While your concerns for not wanting the Internet to remain exclusively under ICANN's control are understandable, you are pointing out the (absurdly obvious) problem, and offering your share of criticisms, without offering anything resembling a solution. What agency or entity would you have govern the Internet? The U.N.?
I don't trust American politicians -- and I'm an American -- but I trust the U.N. even less. Mind you, I don't know what the solution is, but I do know what it is not. Right now there are people who are, for the most part, technically-minded, who are overseeing the Internet, and overall it is operating quite smoothly -- there would be no possibility of a Slashdot Effect if it were not. The lesser of two evils may still be (arguably) evil, but it's still less evil.
So, please finish the rest of your comment and enlighten us, what is your solution?
Personally, I find this suggestion to be an intriguing possibility.
I saw "audio CDs" in Wal-Mart several months ago while perusing the blank media section in electronics. From what I could tell by reading the packaging on those and "data" CDRs, they're exactly the same thing in a different wrapper. But yeah, they're still out there... at least, represented as such, anyway.
Let me take a guess: there exists in Spain a single umbrella organisation like the BPA or RIAA that includes enough major record labels for politicians to be able to get away with calling them "the music industry", while ignoring the rest of the music industry. That organisation is responsible for persuading the politicians to pass this law that either mentions them by name or was passed with the understanding that they'd get the money. This law isn't intended to protect rights but to protect a couple of particular special-interest organisations. Am I right?
Not only are you right, you deserve a +10 Insightful. Hope the mods are paying attention today, cuz everyone needs to understand just exactly what kind of reasoning is (not) going into this.
Disclaimer: I am by no means a Bush apologist -- quite the opposite. However I do believe in at least attempting to get facts straight whenever possible and avoid purely emotional outbursts on these matters, which don't help matters any when attempting to bring real accusations to bear.
GWB is all pissed off about these dictators that his g*damned daddy helped put into power as head of the CIA. That won't be on Fox news later, but it's still true.
G.H.W. Bush did not "put [those dictators] into power". In fact, he was only Director of the CIA for just under a year, and that short appointment was mostly to conduct damage control for the Agency's reputation in the wake scandelous revelations about the CIA -- a term which was too brief to enact the sweeping changes in power among other nations which you claim he made. (source) It is not necessary to bring false accusations against guilty men; that is both redundent, and stooping to their level.
Both Bushes are guilty of many things, but let's make sure to accuse them of what they actually did. Like, the USAPatriot Act, the enhanced powers of U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on citizens with no reasonable probable cause, strong-arming other nations to enact mirror versions of U.S. copyright and IP laws, ad infinitum.
Gah, can't help it. If you're sooo worried what your neighbors think that you base important purchasing decisions solely on their opinions, then gas mileage is the least of your problems. I'm not necessarily advocating buying huge-honkin' gas guzzlers (that's a different debate), but geez, if you're gonna go the environmentally friendly route then at least do it for the reasons you rationally believe are right, not because of what your damned neighbors might think.
Use YOUR brain for your personal decisions, not someone else's.
Number 1: are you really that ashamed of your own body? What are you so scared of? I think this whole country is stark (no pun intended) scared of everything. How else could we be governed so well?
It has nothing to do with "being ashamed", and everything to do with: A) Obeying local decency laws; and B) Respecting your neighbors, who may not want to see you buck-nekkid. Geez, what is SO hard to understand about that? Even beautiful people who aren't the slightest bit "ashamed" of their bodies still need to respect the law in the matter, and respect their neighbors. It's part of living in a civilized world with other families in close proximity, if you want them to respect your rights and wishes then you should respect theirs.
Number 2: you still are innocent. Nobody is accusing of any crime whatsoever. Yes, it would be the same thing if they were polite and searched through my stuff. That would inconvenience me. First of all, I have to let some people into my home. This means I'm going to have people walking around poking and prodding at all my stuff. If you think that it isn't an inconvenience watching people poking around in your stuff, even if they're neat about it, I do have to say you have much more patience than I.
I completely agree with you on this, so no rant needed. Though I would like to add in support of your argument, why should we be treated like criminals if we've done nothing wrong?
Number 3: I'll give you a fun solution. PUT YOUR FRICKEN TOP UP. [...] You know what you did? You caused a hassle for the police department. You had to get the captain down to your vehicle, taking him away from his duties because you think it's SO much of a hassle to put the top on your vehicle.
OH NOES, DON'T INCONVENIENCE THE PO-LICE! Spare me. Last I heard, the police were public servents, whose job is generally to protect and serve the public, ie. the taxpayers, who pay their wages. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing but utmost respect and admiration for honest, wanna-do-the-right-thing cops... but also utmost contempt for those who abuse their power. Make no mistake, a police officer IS in a position of power, and like all such positions that power can be -- and unfortunately often is -- abused. That is why we, the people for whom the police work, must ensure that the proper checks and balances remain in place. It's also why many voice concern about aerial spy drones over civilian population areas. And rightly so.
GROW UP. The government's job isn't to kiss you on the forehead, it's job is to keep you and me safe. By wasting the law enforcement's time, you are actually infringing upon MY safety as a citizen, as well as wasting my tax money for your petty problem.
NO. The government's job is NOT to "keep you and me safe". It's to protect our freedoms and, most importantly, allow us to live our lives as we wish. There is a significant difference, try to wrap your brain around that difference. We can engage in an email discussion if you wish, but that difference is critical. Here's another hint: It's not the government's job to keep us bodily free from harm, it's the gov't's job to keep us free from oppression and tyranny. Physical safety is NOWHERE guaranteed in the Constitution, nor should it be expected. With that clear lack of expectation, it falls on each of us individually to protect ourselves; the police are not superhuman, they cannot be everywhere at once, nor instantly know the law-abiding citizens from the criminals -- THAT determination falls on our court systems. But this is getting off into a whole different rant; I digress.
If YOU left the top off your jeep, it's YOUR responsibility for what's in it. I know a guy who works construction and some of his guys throw beers in the bed of his truck when he's not looking. You know what he does? He cleans them out. He doesn't call the police captain and say "but TH
Do you seriously think that in a commercial environment like the USA Auto companies are currently going through, that if they thought they could sell an EV profitably, they wouldn't? [emph. mine]
THAT'S what I'm saying. It's not profitable to sell EVs over gasoline-powered autos. That is why you won't see them mass-produced and heavily advertised, at least not maybe until the price of oil is so high that the average consumer/worker simply cannot afford to operate and maintain a gas-engine vehicle any longer -- THEN maybe we'll see EVs offered. But certainly not before.
If the big auto makers would advertise and boast about all the benefits of EVs, including their near-gas-engine level of performance, the highly reduced maintenance costs, and (relative) simplicity of design, yes many people would be willing to make the switch. Not all at once of course; it'd take a few early adopters (of which there'd be a respectable number), and for others to see for themselves how an EV could be useful, and after a somewhat show start they'd be selling like hotcakes. Especially if the price of gas reaches too-painful levels.
Yes, they COULD market electric vehicles, if they WANTED to. Quite well, in fact.
You're kidding, right? You don't think that big companies *already* control what people buy through marketing tactics and limiting options? Guess what, if you like Model A, and they decide you should be buying Model B cuz it's more maintenance (ie. more money for them), they will absolutely tell you that the B is much better than A because of whatever reason(s), and those reasons might even have some truth, but they'll yank that A off the market faster than you can blink. And you're stuck with B, because that's what THEY want you to buy, regardless of if it's what YOU want to buy.
Sure that's a slightly over-simplified example, but this concept applies to most consumer-based industries today. Your only options for purchase are what the large corporations who've cornered the market WANT you to buy. Sure, in a few younger and highly competetive markets (eg. video games), you do see some reaction to consumer demand and thus positive growth in the product (eg. UbiSoft dropping its use of Starforce DRM). But in established, entrenched markets, your options become fewer and fewer as time goes buy. YOU have no say in what products will be made available in those entrenched markets.
If Ford or GM wanted you to buy an all-electric car, you'd damn sure see tons of advertising (I've never seen ANY for all-electric, in all my 34 years, in any mainstream media, only hybrids and in gas-engine), and they'd make sure every person throughout all industrialized countries knew of the existance and benefits of owning an electric vehicle. But they don't, partly because, as has been mentioned previously in this thread, the maintenance costs are much lower (less profit for them), and partly because they're in bed with the oil companies to not threaten *their* stranglehold on the economy.
There is absolutely nothing "stable" nor "consistant" with regard to the Earth's global climate. It changes quite drastically even without human interference.
You proved nothing, you simply made entirely subjective statements and presented no facts nor citations.
The sea level is rising due to melting polar ice and thermal expansion of the oceans. [emph. mine]
Ok, am I missing something here? Last I heard, water expands when it freezes, not when it warms -- unless it warms to the point of boiling, which is clearly not (yet) the case.
The evidence for this is readily available.
Please cite your evidence, as well as who collected it, and why. Note: To those on the other side of the debate, the same goes for you, too.
The average global temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 Fahrenheit) over the 20th century, and the scientific opinion on climate change is that it is likely that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"
Let's give the benefit of the doubt with that +/-0.2 degree margin of error and say it's at the top end, so we have an increase of 0.8 deg. over roughly a century. Let's even go a step further and say that it's mostly over the last 50 years, as stated in the article.
You: The average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans is showing a rapid upward trend. [emph. mine]
Me: Um, less than 1 deg. in less than a century? Not so "rapid" there, IMO.
Now keep in mind, I'm not saying global warming is not happening. I'm just pointing out that:
The sky is most likely not indeed falling as some claim -- there is no real, hard, unbiased evidence that the vast majority of life on Earth is going to be wiped out in the next century or so due to this climate change.
We have no idea what the causes are, there is a great deal we do not know about how and why the Earth's climate shifts over long periods of time, nor how long this current increase in temperature will progress, nor to what extent, nor what, if anything, we could possibly do about it.
Also keep in mind that studies indicating "evidence" both for AND against global warming are frequently politically rooted, on both sides of the global warming debate. Nevertheless, the absolute worst thing any of us can do is politicize this debate. Science is, or at least is supposed to be, ignorant of politics or any other arbitrary (read: artificial) human belief system. It's supposed to be about finding the cold, hard truth regardless of what one wants to find. And it's impossible to find out what's really going when one allows one's personal views to color the results one "expects" to find, regardless of the actual methodologies used to discover those results. I shouldn't have to say any of this, but it often becomes necessary especially in this particular debate.
Disclaimer: I'm obviously a skeptic on this particular issue, though I am open to having my mind changed when presented with appropriate, unbiased data from non-partisan sources.
*Yes, I know Wikipedia is to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, but appropriate sources are cited in the article.
Where did this magnetite come from? I think my mother's diet didn't include magnetite, nor did mine.
To answer your question, from The Free Dictionary:
magnetite Pronunciation (mgn-tt)
n.
The mineral form of black iron oxide, Fe3O4, that often occurs with magnesium, zinc, and manganese and is an important ore of iron
Last I heard, the human body has all of these components -- magnesium, zinc, and manganese, in varying quantities. As indicated in the main article, the fragmented magnet within a person's finger was able to pull itself (loosely) back together through - you guessed it - magnetism. So, it's not so much of a stretch that we'd have these minute collections of magnetite in our bodies... though why they congregate specifically in the brain seems odd.
Note to those who currently think they are in "power": WE the people, give you your rights and power, you do not give them to us....you might want to consider re-reading your Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.
While the rest of the post may've been a bit tinfoil-hat-ish, parent is right. Offtopic? Sure, a little. Troll? No way in hell. Bad mod.
I've always assumed that was because legal uses comprised a trivial fraction of cases, at least with respect to music and movies.
"Fair use" is not a trivial fraction, especially recording a TV show to watch later which is something millions of mostly-law-abiding people do on a routine basis, and have done for roughly two decades, entirely within the law. This new legislation could easily render something as simple as a VCR illegal in China. As always, it's just another case of government -- ANY gov't -- attempting to criminalize the routine behavior of ordinary citizens so they have an excuse to prosecute... that is, *persecute*... anyone at any time if they so much as hiccup funny.
Gah. Why bother. iminplaya was right, this IS becoming a prison planet.
Slashdot Mirror
While your concerns for not wanting the Internet to remain exclusively under ICANN's control are understandable, you are pointing out the (absurdly obvious) problem, and offering your share of criticisms, without offering anything resembling a solution. What agency or entity would you have govern the Internet? The U.N.?
I don't trust American politicians -- and I'm an American -- but I trust the U.N. even less. Mind you, I don't know what the solution is, but I do know what it is not. Right now there are people who are, for the most part, technically-minded, who are overseeing the Internet, and overall it is operating quite smoothly -- there would be no possibility of a Slashdot Effect if it were not. The lesser of two evils may still be (arguably) evil, but it's still less evil.
So, please finish the rest of your comment and enlighten us, what is your solution?
Personally, I find this suggestion to be an intriguing possibility.
I saw "audio CDs" in Wal-Mart several months ago while perusing the blank media section in electronics. From what I could tell by reading the packaging on those and "data" CDRs, they're exactly the same thing in a different wrapper. But yeah, they're still out there... at least, represented as such, anyway.
G.H.W. Bush did not "put [those dictators] into power". In fact, he was only Director of the CIA for just under a year, and that short appointment was mostly to conduct damage control for the Agency's reputation in the wake scandelous revelations about the CIA -- a term which was too brief to enact the sweeping changes in power among other nations which you claim he made. (source) It is not necessary to bring false accusations against guilty men; that is both redundent, and stooping to their level.
Both Bushes are guilty of many things, but let's make sure to accuse them of what they actually did. Like, the USAPatriot Act, the enhanced powers of U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on citizens with no reasonable probable cause, strong-arming other nations to enact mirror versions of U.S. copyright and IP laws, ad infinitum.
You changed the target by shooting it!
er, wait...
Must... not... feed... th--
Gah, can't help it. If you're sooo worried what your neighbors think that you base important purchasing decisions solely on their opinions, then gas mileage is the least of your problems. I'm not necessarily advocating buying huge-honkin' gas guzzlers (that's a different debate), but geez, if you're gonna go the environmentally friendly route then at least do it for the reasons you rationally believe are right, not because of what your damned neighbors might think.
Use YOUR brain for your personal decisions, not someone else's.
Don't you know anything? Cars that can travel through time will be invented *decades* before cars that can fly. Geez, try to keep up.
Is it plaigarism or citation? GP made no specification either way.
Just sayin'.
Where's the -1 Obvious mod when ya need it?
Or, if the image scaling bothers you, just disable the "Resize large images to fit in the browser window" setting in the Advanced tab in Options.
Doh! Missed a perfect opportunity. Oh well.
On a brighter note, that post up there got me my first Flamebait in quite a while. 'Bout time, I was starting to worry...
Touche. :)
My God, I would give you a thousand +1 mods if I could, just for that one post. For lack of points, I raise a beer in toast. Well said... and warned.
It has nothing to do with "being ashamed", and everything to do with: A) Obeying local decency laws; and B) Respecting your neighbors, who may not want to see you buck-nekkid. Geez, what is SO hard to understand about that? Even beautiful people who aren't the slightest bit "ashamed" of their bodies still need to respect the law in the matter, and respect their neighbors. It's part of living in a civilized world with other families in close proximity, if you want them to respect your rights and wishes then you should respect theirs.
I completely agree with you on this, so no rant needed. Though I would like to add in support of your argument, why should we be treated like criminals if we've done nothing wrong?
OH NOES, DON'T INCONVENIENCE THE PO-LICE! Spare me. Last I heard, the police were public servents, whose job is generally to protect and serve the public, ie. the taxpayers, who pay their wages. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing but utmost respect and admiration for honest, wanna-do-the-right-thing cops... but also utmost contempt for those who abuse their power. Make no mistake, a police officer IS in a position of power, and like all such positions that power can be -- and unfortunately often is -- abused. That is why we, the people for whom the police work, must ensure that the proper checks and balances remain in place. It's also why many voice concern about aerial spy drones over civilian population areas. And rightly so.
NO. The government's job is NOT to "keep you and me safe". It's to protect our freedoms and, most importantly, allow us to live our lives as we wish. There is a significant difference, try to wrap your brain around that difference. We can engage in an email discussion if you wish, but that difference is critical. Here's another hint: It's not the government's job to keep us bodily free from harm, it's the gov't's job to keep us free from oppression and tyranny. Physical safety is NOWHERE guaranteed in the Constitution, nor should it be expected. With that clear lack of expectation, it falls on each of us individually to protect ourselves; the police are not superhuman, they cannot be everywhere at once, nor instantly know the law-abiding citizens from the criminals -- THAT determination falls on our court systems. But this is getting off into a whole different rant; I digress.
You sir, are an optimist. That makes you dangerously close to being "part of the problem".
Think about it.
If the big auto makers would advertise and boast about all the benefits of EVs, including their near-gas-engine level of performance, the highly reduced maintenance costs, and (relative) simplicity of design, yes many people would be willing to make the switch. Not all at once of course; it'd take a few early adopters (of which there'd be a respectable number), and for others to see for themselves how an EV could be useful, and after a somewhat show start they'd be selling like hotcakes. Especially if the price of gas reaches too-painful levels.
Yes, they COULD market electric vehicles, if they WANTED to. Quite well, in fact.
You're kidding, right? You don't think that big companies *already* control what people buy through marketing tactics and limiting options? Guess what, if you like Model A, and they decide you should be buying Model B cuz it's more maintenance (ie. more money for them), they will absolutely tell you that the B is much better than A because of whatever reason(s), and those reasons might even have some truth, but they'll yank that A off the market faster than you can blink. And you're stuck with B, because that's what THEY want you to buy, regardless of if it's what YOU want to buy.
Sure that's a slightly over-simplified example, but this concept applies to most consumer-based industries today. Your only options for purchase are what the large corporations who've cornered the market WANT you to buy. Sure, in a few younger and highly competetive markets (eg. video games), you do see some reaction to consumer demand and thus positive growth in the product (eg. UbiSoft dropping its use of Starforce DRM). But in established, entrenched markets, your options become fewer and fewer as time goes buy. YOU have no say in what products will be made available in those entrenched markets.
If Ford or GM wanted you to buy an all-electric car, you'd damn sure see tons of advertising (I've never seen ANY for all-electric, in all my 34 years, in any mainstream media, only hybrids and in gas-engine), and they'd make sure every person throughout all industrialized countries knew of the existance and benefits of owning an electric vehicle. But they don't, partly because, as has been mentioned previously in this thread, the maintenance costs are much lower (less profit for them), and partly because they're in bed with the oil companies to not threaten *their* stranglehold on the economy.
Well then, on that point I stand corrected. Thanks for the info, and the non-hostile correction.
There is absolutely nothing "stable" nor "consistant" with regard to the Earth's global climate. It changes quite drastically even without human interference.
Ok, am I missing something here? Last I heard, water expands when it freezes, not when it warms -- unless it warms to the point of boiling, which is clearly not (yet) the case.
Please cite your evidence, as well as who collected it, and why. Note: To those on the other side of the debate, the same goes for you, too.
From Wikipedia*:
Let's give the benefit of the doubt with that +/-0.2 degree margin of error and say it's at the top end, so we have an increase of 0.8 deg. over roughly a century. Let's even go a step further and say that it's mostly over the last 50 years, as stated in the article.
You: The average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans is showing a rapid upward trend. [emph. mine]
Me: Um, less than 1 deg. in less than a century? Not so "rapid" there, IMO.
Now keep in mind, I'm not saying global warming is not happening. I'm just pointing out that:
- The sky is most likely not indeed falling as some claim -- there is no real, hard, unbiased evidence that the vast majority of life on Earth is going to be wiped out in the next century or so due to this climate change.
- We have no idea what the causes are, there is a great deal we do not know about how and why the Earth's climate shifts over long periods of time, nor how long this current increase in temperature will progress, nor to what extent, nor what, if anything, we could possibly do about it.
Also keep in mind that studies indicating "evidence" both for AND against global warming are frequently politically rooted, on both sides of the global warming debate. Nevertheless, the absolute worst thing any of us can do is politicize this debate. Science is, or at least is supposed to be, ignorant of politics or any other arbitrary (read: artificial) human belief system. It's supposed to be about finding the cold, hard truth regardless of what one wants to find. And it's impossible to find out what's really going when one allows one's personal views to color the results one "expects" to find, regardless of the actual methodologies used to discover those results. I shouldn't have to say any of this, but it often becomes necessary especially in this particular debate.Disclaimer: I'm obviously a skeptic on this particular issue, though I am open to having my mind changed when presented with appropriate, unbiased data from non-partisan sources.
*Yes, I know Wikipedia is to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, but appropriate sources are cited in the article.
Doesn't that depend on which type of diabetes you're talking about?
Where did this magnetite come from? I think my mother's diet didn't include magnetite, nor did mine.
To answer your question, from The Free Dictionary: magnetite Pronunciation (mgn-tt) n. The mineral form of black iron oxide, Fe3O4, that often occurs with magnesium, zinc, and manganese and is an important ore of iron
Last I heard, the human body has all of these components -- magnesium, zinc, and manganese, in varying quantities. As indicated in the main article, the fragmented magnet within a person's finger was able to pull itself (loosely) back together through - you guessed it - magnetism. So, it's not so much of a stretch that we'd have these minute collections of magnetite in our bodies... though why they congregate specifically in the brain seems odd.
Anyone got an answer for that one?
Note to those who currently think they are in "power": WE the people, give you your rights and power, you do not give them to us. ...you might want to consider re-reading your Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.
While the rest of the post may've been a bit tinfoil-hat-ish, parent is right. Offtopic? Sure, a little. Troll? No way in hell. Bad mod.
I've always assumed that was because legal uses comprised a trivial fraction of cases, at least with respect to music and movies.
"Fair use" is not a trivial fraction, especially recording a TV show to watch later which is something millions of mostly-law-abiding people do on a routine basis, and have done for roughly two decades, entirely within the law. This new legislation could easily render something as simple as a VCR illegal in China. As always, it's just another case of government -- ANY gov't -- attempting to criminalize the routine behavior of ordinary citizens so they have an excuse to prosecute... that is, *persecute*... anyone at any time if they so much as hiccup funny.
Gah. Why bother. iminplaya was right, this IS becoming a prison planet.