Sarcasm aside, it is a bit annoying that suddenly, the choice of dog and the use of a communication device is "big news." It's not big news, Presidents have had communication devices for years and dogs for much longe
Well, President Bush owning an iPod was as much "big news" as this, and the Bushes aren't shy of giving their dogs media coverage. In fact, First Pets are usually well-covered and adored by the media. So, what's changed? Nothing that I can see. Heck, Laura bush recently gave a press conference on their choice of china sets for catering. Of course everything the Presidential family does will be scrutinized by the media (well, unless it's something like criminal corruption or war crimes, then they look the other way).
And who is to say that a future government won't use the data for nefarious purposes?
How is that different to what we already have? We already know that governments with nefarious intent aren't above wiretapping and the like - so what's to stop them from hacking into existing medical records?
I'm just surprised that privacy advocates aren't all up in arms about this dangerous proposal.
Dangerous? that's a bit strong. this proposal, if executed correctly, could save lives. That's the opposite to danger. And, as I just mentioned, the same privacy concerns exist with current systems.
If you're concerned about this, the solution is to have an ethical "firewall" policy about the handling of the data - not to shoot down good ideas because there are potential abuses. And this is true of all government business. First and foremost, we should be demanding system-wide accountability and transparency for all government interactions. But many people prefer a broken system because the gaps and imperfections happen to benefit their goals. I say fix the problems at their core - don't use inefficiencies as an excuse to perpetuate broken systems. It's like Windows - it's a broken system, but people persist with it because it's convenient in the short term.
Easily solved once the device is actually working. Time/dimension machines have an arbitrary date of release. My guess is that this feature exists in the 25th Anniversary Mac, we just don't know it yet.
But shouldn't somebody who is leading a project which absolutely requires world-class security, already be well-versed in world-class security, rather than not even knowing where to start?
I'm in charge of a web application that must be extremely secure. Users will be submitting highly sensitive information to each other using the site. Security must be world-class.
And your way of approaching this problem is to "ask slashdot"? Ye gods.
... now you want all of them to buy TWO cameras per cameraman as well as special editing gear and other crap to make it "3D" with goofy glasses?
I don't see anything in the post you were replying to that mentioned the local news being broadcast in 3D, so I'm not sure why you're ranting about this.
Fallout 3 crashes all the time for me. When wandering around the Wasteland (it only autosaves when you enter/leave buildings or locations) I have to constantly save, otherwise my progress will inevitably lost by a freeze/lockup. Also, many quests are bugged, and the physics are so bad it's easily to stuck in an insignificant pile of rubble.
Apple was basically telling developers "you can make iPhone-optimized websites! They're just like apps, honest!"
Palm is telling developers "our SDK is based around web conventions that any web developer would already be familiar with."
How is that a "huge difference"? it's basically the same statement with different wording.
The whole concept is junk science. It's basically saying that you can urinate in someone's swimming pool if you filter an equal amount of salt out of the ocean.
Since when was carbon trading a science? It's a purely economic measure. Climatology is a science, and global warming has been pretty thoroughly proven by scientists. But when it comes to carbon trading, that's the domain of economics and politics.
I'm an environmentalist who believes in cutting emissions and consumption, but I completely disagree that carbon trading is the way to achieve this. It's just a way to buy indulgences, to do nothing real to change other than throw money at the problem.
Yes, most Republicans are actually pretty open minded. Even a lot of people who do not approve of gay marriage are very tolerant of alternate sexual orientations
that's an oxymoron. Obviously, if you oppose gay marriage, then being gay does matter to you, otherwise why would you oppose it. And you musn't have been paying attention if you think the Republican Party is open-minded.
What public statements has O'Reilly made that make you think he has anything against gay individuals in general?
Not my friends. But then they feel comfortable being gay and are not insecure as some may be I suppose...
It doesn't have anything to do with insecurity, quite the opposite. If your friends use the word gay, then they are using a reclaimed epithet themselves. If calling O'Reilly gay as a joke is so offensive, then that indicates fragility and insecurity.
However, it doesn't matter what they think, what matters is the end effect of the action. To use the concept of being gay as an insult is as I said backwards motion for the cause of universal tolerance of a gay lifestyle, and it's a mistake to use it that way as it only furthers intolerance.
It all depends on the context and the intent. Clearly in this case, it's a lampooning of O'Reilly's homophobia and self-portrayal as America's straightest man. It's meant to insult O'Reilly and homophobes, not gay people.
Slashdot Mirror
just eat through lunch
This statement is baffling on so many levels.
Sarcasm aside, it is a bit annoying that suddenly, the choice of dog and the use of a communication device is "big news." It's not big news, Presidents have had communication devices for years and dogs for much longe
Well, President Bush owning an iPod was as much "big news" as this, and the Bushes aren't shy of giving their dogs media coverage. In fact, First Pets are usually well-covered and adored by the media. So, what's changed? Nothing that I can see. Heck, Laura bush recently gave a press conference on their choice of china sets for catering. Of course everything the Presidential family does will be scrutinized by the media (well, unless it's something like criminal corruption or war crimes, then they look the other way).
smoking a cigar and talking sh1t with foreign diplomats.
Why on earth did you replace the letter "i" in "shit" with the numeral "1"?
So, my ASCII art not only makes a nice wall hanging, but I can use it to shave, too?
And who is to say that a future government won't use the data for nefarious purposes?
How is that different to what we already have? We already know that governments with nefarious intent aren't above wiretapping and the like - so what's to stop them from hacking into existing medical records?
I'm just surprised that privacy advocates aren't all up in arms about this dangerous proposal.
Dangerous? that's a bit strong. this proposal, if executed correctly, could save lives. That's the opposite to danger. And, as I just mentioned, the same privacy concerns exist with current systems.
If you're concerned about this, the solution is to have an ethical "firewall" policy about the handling of the data - not to shoot down good ideas because there are potential abuses. And this is true of all government business. First and foremost, we should be demanding system-wide accountability and transparency for all government interactions. But many people prefer a broken system because the gaps and imperfections happen to benefit their goals. I say fix the problems at their core - don't use inefficiencies as an excuse to perpetuate broken systems. It's like Windows - it's a broken system, but people persist with it because it's convenient in the short term.
If this can save so much money why isn't the health care industry already doing it?
They are, but there's not universal agreement on the standards to be used.
That's not suspicious at all. It's completely normal.
There are two other dimensions to consider in addition to width.
But thickness is the least useful dimension. Making the other dimensions smaller means sacrificing screen size.
Easily solved once the device is actually working. Time/dimension machines have an arbitrary date of release. My guess is that this feature exists in the 25th Anniversary Mac, we just don't know it yet.
But shouldn't somebody who is leading a project which absolutely requires world-class security, already be well-versed in world-class security, rather than not even knowing where to start?
... I also fellate horses.
There are times to publicly execute your legal council.
In this case, wouldn't that be an act of seppuku?
How about him dieing a homeless, disease ridden prostitute?
How about somebody spelling "dying" properly, just once in this thread?
What if McDonald's buys SCO?
But why would McDonlads buy SCO? They're not in the software business.
I'm in charge of a web application that must be extremely secure. Users will be submitting highly sensitive information to each other using the site. Security must be world-class.
And your way of approaching this problem is to "ask slashdot"? Ye gods.
This is why we need to hook our computers up to brownian motion generators.
Gee, did you see that in a videogame somewhere?
If this is true, then USB might finally be usable for copying files and such.
... now you want all of them to buy TWO cameras per cameraman as well as special editing gear and other crap to make it "3D" with goofy glasses?
I don't see anything in the post you were replying to that mentioned the local news being broadcast in 3D, so I'm not sure why you're ranting about this.
Fallout 3 crashes all the time for me. When wandering around the Wasteland (it only autosaves when you enter/leave buildings or locations) I have to constantly save, otherwise my progress will inevitably lost by a freeze/lockup. Also, many quests are bugged, and the physics are so bad it's easily to stuck in an insignificant pile of rubble.
Apple was basically telling developers "you can make iPhone-optimized websites! They're just like apps, honest!" Palm is telling developers "our SDK is based around web conventions that any web developer would already be familiar with."
How is that a "huge difference"? it's basically the same statement with different wording.
The whole concept is junk science. It's basically saying that you can urinate in someone's swimming pool if you filter an equal amount of salt out of the ocean.
Since when was carbon trading a science? It's a purely economic measure. Climatology is a science, and global warming has been pretty thoroughly proven by scientists. But when it comes to carbon trading, that's the domain of economics and politics.
I'm an environmentalist who believes in cutting emissions and consumption, but I completely disagree that carbon trading is the way to achieve this. It's just a way to buy indulgences, to do nothing real to change other than throw money at the problem.
because as stated... "more paper == more trees".
But you haven't provided any evidence of that. One does not necessarily follow from the other.
Yes, most Republicans are actually pretty open minded. Even a lot of people who do not approve of gay marriage are very tolerant of alternate sexual orientations
that's an oxymoron. Obviously, if you oppose gay marriage, then being gay does matter to you, otherwise why would you oppose it. And you musn't have been paying attention if you think the Republican Party is open-minded.
What public statements has O'Reilly made that make you think he has anything against gay individuals in general?
Seriously? Have you not ever listened to the man? One link from a 5-second Googling.
Not my friends. But then they feel comfortable being gay and are not insecure as some may be I suppose...
It doesn't have anything to do with insecurity, quite the opposite. If your friends use the word gay, then they are using a reclaimed epithet themselves. If calling O'Reilly gay as a joke is so offensive, then that indicates fragility and insecurity.
However, it doesn't matter what they think, what matters is the end effect of the action. To use the concept of being gay as an insult is as I said backwards motion for the cause of universal tolerance of a gay lifestyle, and it's a mistake to use it that way as it only furthers intolerance.
It all depends on the context and the intent. Clearly in this case, it's a lampooning of O'Reilly's homophobia and self-portrayal as America's straightest man. It's meant to insult O'Reilly and homophobes, not gay people.
Obviously, their hatred of Americans isn't strong enough to make English that language. Who do they hate more than Americans? Jews!
But that obviously won't work for Jewish terrorists, so we're back at square one.