O'Reilly doesn't see it as an insult, he doesn't care.
Are you sure about that?
Talk about not getting it, using such a phrase with the INTENT OF CAUSING DISTRESS lends further weight to the concept that being gay is bad. You should not promote that ideology in any context.
Nonsense. Many gay people themselves get a rise by insinuating that a rigidly straight person is gay. Having it used for ironic humor is a way of "demilitarizing" the word. Remember, "gay" is a word that was reclaimed and repurposed by gay people, from being an insult into a positive thing. I think your attitude towards it will only maintain its power to offend. The only people who find it offensive to be called gay are homophobes.
Don't forget gay people! Your seething hatred of gay people comes out in treating "I am gay" as an insult.
You don't get it. It's not that being gay is bad, it's that people like O'Reilly see that as an insult, and they rant about gay people. It's all about the irony, not homophobia. Why do you think certain Republican politicians make such an effort to tell everybody they aren't gay? There was that one guy who even went on about being proud of his family history having "no divorces" and "no homosexuality".
Huh? Why couldn't Presidential emails sent via Blackberry be stored in the archive? After all, the emails still go through a mail server. The linked article mentions nothing about data retention laws - it says that they are worried somebody will steal/hack into it.
... then you should know that it comes with Ultra-Wideband Wireless HDMI buit-in. Plug in a small box at the back of your TV, and connect to it wirelessly, and send the display signal over the airwaves. It comes with the usual wireless options and ports as well, of course.
Since the only computers I'd ever seen back then were Commodores, TI-99/4a's, Apple's, and Tandys, I perceived this as a great deal since I thought that that keyboard was a whole computer.
It seems that to many IBM Model M enthusiasts, that's still the case.
Still... when you talk about a paperless society people talking about "saving the trees", not about "saving the energy required to make paper and ship bills".
Because ultimately it does have that effect. Paperless billing alone won't make the difference, but if society lowers consumption of wood-based products enough, then you start to need less logging activity. Less logging activity means more old-growth forest and biodiversity. You seem to be acting as if all trees are the same. They aren't. A plantation of commercial trees is not the same as a natural forest.
But yes, the immediate impact of paperless bills would be on energy consumption, because of the high rate of recycled material that goes into the the paper that bills are typically printed on.
The question is, where is money and time better spent? Should we spend money on datacenters, and power grids to handle new-age paperless societies in countries that do not have a negative tree-growth rate? Or should we focus on spending money where it can actually make a difference?
Why do you say "or"? Datacenters and powergrids for some countries would be a massive benefit. They are much more efficient than paper-based systems, and have a huge potential to increase quality of life.
Think of it this way... either I could be more environmental by buying a hybrid SUV
There's nothing environmental about buying an SUV. Again, your arguments are strange, because you act like there's only one or two choices, or you can only do one thing at a time.
I hate how people think that reducing paper will reduce environmental impact.
Why do you hate people thinking correctly? Regardless of the number of trees available, it still takes energy to make those sheets of paper, ship it to the consumer, and dispose of/recycle it once it's finished with. So, how does it not reduce environmental impact to use less paper?
So, they had a problem with half of the staff being too big? Sheesh, I'd hate to be a 6ft+ OLPC employee right now. Do they amputate at the knees, or what?
There are no articles in headlines so the "a" is dropped.
Say what? I've seen plenty of headlines with articles in them. Also, slashdot is not a print newspaper, so there's no need to abbreviate for space/size reasons.
in the infamous Terry Schiavo case - in my opinion one of the most odious efforts by the Federal Government to intrude on a person's right to life their life in privacy in the history of this nation.
Methinks this might not be the most appropriate wording for this case.
If Chimpy McBushitler had done this, it'd be business as usual on/.
But now that his O'ness has done it, I'm looking forward to a really entertaining read.
Yeah, the old slashdot standby:
"Waaah! If X had have done Y, slashdot would be up in arms about it, but not if Z had done Y!"
Meanwhile, back in reality, slashdot has a pretty consistent response to Y, regardless of whether X or Z did it. Get over your martyr complex.
The sad part is, I think you struck a nerve. If Bush had done it, oh hell yes we'd hear all about how that eeevil Booosh is taking one more step towards total world domination.
Well, so far, most of the comments have been about how evil Obama is for doing this, so what's the difference?
Technically, it's not a big deal. But for most users, it would probably be a minor inconvenience. Hardly any portable players support lossless formats (other than uncompressed ones like WAV). And even if they do, it means the tracks take up a lot more space. So basically that means that rather than instantly syncing, the computer would have to convert each track to a lossy format when transferring to the portable device.
That's something I'd be willing to put up with, but I would imagine Apple doesn't want to add further complications and contortions to the system.
Or it could be something that the labels aren't willing to do, so at the moment is out of Apple's hands. This could very well be the case, because I don't see Amazon offering lossless tracks either, only the "indy" sellers like Magnatune. Anyway, it's just not an issue for 99% of the market.
What does Guitar Hero have to do with the *creation* of music? That's such a lame prediction anyway, because non-musicians have been able to create music long before the invention of electronics.
Very good - but what about William Shatner? That's the real tricky part about making predictions. Nobody has ever been able to predict what Shatner will be doing.
Slashdot Mirror
O'Reilly doesn't see it as an insult, he doesn't care.
Are you sure about that?
Talk about not getting it, using such a phrase with the INTENT OF CAUSING DISTRESS lends further weight to the concept that being gay is bad. You should not promote that ideology in any context.
Nonsense. Many gay people themselves get a rise by insinuating that a rigidly straight person is gay. Having it used for ironic humor is a way of "demilitarizing" the word. Remember, "gay" is a word that was reclaimed and repurposed by gay people, from being an insult into a positive thing. I think your attitude towards it will only maintain its power to offend. The only people who find it offensive to be called gay are homophobes.
One knows that a shoe is about to drop.
Or be thrown.
Don't forget gay people! Your seething hatred of gay people comes out in treating "I am gay" as an insult.
You don't get it. It's not that being gay is bad, it's that people like O'Reilly see that as an insult, and they rant about gay people. It's all about the irony, not homophobia. Why do you think certain Republican politicians make such an effort to tell everybody they aren't gay? There was that one guy who even went on about being proud of his family history having "no divorces" and "no homosexuality".
Huh? Why couldn't Presidential emails sent via Blackberry be stored in the archive? After all, the emails still go through a mail server. The linked article mentions nothing about data retention laws - it says that they are worried somebody will steal/hack into it.
We've seen bloggers post incorrect information that gets spread around until newspapers pick it up.
Indeed. Steve Jobs just personally announced on Twitter that he has died.
FTA:
Since the only computers I'd ever seen back then were Commodores, TI-99/4a's, Apple's, and Tandys, I perceived this as a great deal since I thought that that keyboard was a whole computer.
It seems that to many IBM Model M enthusiasts, that's still the case.
Still... when you talk about a paperless society people talking about "saving the trees", not about "saving the energy required to make paper and ship bills".
Because ultimately it does have that effect. Paperless billing alone won't make the difference, but if society lowers consumption of wood-based products enough, then you start to need less logging activity. Less logging activity means more old-growth forest and biodiversity. You seem to be acting as if all trees are the same. They aren't. A plantation of commercial trees is not the same as a natural forest.
But yes, the immediate impact of paperless bills would be on energy consumption, because of the high rate of recycled material that goes into the the paper that bills are typically printed on.
The question is, where is money and time better spent? Should we spend money on datacenters, and power grids to handle new-age paperless societies in countries that do not have a negative tree-growth rate? Or should we focus on spending money where it can actually make a difference?
Why do you say "or"? Datacenters and powergrids for some countries would be a massive benefit. They are much more efficient than paper-based systems, and have a huge potential to increase quality of life.
Think of it this way... either I could be more environmental by buying a hybrid SUV
There's nothing environmental about buying an SUV. Again, your arguments are strange, because you act like there's only one or two choices, or you can only do one thing at a time.
I hate how people think that reducing paper will reduce environmental impact.
Why do you hate people thinking correctly? Regardless of the number of trees available, it still takes energy to make those sheets of paper, ship it to the consumer, and dispose of/recycle it once it's finished with. So, how does it not reduce environmental impact to use less paper?
So, they had a problem with half of the staff being too big? Sheesh, I'd hate to be a 6ft+ OLPC employee right now. Do they amputate at the knees, or what?
Have you meta-moderated lately?
Excuse me, that's something I prefer to do in the privacy of my own home.
There are no articles in headlines so the "a" is dropped.
Say what? I've seen plenty of headlines with articles in them. Also, slashdot is not a print newspaper, so there's no need to abbreviate for space/size reasons.
in the infamous Terry Schiavo case - in my opinion one of the most odious efforts by the Federal Government to intrude on a person's right to life their life in privacy in the history of this nation.
Methinks this might not be the most appropriate wording for this case.
they did vote...for more government and less freedom.
Come now, there's no need to bring the 2004 election into this, leave it in the past where it belongs.
If Chimpy McBushitler had done this, it'd be business as usual on /.
But now that his O'ness has done it, I'm looking forward to a really entertaining read.
Yeah, the old slashdot standby:
"Waaah! If X had have done Y, slashdot would be up in arms about it, but not if Z had done Y!"
Meanwhile, back in reality, slashdot has a pretty consistent response to Y, regardless of whether X or Z did it. Get over your martyr complex.
The sad part is, I think you struck a nerve. If Bush had done it, oh hell yes we'd hear all about how that eeevil Booosh is taking one more step towards total world domination.
Well, so far, most of the comments have been about how evil Obama is for doing this, so what's the difference?
Congratulations on electing a politician.
Uhhh, who else is someone supposed to elect? Anybody who is elected is a politician by definition.
Technically, it's not a big deal. But for most users, it would probably be a minor inconvenience. Hardly any portable players support lossless formats (other than uncompressed ones like WAV). And even if they do, it means the tracks take up a lot more space. So basically that means that rather than instantly syncing, the computer would have to convert each track to a lossy format when transferring to the portable device.
That's something I'd be willing to put up with, but I would imagine Apple doesn't want to add further complications and contortions to the system.
Or it could be something that the labels aren't willing to do, so at the moment is out of Apple's hands. This could very well be the case, because I don't see Amazon offering lossless tracks either, only the "indy" sellers like Magnatune. Anyway, it's just not an issue for 99% of the market.
Somebody stood next to Stallman on a stage, and came across as more ridiculous than him? That's unpossible!
So that explains all those bigfoot sightings.
What does Guitar Hero have to do with the *creation* of music? That's such a lame prediction anyway, because non-musicians have been able to create music long before the invention of electronics.
I was just about to add the same thing, with the additional comment that floppy disks as we knew them in 1999 are definitely dead.
Floppy disks were already dead in 1999, we were just waiting for the funeral. The floppiless iMac was released a year earlier.
Very good - but what about William Shatner? That's the real tricky part about making predictions. Nobody has ever been able to predict what Shatner will be doing.
Ray Kurzwiel said, in a 1997 Wired Magazine interview, that I would write this comment in early 2009.
And Netcraft confirms it!
... sorry.