I mean, the video is already on your computer. If they shut down internet service, it'll move client-side. Hell, if I wanted I could output the video/audio of my screen and record them.
It's futile. They know it and we know it. But I guess the shareholders or the lawyer are just not happy if Google doesn't do anything about it. So they do this.
-But female rats didn't, and even the rats that developed tumors lived longer than rats not exposed to the radiation.
Well no shit, me and my generation are already all aware that radiation are good for males rats and turtles and will give them superpower and ninja skills.
"It burn 96,000 gallons a day"!! Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship. And unless it's the most efficient ship in the world, I won't see a problem.
*unless it's the most "inefficient" ship in the world...
"It burn 96,000 gallons a day"!! Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship. And unless it's the most efficient ship in the world, I won't see a problem.
And if only the urban tech centers -- NYC, San Francisco, and Chicago -- were spared, it would be a month, maybe a month and a half before the civil unrest between the haves and the have-nots in these places boiled over into such violent anarchy people would be wishing they had been taken in the nuke strikes.
So much for all lattes and free wi-fi...
That's it? That's the ground you're standing on? A stupid book? A stupid book about the Irish population during the middle ages? And it explain the complete complexity of the world?
Atheism is on the rise in most western country and claiming that it'll lead in the fall of civilization is so absurd that I see no point in continuing this discussion any longer.
Religion and its attendant discipline kept civilization alive in Western Europe after the fall of Rome. I suspect it would do the same again.
Ok, this is just dumb.
Religion is a consequence of the first civilisation, not the opposite. As for it's survival, I'm certainly glad Pope Urban II (the one who called the crusade) didn't have nuclear weapons.
And this is the problem with climate change. How can we take this very serious issue to heart when you get garbage like this predicting global extinction and the end of the human race.
Humans are the most resilient species in the world. We live in Siberia. We live in the Sahara. The notion that we'll go extinct due to climate change is laughable. Unless "extinct" in this context means a few hundred million displaced simply because they want to keep the lifestyle they are accustomed to (i.e. move because of weather, move because their water front property is now an under water property etc).
I rate the chance of human extinction this century at zero percent. 9% chance of humans being greatly impacted due to their own activity is believable, but that doesn't make for a very exciting headline.
I almost entirely agree, but in my eye a nuclear winter following a nuclear war have good chance to wipe us off. And since the nuclear war probability is very low, we cannot count it as 0% as long as mass destruction weaponry still exist in the world. There's many close call in the past. Sure, it was during the Cold war and I don't think relation between Russia and the US will fall that low again. But don't forget new power on the rise.
Still, one cool thing that's happening is that, in our new economical world, it is now simply too expensive for superpower to enter at war and people with western lifestyle will never support going back to the condition like it was in WW2.
Yes, a nice example is to look at a hi-resolution photo of Earth from space. Much of humanity lives along coastlines and rivers, especially where a river meets the sea, as you get ocean access and river access to both global and inland trade, along with fresh water and a convenient way to get rid of waste.
Civilization settled where trade was convenient, with few exceptions. Before flight, water was the best, fastest way to trade. Once we mastered the sea, and were no longer confined to rivers and coastlines, civilization flourished with increasing speed. A few centuries back
According to Harvard University,* in this era: " More than 2 billion people, an estimated 37 percent of the world's population, live within 60 miles of the coast and would be affected, directly or indirectly, by incursions of the sea." If we increase that to about 93 miles,** then the number jumps to approximately 44 percent.
The Harvard article is talking about a 3 to 5 foot increase in sea levels wiping out much of the coastal infrastructure worldwide, as much of it is built on flood plains frequently no more than 3 feet or so above sea level. I would think it a safe bet that a 300 foot rise in sea level would affect a great many more, likely much more than 50 percent.
**UN atlas of the oceans:/CDSServlet?status=ND0xODc3JjY9ZW4mMzM9KiYzNz1rb3M~
I thought the discussion was about Global Catastrophe like Human Extinction? How does a Economical Catastrophe like sea rising fall into one of those? It's not like sea will rise 50 meter overnight.
Given the size and age of the galaxy, there should be intelligent life on many planets and it should have been there for a very long time. Long enough that we should have detected evidence of it. But that hasn't happened. Unless estimates of the age, size, or number of planets in the Milky Way are vastly overstated, and no new knowledge suggests anything of the kind, then there really is one other likely cause: Advanced intelligent civilizations don't last for millions of years.
If it was possible, then it would have happened, and it hasn't.
Which really isn't all that surprising. The last few thousand years have been an exponential orgy of consumption. Not just fossil fuels, but phosphate deposits for fertilizers, reachable metal ores, ocean fish stocks, forest products, etc. It's all going to run out, and then what? And what happens if any disaster, including the inevitable and unavoidable ones like a meteor impact or super-volcanism, sets our technology back even a few hundred years? How do you frack for oil with 1700s technology? How do you build a nuclear reactor with no copper? How do you made food production efficient enough that everyone isn't dedicated to it without phosphates?
Human technological advancement was a one time deal. Once it's stops, that's it for this planet, never again.
Many problem with that theory,
1) Given the number of exceptional event that let us to be the intelligent life of our planets, it's entirely likely that there's thousands others planet in the galaxy with life (and intelligent one) but we're the most advanced. And it will still respect Fermi's Paradox.
2) We have absolutely no evidence that there's no other more advanced life in the Milky Way. If light speed is the limit for travelling (and we have more evidence that suggest it's the case than again), then an E.T. could have conquered half of the galaxy and we would still have no idea.
3) Put that a couple level of magnitude higher for the others galaxy
At best, Fermi's Paradox only prove that we won't contact another intelligent life for long, long time or it would have happened a long time ago.
Yes Heroes of the Storm is a flop. Question. How many NEW players will start playing Starcraft and WoW? I said Diablo has a following/player base. Overwatch @$60 will flop. In 6 months Overwatch will be just like Battlefront is now. Dead. Blizzard is the Microsoft of games companies. They are now putting out games no one wants to play except the die hard Blizzard fanboys. You know because it's a Blizzard game. Tell me how Overwatch is $60 and TF2 is still free.
You can't blame Blizzard to try creating new IP. And, worst case, they could create a D3 extension and millions will sell. They got many "easy-cash" option.
And I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, all I'm saying is that, in my mind, the last two AAA game of blizzard (Overwatch and HOTS)
Bro, HOTS is not the latest game from Blizzard.
Yeah, another guy just pointed out that HOTS is the acronym for both Heroes of the Storm and StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm. I'm talking about Heroes of the Storm.
Even starcraft 1 is still surviving and has a scene, heck, even smash brothers has a scene and has survived, so you're not thinking very clearly.
We're talking business here. So unless you show me some source of major income from it, Starcraft 1 popularity today doesn't worth much except for the IP (which show in the sales of Starcraft II).
And I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, all I'm saying is that, in my mind, the last two AAA game of blizzard (Overwatch and HOTS) won't achieve the success of their other IP (Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo).
Either way, I guess it depend of your definition of "successful". In my mind, if they don't get even close of DOTA2 and LOL number, it won't be a success and it won't survive for long.
As for Starcraft II, I've read a number of a few million but I wasn't able to find it's total number of sales. But, keeping Diablo III 30 millions in mind, I wouldn't call it a huge success, Diablo III was.
Blizzard is a dying company. HOTS is a huge flop. Overwatch will also be a flop. Starcraft is basically dead. Diablo has a following and Hearthstone is the only real hit they have. WoW is kept on life support by the fanboys. After the next expansion flops again it will finally die.
You'd best stick to gaming because with predictions like that your budding career as a financial analyst is likely to be undistinguished.
While I don't completely agree with the guy, I don't think he's completely wrong either. I don't think HOTS will be successful and Overwatch is a big question mark. But in both case, I got the "Too little, too late" feeling.
But he's wrong about Diablo 3, with 30 million copies sold I can hardly call it a flop. Also, the WoW is heading to it's end. But I've no doubt that they could make WoW2 successful when the first onewill die.
Seriously think about it. Someone is searching on the INTERNET to purchase a popular item. If amazon won't sell it to random customer, there are 20-100 other stores that gladly will. All you have done is lose business which could have also resulted in additional sales for other items at the same time of the purchase (as well as all the additional marketing information that was lost from the sale which seems to be the real money anyway now).
I don't think they are that stupid.
I'm guessing that they'll make sure they offer the lowest price possible to cover the aftertaste of the membership pill, kinda like CostCo.
If all of those product are like, 5$ less on amazon and you made a dozen of those purchase in the last months, my guess is that you'll start to be jealous of your neighbour that have access to all those cool discount and 1-day shipping.
Of course, you want to start a price war, be sure you're ready to fight for it. My guess is that amazon is big enough to risk it.
I'd like to know how you can talk about a drive system being '10 times more efficient' when it's 'fuel' is one of the rarest gasses in Earth's atmosphere? Shall we just design a spacecraft drive system that uses giant diamonds or something instead, so it'd be cheaper and easier to obtain fuel?
Am I missing something extremely obvious or being "10 time more efficient" mean that we can use 10 time less of the said rare gas?
But if you got an idea for an engine more efficient that a different and less rare fuel, I'm all ears. But it'll have to come before we start mining space and other planet (I've read that there's a lot of xenon in Jupiter's atmosphere?)
One of the main problem of "Guaranteed Basic Income" in my mind is education.
What will happen when we live a world where automation make most job disappear and "Guaranteed Basic Income" become necessary? How will you convince a kid to stay in school and/or educate himself in those condition? An income that will increase depending of your degree?
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, the video is already on your computer. If they shut down internet service, it'll move client-side. Hell, if I wanted I could output the video/audio of my screen and record them.
It's futile. They know it and we know it. But I guess the shareholders or the lawyer are just not happy if Google doesn't do anything about it. So they do this.
-But female rats didn't, and even the rats that developed tumors lived longer than rats not exposed to the radiation.
Well no shit, me and my generation are already all aware that radiation are good for males rats and turtles and will give them superpower and ninja skills.
Nuclear cruise ship....yeah, why didn't anyone thought of this before? Not like people are still care of nuclear power right?
I hate bad journalism like this...
"It burn 96,000 gallons a day"!! Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship. And unless it's the most efficient ship in the world, I won't see a problem.
*unless it's the most "inefficient" ship in the world...
I hate bad journalism like this...
"It burn 96,000 gallons a day"!! Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship. And unless it's the most efficient ship in the world, I won't see a problem.
Why Don't Scientists Kill The 'Demon In The Freezer'?
Because this isn't Resident Evil or some stupid Hollywood movie?
Read a book.
And if only the urban tech centers -- NYC, San Francisco, and Chicago -- were spared, it would be a month, maybe a month and a half before the civil unrest between the haves and the have-nots in these places boiled over into such violent anarchy people would be wishing they had been taken in the nuke strikes.
So much for all lattes and free wi-fi...
That's it? That's the ground you're standing on? A stupid book? A stupid book about the Irish population during the middle ages? And it explain the complete complexity of the world?
Atheism is on the rise in most western country and claiming that it'll lead in the fall of civilization is so absurd that I see no point in continuing this discussion any longer.
Religion and its attendant discipline kept civilization alive in Western Europe after the fall of Rome. I suspect it would do the same again.
Ok, this is just dumb.
Religion is a consequence of the first civilisation, not the opposite. As for it's survival, I'm certainly glad Pope Urban II (the one who called the crusade) didn't have nuclear weapons.
And this is the problem with climate change. How can we take this very serious issue to heart when you get garbage like this predicting global extinction and the end of the human race.
Humans are the most resilient species in the world. We live in Siberia. We live in the Sahara. The notion that we'll go extinct due to climate change is laughable. Unless "extinct" in this context means a few hundred million displaced simply because they want to keep the lifestyle they are accustomed to (i.e. move because of weather, move because their water front property is now an under water property etc).
I rate the chance of human extinction this century at zero percent. 9% chance of humans being greatly impacted due to their own activity is believable, but that doesn't make for a very exciting headline.
I almost entirely agree, but in my eye a nuclear winter following a nuclear war have good chance to wipe us off. And since the nuclear war probability is very low, we cannot count it as 0% as long as mass destruction weaponry still exist in the world. There's many close call in the past. Sure, it was during the Cold war and I don't think relation between Russia and the US will fall that low again. But don't forget new power on the rise.
Still, one cool thing that's happening is that, in our new economical world, it is now simply too expensive for superpower to enter at war and people with western lifestyle will never support going back to the condition like it was in WW2.
Yes, a nice example is to look at a hi-resolution photo of Earth from space. Much of humanity lives along coastlines and rivers, especially where a river meets the sea, as you get ocean access and river access to both global and inland trade, along with fresh water and a convenient way to get rid of waste.
Civilization settled where trade was convenient, with few exceptions. Before flight, water was the best, fastest way to trade. Once we mastered the sea, and were no longer confined to rivers and coastlines, civilization flourished with increasing speed. A few centuries back
According to Harvard University,* in this era: " More than 2 billion people, an estimated 37 percent of the world's population, live within 60 miles of the coast and would be affected, directly or indirectly, by incursions of the sea."
If we increase that to about 93 miles,** then the number jumps to approximately 44 percent.
The Harvard article is talking about a 3 to 5 foot increase in sea levels wiping out much of the coastal infrastructure worldwide, as much of it is built on flood plains frequently no more than 3 feet or so above sea level.
I would think it a safe bet that a 300 foot rise in sea level would affect a great many more, likely much more than 50 percent.
*Harvard:
http://environment.harvard.edu...
http://www.oceansatlas.org/ser...
**UN atlas of the oceans: /CDSServlet?status=ND0xODc3JjY9ZW4mMzM9KiYzNz1rb3M~
I thought the discussion was about Global Catastrophe like Human Extinction? How does a Economical Catastrophe like sea rising fall into one of those? It's not like sea will rise 50 meter overnight.
All Intelligent life is doomed, not just humans.
Given the size and age of the galaxy, there should be intelligent life on many planets and it should have been there for a very long time. Long enough that we should have detected evidence of it. But that hasn't happened. Unless estimates of the age, size, or number of planets in the Milky Way are vastly overstated, and no new knowledge suggests anything of the kind, then there really is one other likely cause: Advanced intelligent civilizations don't last for millions of years.
If it was possible, then it would have happened, and it hasn't.
Which really isn't all that surprising. The last few thousand years have been an exponential orgy of consumption. Not just fossil fuels, but phosphate deposits for fertilizers, reachable metal ores, ocean fish stocks, forest products, etc. It's all going to run out, and then what? And what happens if any disaster, including the inevitable and unavoidable ones like a meteor impact or super-volcanism, sets our technology back even a few hundred years? How do you frack for oil with 1700s technology? How do you build a nuclear reactor with no copper? How do you made food production efficient enough that everyone isn't dedicated to it without phosphates?
Human technological advancement was a one time deal. Once it's stops, that's it for this planet, never again.
Many problem with that theory,
1) Given the number of exceptional event that let us to be the intelligent life of our planets, it's entirely likely that there's thousands others planet in the galaxy with life (and intelligent one) but we're the most advanced. And it will still respect Fermi's Paradox.
2) We have absolutely no evidence that there's no other more advanced life in the Milky Way. If light speed is the limit for travelling (and we have more evidence that suggest it's the case than again), then an E.T. could have conquered half of the galaxy and we would still have no idea.
3) Put that a couple level of magnitude higher for the others galaxy
At best, Fermi's Paradox only prove that we won't contact another intelligent life for long, long time or it would have happened a long time ago.
Yes Heroes of the Storm is a flop. Question. How many NEW players will start playing Starcraft and WoW? I said Diablo has a following/player base. Overwatch @$60 will flop. In 6 months Overwatch will be just like Battlefront is now. Dead. Blizzard is the Microsoft of games companies. They are now putting out games no one wants to play except the die hard Blizzard fanboys. You know because it's a Blizzard game. Tell me how Overwatch is $60 and TF2 is still free.
You can't blame Blizzard to try creating new IP. And, worst case, they could create a D3 extension and millions will sell. They got many "easy-cash" option.
And I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, all I'm saying is that, in my mind, the last two AAA game of blizzard (Overwatch and HOTS)
Bro, HOTS is not the latest game from Blizzard.
Yeah, another guy just pointed out that HOTS is the acronym for both Heroes of the Storm and StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm. I'm talking about Heroes of the Storm.
It sounds like some unfortunate acronym confusion here:
Starcraft II: HotS = Heart of the Swarm
HoTS = Heroes of the Storm
Oh my god, I didn't notice!
One of Starcraft II expansion got the same acronym as Heroes of the Storm.
Even starcraft 1 is still surviving and has a scene, heck, even smash brothers has a scene and has survived, so you're not thinking very clearly.
We're talking business here. So unless you show me some source of major income from it, Starcraft 1 popularity today doesn't worth much except for the IP (which show in the sales of Starcraft II).
And I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, all I'm saying is that, in my mind, the last two AAA game of blizzard (Overwatch and HOTS) won't achieve the success of their other IP (Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo).
HoTS is over, and it was successful.
was? Is the past tense intentional?
Either way, I guess it depend of your definition of "successful". In my mind, if they don't get even close of DOTA2 and LOL number, it won't be a success and it won't survive for long.
As for Starcraft II, I've read a number of a few million but I wasn't able to find it's total number of sales. But, keeping Diablo III 30 millions in mind, I wouldn't call it a huge success, Diablo III was.
Blizzard is a dying company. HOTS is a huge flop. Overwatch will also be a flop. Starcraft is basically dead. Diablo has a following and Hearthstone is the only real hit they have. WoW is kept on life support by the fanboys. After the next expansion flops again it will finally die.
You'd best stick to gaming because with predictions like that your budding career as a financial analyst is likely to be undistinguished.
While I don't completely agree with the guy, I don't think he's completely wrong either. I don't think HOTS will be successful and Overwatch is a big question mark. But in both case, I got the "Too little, too late" feeling.
But he's wrong about Diablo 3, with 30 million copies sold I can hardly call it a flop. Also, the WoW is heading to it's end. But I've no doubt that they could make WoW2 successful when the first onewill die.
Hello PopeRatzo,
Just a quick message to congrats you for this awesome tribute of Prince. This have to be one the my "Top10 Best /. comment of all time".
Never cared much about the guy since this very moment. This comment mixed with the video gave me the chills.
Seriously think about it. Someone is searching on the INTERNET to purchase a popular item. If amazon won't sell it to random customer, there are 20-100 other stores that gladly will. All you have done is lose business which could have also resulted in additional sales for other items at the same time of the purchase (as well as all the additional marketing information that was lost from the sale which seems to be the real money anyway now).
I don't think they are that stupid.
I'm guessing that they'll make sure they offer the lowest price possible to cover the aftertaste of the membership pill, kinda like CostCo.
If all of those product are like, 5$ less on amazon and you made a dozen of those purchase in the last months, my guess is that you'll start to be jealous of your neighbour that have access to all those cool discount and 1-day shipping.
Of course, you want to start a price war, be sure you're ready to fight for it. My guess is that amazon is big enough to risk it.
I'd like to know how you can talk about a drive system being '10 times more efficient' when it's 'fuel' is one of the rarest gasses in Earth's atmosphere? Shall we just design a spacecraft drive system that uses giant diamonds or something instead, so it'd be cheaper and easier to obtain fuel?
Am I missing something extremely obvious or being "10 time more efficient" mean that we can use 10 time less of the said rare gas?
But why are we using Ionic propulsion system already? Well, because it is, AFAIK, by FAR the most efficient propulsion system in term of fuel weight/energy in use today.
But if you got an idea for an engine more efficient that a different and less rare fuel, I'm all ears. But it'll have to come before we start mining space and other planet (I've read that there's a lot of xenon in Jupiter's atmosphere?)
One of the main problem of "Guaranteed Basic Income" in my mind is education.
What will happen when we live a world where automation make most job disappear and "Guaranteed Basic Income" become necessary? How will you convince a kid to stay in school and/or educate himself in those condition? An income that will increase depending of your degree?
Its a Mac so it must suck!!!!
And how does this "Apple hate" developed in a nerd community like /. ?
You think we just don't like the art of the logo?
Technically it can't be a UFO because if it's that high above the atmosphere, it can't be flying :)
Funny comment that make me wonder, is there a technical term for unidentified space object? USO?
And the winner of the annual competition for the Streisand effect trophy is!!!
Which, I mean, who hasn't accidentally done that? The keys are like right next to each other.
I'm quite sure this is from an old bash.org post.
Right you are.
<tatclass> YOU ALL SUCK DICK
<tatclass> er.
<tatclass> hi.
<andy\code> A common typo.
<tatclass> the keys are like right next to each other.
I FUCKING knew it!!!
Brb I'll go check some old memory, been too long.