitter of this article wanted to stir up he "Slander is not free speech" crowd, and succeeded in doing so, but you can't go that far unless you know more about what Bock said and what Scheff did to make Bock say those things.
Scheff won on a technicality due to natural disaster. Winning on a technicality is not news, except for USA today, which never has any decent articles. This is one of the biggest stretches I've ever seen on slashdot. Maybe I should sue the editors and submitter for letting bullshit like this get on slashdot.
"The problem with hypothermia is it's not that easy to cool down the human body so if we can find another method to inhibit metabolism that would be very useful"
This is incredibly stupid. First, the proper terminology is cryogenics. Hypothermia is a condition, not a method of suspended animation.
Second, sucking out the heat from a limited space is not that hard, we do it today in many applications today. The hard part is preventing damage to the cells within your body as the water within your cells freezes, crystalizes, and basically pops every cell in your body. As biologists, chemists, and physicists know, as water freezes, it expands.
If this were not true, then it would simply be a matter of money to keep the body cool enough to wake up at some later date and the space program would have been to jupiter and back by now using that technology.
For a bunch of geeks, I'd think that doing a bit of research & gathering the facts before reaching a conclusion would be the *first* thing you'd do when trying to combat what you decry as a campaign of FUD & misinformation.
It wasn't taken as a good exaggerated story. Just a tip but if you want it to be taken as such, you need to use a tone that doesn't sound authoritative.
The majority of gas is NOT tax. There are a lot of pieces fo the cost of gas but tax is somewhere between 25-35% of the total cost of gas.
Secondly, the tax on gas is tied directly to gas. That's what the law says. There's nothing tying it directly to driving. I pay tax on gas if mowing the lawn, running a generator, etc etc. If this were the case, I'd have to pay tax for riding my bike.
The outlandish nature of your comments makes me suspect you work for the energy companies.
Walmart wants attention or something else they aren't telling the general public. Neither side wants to stop selling disney stuff. Disney could easy turn around and go somewhere else and exploit all other retailers, but that would require work Disney doesn't want to do, and ost them money they don't want to spend, and Walmart doesn't want to get rid of ~20% of their media sales just because they don't like the iTunes store. Disney would come out on top of a silly thing like this if they actually wanted to fight it out in the market, but not without losing a little share price.
My bet is someone at Walmart asked to talk with the Board of directors at Disney, and the board snubbed them. So Walmart punched them in the arm with this little stunt like a petulant child and is demanding attention. The real life answer to this is to ignore it, but I'm sure they'll have a meeting now and work something out.
Personally I hope they eat each other alive but whatever, that won't happen.
It's hard to find any grown man today who hasn't seen the classic man-flick "Top Gun." By the same token it would be hard for any man not to be able to identify the F-14. A small slice of americana has officially slid into the past. It looked like the SUV of jet fighters, since it was so big, but it was sexy. It was meant to rule the sky, an air superiority fighter.
Hell yes, I admit I would love to fly at Mach 3 with my hair on fire, and have the call sign "Maverick." While over all I felt the military would be a poor choice of career for me due to my disrespect for authority, I always had a small fantasy to be able to fly an F-14.
I will briefly lament it's passing by wearing Axe body spray, putting on a navy uniform, and going out to bars to sing "She's Lost that Lovin' Feeling" to women who won't sleep with me.
You took my quote out of context, and forgot to include the important part at the end:
"and change how they treat me based on this information"
If you think I'm an asshole because I'm a bleeding heart liberal, I don't care, but if I'm nice to you, say please and thank you, and you still treat me like an asshole all because of my personal opinions, that's when it's your problem, not mine. That's the kind of judgement I'm talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize fortune cookies are technically an american invention right?
No, we can't predict exactly how much warmer it will be, or exactly what the rate of change will be. We don't know exactly how much humans contribute to this anyway.
The problem with this argument is that it's just as politicized as the pro arguments it attempts to politicize. You attack those who support the theory of global warming by saying scientists can't predict this exactly? They just did! The facts have been laid at your feet! Read the article! Scientists have been collecting global warming data for years now. The fact is that global warming is here. It's getting warmer, and human activity is to blame. I'm sorry we can't measure the impact down to the tiniest fern or in terms of micrograms of pollution, but the facts have been pounded on over and over and over, and people like you say "I'm sorry you haven't given me any facts." Typical political denial.
Conservatives politicized this, by being in the pocket of corporations that want to fight this because they feel that this will hurt their profits tremendously. They cast doubt. They drag the issue through the muck, then blame anyone for continuing to push the issue as "liberals" who are dragging the issue thru the muck. It's clever, but I see right through it.
Enough facts have been laid out on this problem. However, no one wants to try the solution until it's too late. Companies demand a holy grail of absolute proof, which consists of a middle school science project that demonstrates global warming is real. None exists, and they know it, so they demand the proof to hold off on any attempt to reduce emissions in order to save their own profits.
And that's the only thing that's stopping us here, are personal and corporate profits. Emission controls could be put in place for the same price as all the effort that is going into litigation and spreading FUD and long term profits would not be affected. You don't have to spend huge amounts of money to cut down on your own carbon emissions, and often it just requires some mental effort to think about and you'll end up not spending anything.
You can't take a free newspaper and then turn around and resell it to someone else for $.25 a copy, either.
This just levels the field. What happens when one of the formats wins, and in a year or two after that DVD makers try to save money by making DVD players that only play the winning format. The reason why DVD makers support VCD, CD, MP3, MPEG, AVI and all those other damn formats is because those formats live and customers ask for them, not because they have any sympathy for a customer who might be one of those few who has a betamax.
In other words, you have no evidence, there are any difficulties... Maybe, you should take my word for it? Someone's who can read Ukrainian and Russian, and converses regularly with friends abroad?
My point is that I have no evidence, and you haven't provided any evidence. So at the beginning of this discussion there is no evidence. And the lack of evidence supports my point that we have no idea what might happen, and that your comment it's just an emotional plea over the issue. But then again it's beside the point because you've taken my comment out of context and of course dodged all the important points in my post.
And one should never take someone elses word for it. I'm a skeptic. I'd ask you to debate it but that point is neither in debate nor is it central to the issue.
What FUD? That Russia kills overly critical reporters, and sues overly outspoken businesmen into bancruptcy? Or that China has political prisoners and blocks access to certain political sites? Or that they both threaten neighbors with military force?
You took my comment out of context, and what's worse you completely misinterpreted my comment.
My points:
1) China and Russia don't give a shit how the internet is run right now, because they can censor, kill, bully or do whatever the hell they want right now. All those things do happen regardless of the very existence of the internet, much less who controls it. The internet is about total freedom, and with that also comes people, organizations, and regimes, which exploit that. Evidence suggests China and Russia like things just fine. As I said, nations of the EU are behind the push to make the internet regulated by an international body. Russia and China aren't part of that.
2) The EU nations have a gripe over the internet. They want a stake, they want a say, and they don't trust the US. Most of the information I have surrounding the reasons for this are sketchy and I made a point to say that why the EU wants this is unclear, except that the US acts like the school yard bully and doesn't like to share it's toys, and the EU is worried one day they will stop sharing. What needs to be made most clear is what they want and how they want to do it. One has no proof if giving control to a UN body would be bad or good. And that's the key. I did NOT say give control to China/Russia, which is what your emotional plea is saying. I said UN body, which is a different animal all together, and it's what the EU has been calling for.
3) Your FUD is the emotional plea that if this happened, somehow Russia and China would subvert the internet would collapse or something. I seriously doubt that. Like I said, everything seems to point to the fact that Russia and China like the internet the way it is. They can control the traffic within their servers just the way they want to. You basically in order to make a point, made the jump that a UN body governing will make the internet something it's not right now. You don't know that, so your plea is simply an emotional plea against change. It's a hyperbole, and exaggeration. It could be true but I doubt it.
As a preface, I, as of yet, do not have a specific opinion on US vs UN governorship over the Internet.
To say that if decisions controlling the internet were made by a UN body would somehow make things worse is typical political bi-polar thinking. "Everything's perfect now, obviously. So if we give it to someone else, it will obviously be worse." Could things get worse? Maybe, but they could get better. You simply can't make that assertion without making a well founded logical argument with reasonable facts.
Now, idealistically, a process that has it's roots in a democratic system and overseen by a stable, minimally corrupt UN would be a good thing. The UN isn't perfect, because it's made up of representatives from selfish countries. Well, how does that differ from the US, because it's made up of representatives from one selfish country? Being in the US, I can say the internet is working okay now, but I worry about it's future with tiered internet access being pushed on a government body proven time and again to be corrupt and full of corporate shills. Also, being in the US, I have no knowledge of the problems other companies run into. Because I can't seem to find a good article describing the issues other countries have with the way the US runs the internet, I can't make a judgement here, but neither can someone spreading Russia and China FUD.
Also, to say Russia and China would have a say is stupid on two levels. One, they already do have a say. China pushes companies to censor content on the internet constantly. They have control over the content in the domain. Two, the major push for taking control of the internet out of US hands is being done by European powers in the EU, which doesn't include Russia! China and Russia are happy at the moment to "stay the course." What if the new UN government body, if it comes into existance, says that in order to be on the internet you cannot censor and you cannot influence or coerce companies to censor? That would be bad for China if the penalty was having their TLD turned off. Suddenly China would no longer be so economically attractive to international investors if it wasn't connected to the same internet.
Let's have a discussion of the facts for once and stay in the 21st century. One red scare was enough.
In honor of this situation, I say we rename the disease to Dilbert's Syndrome. Note how Dilbert has no mouth? Think about it :)
;)
You think this is callous? Far from it! Again we name it this way in order to honor the first person who kicked it. And I think Scott would enjoy the irony of having a neurological disease named after one of his characters. Scott Adams is all about Irony
I've been fascinated with speech conditions, primarily because of the nature of how people end up compensating and communicating. It's definitely related to something neurological, because scientists have shown that, for example, you use different parts of your brain when you speak personally vs when you sing. I've also seen people who, when they act on stage or in screen, speak in perfect diction, tone, and with great command, but if asked to improvise or speak informally, they say umm a lot and/or seem very nervous. A prepared speech in front of many people would often work, neurologically, the same way as an acting or singing performance.
I wish Scott Adams the best. He's one of the gods in the geek pantheon, and it would be sad for him to suffer so when he brings joy to so many of us.
IANAPhysist. In fact, when the article began to spew forth quantum mechanics info, my eye began to develop a twitch and I started to drool.
:)
However, I am a self proclaimed computer geek. The main benefit of quantum computers, as I understand it, is an exponential leap in computing power and storage of such systems. If I understand correctly, a qubit can be altered by it's environment and change it's state, thus ruining it's data. I fail to see how this differs from computers today. Run a magnet over a hard drive enough times and good by data. Hard drives fail and lose data all the time, but we have sophisticated data checking algorythms designed to catch this kind of thing so that it doesn't get out of hand. It looks like they are doing something similar here.
I don't understand how one creates a worm with this either. If you know qubit for qubit, what data you want to change, then perhaps, but that requires knowing the qubits ahead of time, doesn't it? Same way with bits today. People create worms due to vulnerabilities within the hardware and software that they can program in. I know of no viruses which rewrite data specifically on their knowledge of ones and zeros.
Could a worm try to attack the physical nature of a quantum computer and run the data by physically attacking it? I don't know in quantum computers, but maybe that's what they are saying. The article is sufficiently arcane that it's difficult to see if it's just an attempt at fear mongering among us lessers, by saying "ooooo quantum computers are vulnerable to worms!" or if there is any real value to this article.
A quantum to english translator is needed
Peter Jackson's track record as a director is firmly established. However, as the submission said, he's not the director here. Slide Peter into the director's chair, and yes the equation does change.
:) If it did come out bad, I'd rather it be axed now then damage his reputation later.
You have to understand, Hollywood's track record with movies based on game adaptations is not good. So when you say "I'm going to make a movie based on a game" you are already starting in a hole. To dig out of the hole, you have to get a great script, a strong proven director, and reasonably good cast.
Then real hard part begins. You have to make sure the movie itself provides enough material to entertain fans of the game, stick to the over all idea of the original story, and then include enough quality to stand on a movie on it's own to draw in nonfans to make money. This is the hard part because while games don't typically require the same capital investment as movies (big name stars, directors, creative crew require much larger sums of money than your top notch game programmers).
I'm not saying Neil is bad, but he's not got Peter's reputation. Writing a script that can do all this is hard, and the IMDB link says they've changed scriptwriters at least once. They haven't dug out of the hole, and Fox looks like it's not going to take the risk.
If Peter looked like he had the same level of involvment in this project like he did in LotR, then this would be a great movie. It doesn't look like he does, and well he can't be perfect in all of his releases
"The planet is doing just fine... it's the people who are fucked."
This is one reason why I plan to live in the South as long as I live in America. Most of the South is still relatively sane. Someone comes at you with any sort of axe, ice pick, knife, etc. you're going to be hard-pressed to find a jury that will convict you for blowing their head off.
.00001% percent. Don't put yourself in this situation, and there's really no need to own a gun to blow someone's brain out.
And us yankees are up here are tilting our eyebrows at the fact that in the south you have people that are coming at you with a pick axe in the first place.
This is typical short sighted thinking. I'm not trying to start a yankee/southern war, just saying this is short sighted in general. The internet is only inflaming already existant problems in any society when things like this happen.
1) The idiot who got into the argument who got beaten didn't think that there were repercussions on the internet. Lots of people think they have total anonymity. They do not.
2) The idiot who did the beating has a severe problem with reality and anger management. He's a problem that needs to be dealt with, using whatever conservative or liberal means you deem fit. The internet just allowed him to see the fucknut in #1 as an object of anger and not as a human, and the internet enabled him to find this guy and unleash his rage, which he obviously doesn't know how to control.
3) I try very hard not to put myself in either of these positions. It's really easy. 99.99999% of the time people have an easy to descern reason as to why they want to hurt you if they indeed are going to try to hurt you. None of this "whackos are stalking you randomly" bullshit, that's the remaining
Once again, a rude slashdotter assumes the only people who read slashdot are white male human computer geeks living in the United States. As a purple hermaphroditic Jupitarian meteorological geek living on Europa, I find your comment distasteful and thoughtless. When are you going to learn, you narrow-minded Terrans?!?!
Perhaps that's where their daughter was conceived?
The article has things oversimplified. It's not a larger monitor that makes you more productive. It's more real estate that makes you more productive. With that 30 inch monitor came a higher resolution. A 30 inch monitor at 800x600 is not much more productive than a 15 incher.
A larger monitor is easier on the eyes, and if it's easier on the eyes, you can make the resolution higher, thus gaining more real estate and being able to put more windows on your screen.
Dual monitors always increase real estate so it's easy to see how they increase productivity. Getting a larger monitor doesn't always increase productivity unless it includes an increase in resolution.
Once again this proves that it's not the size that matters, it's how you use it.
The Judge ruled in favor of him simply because he didn't show up
I think the readers got the point, but to clarify, the Judge ruled in favor of ME because he didn't show up.
Proofreading is our friend. Thanks for pointing that out.
From TFA:
"Bock says that when she moved back to her repaired house over the summer, she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked."
Bock is the Defendant and Scheff is the plaintiff. Bock basically was in Louisiana when Katrina hit and had to evacuate. When she got some of her lift back on track, it looks like she just say "awww fuck it, my life is turned upside-down, I can't deal with this" and simply let it go. Bock didn't even show up for the trial and had to let go of her lawyer!
If you make no effort to show up for a trial in order to present a defense, then you will lose by default. Scheff won essentially on a technicality, not the facts of the case. I took a prior landlord to court once and he lost because he didn't show up for trial. The Judge ruled in favor of him simply because he didn't show up, and didn't even bother to look at the facts of the case. You have to show up to defend yourself or you are in contempt of court. The reason why the judgement was so large was probably because that was the maximum Scheff asked for or could get, and with no one to defend the outcome, no one was there to defend the penalty either!
Here's more details from the article:
Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another.
Basically we make a jump from Scheff providing services to help Bock to Bock becoming critical of Scheff, with no facts in between as to why. I can't blame the author of the article because she's not reporting on a violation of free speech, jus the facts of the case. I also can't judge if she was able to obtain why Bock was critical and what comments she made and where. Obviously the submitter of this article wanted to stir up he "Slander is not free speech" crowd, and succeeded in doing so, but you can't go that far unless you know more about what Bock said and what Scheff did to make Bock say those things.
Scheff won on a technicality due to natural disaster. Winning on a technicality is not news, except for USA today, which never has any decent articles. This is one of the biggest stretches I've ever seen on slashdot. Maybe I should sue the editors and submitter for letting bullshit like this get on slashdot.
"The problem with hypothermia is it's not that easy to cool down the human body so if we can find another method to inhibit metabolism that would be very useful"
This is incredibly stupid. First, the proper terminology is cryogenics. Hypothermia is a condition, not a method of suspended animation.
Second, sucking out the heat from a limited space is not that hard, we do it today in many applications today. The hard part is preventing damage to the cells within your body as the water within your cells freezes, crystalizes, and basically pops every cell in your body. As biologists, chemists, and physicists know, as water freezes, it expands.
If this were not true, then it would simply be a matter of money to keep the body cool enough to wake up at some later date and the space program would have been to jupiter and back by now using that technology.
For a bunch of geeks, I'd think that doing a bit of research & gathering the facts before reaching a conclusion would be the *first* thing you'd do when trying to combat what you decry as a campaign of FUD & misinformation.
You must new here.
How about a quick explanation?
It wasn't taken as a good exaggerated story. Just a tip but if you want it to be taken as such, you need to use a tone that doesn't sound authoritative.
The majority of gas is NOT tax. There are a lot of pieces fo the cost of gas but tax is somewhere between 25-35% of the total cost of gas.
Secondly, the tax on gas is tied directly to gas. That's what the law says. There's nothing tying it directly to driving. I pay tax on gas if mowing the lawn, running a generator, etc etc. If this were the case, I'd have to pay tax for riding my bike.
The outlandish nature of your comments makes me suspect you work for the energy companies.
Walmart wants attention or something else they aren't telling the general public. Neither side wants to stop selling disney stuff. Disney could easy turn around and go somewhere else and exploit all other retailers, but that would require work Disney doesn't want to do, and ost them money they don't want to spend, and Walmart doesn't want to get rid of ~20% of their media sales just because they don't like the iTunes store. Disney would come out on top of a silly thing like this if they actually wanted to fight it out in the market, but not without losing a little share price.
My bet is someone at Walmart asked to talk with the Board of directors at Disney, and the board snubbed them. So Walmart punched them in the arm with this little stunt like a petulant child and is demanding attention. The real life answer to this is to ignore it, but I'm sure they'll have a meeting now and work something out.
Personally I hope they eat each other alive but whatever, that won't happen.
It's hard to find any grown man today who hasn't seen the classic man-flick "Top Gun." By the same token it would be hard for any man not to be able to identify the F-14. A small slice of americana has officially slid into the past. It looked like the SUV of jet fighters, since it was so big, but it was sexy. It was meant to rule the sky, an air superiority fighter.
Hell yes, I admit I would love to fly at Mach 3 with my hair on fire, and have the call sign "Maverick." While over all I felt the military would be a poor choice of career for me due to my disrespect for authority, I always had a small fantasy to be able to fly an F-14.
I will briefly lament it's passing by wearing Axe body spray, putting on a navy uniform, and going out to bars to sing "She's Lost that Lovin' Feeling" to women who won't sleep with me.
You took my quote out of context, and forgot to include the important part at the end:
"and change how they treat me based on this information"
If you think I'm an asshole because I'm a bleeding heart liberal, I don't care, but if I'm nice to you, say please and thank you, and you still treat me like an asshole all because of my personal opinions, that's when it's your problem, not mine. That's the kind of judgement I'm talking about.