2) Isn't global warming better than another ice age?
I tend to agree. Ice Age 1 and Ice Age 2 were both shocking movies. Ray Romano can kiss my chilly white ass. What is it with the studios thinking that celebrities can be decent voice artists, just because they're celebrities?
If you actually take the oil company money, then you are branded a tool of the petroleum industry and your opinion is ignored.
But you still have the money! Who cares about the other stuff? It also means you can get paid if you are a mediocre scientist who wouldn't otherwise get any respect, anyway. History is full of industry shills making big bucks and gaining noteriety. They often retire to richer lives than the honest ones.
I disagree. When we react strongly to intentional actions it has a strong effect on those who are doing the intending. Just showing outrage can be enough to scare people into backing down.
As has been amply demonstrated in recent years, over-reacting to terrorism has made the threat worse, not lessened it. Similar to the way reacting to trolls on the internet feeds their actions.
Can you tell me which terrorists have been "scared" into backing down because of the reaction?
But natural disasters don't care how much outrage you show.
Nature might not care, but reacting strongly to likely outcomes can result in protection that reduces the effect of natural disasters. It's pretty rational to plan for natural disasters that have a much greater chance of happening than terrorism.
So I wouldn't call it over-reacting. I'd call it rational reaction.
How is it rational to react in a way that makes things much worse, and makes everybody poorer? (except for the politicians who benefit from the fear and xenophobia)
I didn't say get rid of all government, no I firmly believe we have to have a strong court system.
Well, that means you disagree with Libertarianism and the so-called "free market."
One, how many media chains and restaruant chains are owned by the same entity? And two there's always word of mouth
In a hypothetical Libertarian world, they would probably be all owned by the same people. World of mouth would be futile against monopolies of this scale. You could protest all you want, but in a world where corporations controlled everything, it would mean diddly-squat.
Whilst of course most news agency are in fact blogs,
Uhhh, no, they aren't.
based upon the opinion of one person, whether that opinion is actually their opinion or just a PR storey to promote whom ever is paying for the most advertising space at any particular time.
How can it be based on only one person's opinion, if they are designed to promote the opinions of many different advertisers?
They're still attacks, aren't they? I'm sure many other people have been attacked and murdered since Bush said that. If he meant something else, then why did he phrase it that way?
in the traditional sense of the word: a site that regularly signals pages and articles elsewhere on the web by linking to them and adding personal commentary.
Key word: personal. The "traditional" blog is one person's record of their surfing activity, and did not have an open discussion forum. This is also the defining element of the contemporary use of "blog" - it is a personal site written mostly by one person, not a vast open forum.
Slashdot is also not a "record of surfing activity" - as stories are chosen from thousands that slashdotters surf to. One story might be by "submitter A" who has never surfed to the site linked in the next story by "submitter B." If it were a list of surfing atcivity, it would have a list of all the other sites the submitter surfed to in that day.
But why the hell would the buttons be so close together that even large amounts of mis-alignment could cause an incorrect vote? That's absolutely terrible design, that should get the manufacturers sued out of business. Somehow, I think the "mis-aligned touch screen" line is just an excuse. We have not heard any technical analysis of these machines, and why the problem was happening. Just excuses from "officials." Either by incompetence or by design, something very wrong is happening here. It should be investigated rigorously and scientifically.
If you are tired of conspiracy theories, then shouldn't you support transparency in government and the electoral process - so people actually know what the hell is going on? With all this hush-hush stuff and lack of oversight, it allows conspiracy theories to flourish. And that is a good thing, because a lack of oversight and accountability is often how conspiracies are carried out.
I find it amazing how many people are quick to say "who cares" when it comes to important things like the electoral process. If there was nobody up to malicious activity, then why are so many politicians and companies so opposed to a transaparent public process?
It says nothing about why the terminals were malfunctioning, which had everything to do with touch screen calibration (and the need to recalibrate from time to time) and nothing to do with some right-wing conspiracy
So, where did you get the information that it was touch-screen calibration at fault? Why didn't you link to it, so slashdotters could be better informed?
Excuse me, but making a big deal about this is just FUD.
What??! It's a big deal whenever a voting system records inaccurate reults. It doesn't matter if it was deliberate or accidental. The idea of having to calibrate machines as they are being used in an election is quite absurd. It also suggests that poll workers would be able to deliberately mis-calibrate the screens at will. These systems are obviously inadequately designed and not suitable for service, if this is what is required to keep them running.
Today's much better tech means there can be more stations in the same frequency spectrum, however the mass media doesn't want more competition, they don't like the freemarket.
So, what about roads? Should private companies be solely responsible for planning and building roads? There isn't really any technology that eliminates the need for roads yet, or eliminates their impact.
One, restaurants depend on returning customers, if they serve bad food people won't eat there. And two someone who becomes ill because of something they ate at a restaurant they can sue the owner.
But how can they sue anybody, without the government to run the courts and legal system, and to enforce the decisions? That would be government interfering in the free market!
And how would people know about the bad restaurant, if they never hear about it - for example, because the restaurant chain also owns all the media?
What does evolution have to do with economic markets? In case you didn't realize, markets are not biological entities. And what about the vast majority of planets, where there is no life, and therefore no evolution? Are you saying that life will definitely evolve on every planet in the universe?
Again, I wasn't talking about accidental deaths. And why wouldn't people agitate for harsher penalties for negligence? All it takes is one bad accident caused by corporate greed and negligence that gets publicity.
before the DMCA you could in fact be sued for having infringing material posted to your service. now you cannot be if you comply with a porperly sent DMCA takedown letter
That's downright unAmerican! I doubt it is true. You can basically sue anybody over anything. Whether you win or not, is another matter.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what's the reason for the propaganda that global warming is not happening?
I tend to agree. Ice Age 1 and Ice Age 2 were both shocking movies. Ray Romano can kiss my chilly white ass. What is it with the studios thinking that celebrities can be decent voice artists, just because they're celebrities?
But you still have the money! Who cares about the other stuff? It also means you can get paid if you are a mediocre scientist who wouldn't otherwise get any respect, anyway. History is full of industry shills making big bucks and gaining noteriety. They often retire to richer lives than the honest ones.
What does any of this have to do with whether or not slashdot is a blog?
As has been amply demonstrated in recent years, over-reacting to terrorism has made the threat worse, not lessened it. Similar to the way reacting to trolls on the internet feeds their actions.
Can you tell me which terrorists have been "scared" into backing down because of the reaction?
But natural disasters don't care how much outrage you show.
Nature might not care, but reacting strongly to likely outcomes can result in protection that reduces the effect of natural disasters. It's pretty rational to plan for natural disasters that have a much greater chance of happening than terrorism.
So I wouldn't call it over-reacting. I'd call it rational reaction.
How is it rational to react in a way that makes things much worse, and makes everybody poorer? (except for the politicians who benefit from the fear and xenophobia)
Well, that means you disagree with Libertarianism and the so-called "free market."
One, how many media chains and restaruant chains are owned by the same entity? And two there's always word of mouth
In a hypothetical Libertarian world, they would probably be all owned by the same people. World of mouth would be futile against monopolies of this scale. You could protest all you want, but in a world where corporations controlled everything, it would mean diddly-squat.
No, I'm just looking for facts, not speculation.
Uhhh, no, they aren't.
based upon the opinion of one person, whether that opinion is actually their opinion or just a PR storey to promote whom ever is paying for the most advertising space at any particular time.
How can it be based on only one person's opinion, if they are designed to promote the opinions of many different advertisers?
They're still attacks, aren't they? I'm sure many other people have been attacked and murdered since Bush said that. If he meant something else, then why did he phrase it that way?
How is bombing a crappy company not a socio-political motive? Economics is at the core of most people's politics and social interaction these days.
So much for Bush's "no attacks on American soil since 9/11" bullshit, eh?
Key word: personal. The "traditional" blog is one person's record of their surfing activity, and did not have an open discussion forum. This is also the defining element of the contemporary use of "blog" - it is a personal site written mostly by one person, not a vast open forum.
Slashdot is also not a "record of surfing activity" - as stories are chosen from thousands that slashdotters surf to. One story might be by "submitter A" who has never surfed to the site linked in the next story by "submitter B." If it were a list of surfing atcivity, it would have a list of all the other sites the submitter surfed to in that day.
But why the hell would the buttons be so close together that even large amounts of mis-alignment could cause an incorrect vote? That's absolutely terrible design, that should get the manufacturers sued out of business. Somehow, I think the "mis-aligned touch screen" line is just an excuse. We have not heard any technical analysis of these machines, and why the problem was happening. Just excuses from "officials." Either by incompetence or by design, something very wrong is happening here. It should be investigated rigorously and scientifically.
So tell me, where is the definitive evidence that touch-screen mis-alignment was the problem? Has this been scientifically tested?
I find it amazing how many people are quick to say "who cares" when it comes to important things like the electoral process. If there was nobody up to malicious activity, then why are so many politicians and companies so opposed to a transaparent public process?
So, where did you get the information that it was touch-screen calibration at fault? Why didn't you link to it, so slashdotters could be better informed?
What??! It's a big deal whenever a voting system records inaccurate reults. It doesn't matter if it was deliberate or accidental. The idea of having to calibrate machines as they are being used in an election is quite absurd. It also suggests that poll workers would be able to deliberately mis-calibrate the screens at will. These systems are obviously inadequately designed and not suitable for service, if this is what is required to keep them running.
It would be pretty strange if the CIA used Alta Vista when they wanted to search the web.
It's not a blog. It's not a news "agency" either. But it is a news-related discussion site. I'm not sure where you got the idea it is a blog from.
So, what about roads? Should private companies be solely responsible for planning and building roads? There isn't really any technology that eliminates the need for roads yet, or eliminates their impact.
One, restaurants depend on returning customers, if they serve bad food people won't eat there. And two someone who becomes ill because of something they ate at a restaurant they can sue the owner.
But how can they sue anybody, without the government to run the courts and legal system, and to enforce the decisions? That would be government interfering in the free market!
And how would people know about the bad restaurant, if they never hear about it - for example, because the restaurant chain also owns all the media?
What does evolution have to do with economic markets? In case you didn't realize, markets are not biological entities. And what about the vast majority of planets, where there is no life, and therefore no evolution? Are you saying that life will definitely evolve on every planet in the universe?
Nonsense. A company could have you killed. That's a pretty ultimate "barrier to entry."
Again, I wasn't talking about accidental deaths. And why wouldn't people agitate for harsher penalties for negligence? All it takes is one bad accident caused by corporate greed and negligence that gets publicity.
That's downright unAmerican! I doubt it is true. You can basically sue anybody over anything. Whether you win or not, is another matter.
The number 1 company in market-share is not always the most profitable.