Bingo. My brother recently started a business in the construction industry and one of the first things he bought (on credit) was a nice, big, fairly new truck. He didn't buy it because he wanted it or needed it to do his job (a $5000 beater with 100,000 miles on it would've worked). He bought it because he was starting a new business, and making an impression on people that he was successful and could afford a nice, big truck is extremely important when forging new business relationships. I guarantee he would lose contracts if he pulled up in a cheap vehicle. Sometimes you have to buy stupid shit to impress stupid people.
5. Creates a registry of not only who's having sex, but who is using birth control. No privacy concerns there.
6. Still requires the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Sorry, try again. I, for one, would certainly not consider your proposal moderate. Drastically reducing the amount of freedom women have right now in order to placate a relatively small percentage of the population does not strike me as moderate. "A Modest Proposal" maybe, but definitely not moderate.
The same reason Montana, Arkansas, Louisiana, et al have Democratic governors. National politics is different from state/local politics, even if they are in the same party.
It seems like every day I see someone say this on/., and it's just hyperbole. *Both* parties are customers. If you don't like a product, you can walk away easily. Your statement implies that they are somehow forcing you to use their product. Nobody is forcing you to watch TV.
If you don't like it then don't use it. It's as simple as that.
I'm not sure if this kind of research is ethically sound...Is research was done that proved scientifically that people with light skin were inherently smarter than people with dark skin, don't you think there'd be at least a little problem there?
No. If research was done that proved scientifically that white people were smarter than black people, then white people would be smarter than black people. Sometimes the truth doesn't fit into our current view of the world, but that is a problem with our society, not the actual knowledge. Finding the truth is certainly not unethical.
Disclaimer for stupid people: Of course I don't think light-skinned people are inherently smarter than dark-skinned people.
I'll stop supporting animal testing when people like you stop using medicine and knowledge gained by animal testing. My guess is that if you had a life-threatening disease (like Ingrid Newkirk's diabetes) you would not stop treatment to show your support for "animal rights". Do you not take penicillin because it was tested on mice? Would you turn down an organ transplant because that procedure was tested on dogs and pigs? I will personally strangle, freeze, or torture every goddamn mouse on the planet if it results in an improvement in human health and knowledge.
BUT, renewables are better again. If we're going to change our infrastructure, why settle for second-best?
Because at the current efficiency of renewable power sources (and anytime in the foreseeable future), renewable resources are not a viable option. We can't supply all our energy needs on renewables. It's just not feasible, not even close. With nuclear power we could easily match our demand and not have to windmills and solar panels in every open place and tidal plants all up and down the coastline.
They sell ads on battle.net. I seriously doubt they operate at a loss, even if no new copies were being sold (which others have pointed out is far from true).
It's also been suggested that dragons legends came from finding cave bear skulls. In many places marked "here be dragons" or some variant in Europe there have been cave bear skulls found. The Native Americans of the northern plains also had dragon legends based off of exposed fossils.
You're looking at market share too much and you're missing the point. IBM, Microsoft, etc. aren't going down. They are making more money and are larger companies than they were in the 70's, 80's, 90's, etc. They were/are losing market share, but the market has grown at an incredible rate. IBM is still one of the largest companies in the world. So is Microsoft. This is not a zero-sum game. Google, Apple, and Linux can grow without hurting Microsoft.
I find it supremely hypocritical that you are criticizing other people for moving to your town when you did the same thing, just a few years earlier. I see this same type of thinking from a lot of people near where I live (rural Colorado). People move into a small town and want that town to retain the exact same character that it had at the time you moved there. I'm sure there were people in the town 15 years ago that didn't want *you* to move there. Either way, it's a waste of breath. Just be happy that you live in a place where growth is happening and people actually want to live. If you *really* hate the way development is going try and get into local government and make some changes. It's hard, but many towns have retained their rural character instead of just turning into a suburb that's 50 miles away from the city.
Speculators (real estate, stocks, commodities, etc.) may not necessarily *produce* anything, but they are a necessary part of any free market. If prices fluctuate, there will be people trying to buy low and sell high. That's just the way things work. The reward is directly related to the risk, however, so a very small amount of people have the money, intelligence, and desire to engage in pure speculation. You're more likely to lose your shirt than make a good profit if all you're doing is day trading or flipping real estate..
I guess you could say that speculators ensure an efficient market. I'm not much of an economist, I'm sure there are much more eloquent ways to describe it than that.
>1. The Indianapolis is the biggest annual sporting event. Period. More people attend, and more people watch on TV worldwide then any other event. If you wanted to get the message about linux out there, this would be the place to do it.
I simply do not believe this. For example, the world cup and the olympics are both watched world wide. The Indy is a local USA thing.
Learn how to read. The World Cup and the Olympics are held every four years. I'm not sure about TV coverage, but Indy Motor Speedway is the largest stadium in the world and they draw nearly 300,000 people every year.
As for the rest of it, your post is a classic example of F1/Euro snobbery. F1 obviously has more money and is larger worldwide, but that doesn't make Indy any less cool from a technological perspective. Whether you like it or not the Indy 500 is one of the oldest, most popular, and most important races in the world. They were racing world-class cars there 35 years before F1 even existed. There is a culture and tradition there that is unmatched by any race in the world, and by very few sporting events.
You are absolutely, completely wrong. For the last time, this is not a goddamn free speech issue! The owners of the media have absolutely no obligation to carry what you or anyone else says. In fact, you could easily make the argument that doing so would infringe upon their own freedoms. Opie and Anthony can still say and distribute whatever the hell they want, they just can't do it on XM for a short while.
This is a contract of employment. If they don't like the terms, they can go elsewhere. If I went on a rant at work graphically describing having sex with Laura Bush and the Queen I would get disciplined, and with good right! Freedom of speech does not mean that you are free from other people getting angry or offended, and most importantly it doesn't mean that anybody has to listen.
That is complete and utter bullshit. Nobody is preventing Opie and Anthony from saying anything. Nobody is putting Opie and Anthony in jail for saying anything. Opie and Anthony can still say whatever the hell they want. By your logic it would be a free speech issue if I fired or disciplined someone from my own company for using racist or hateful speech or vulgar language.
Personally, I don't think XM should have censored them. Why carry a "shock jock" if you're going to stop them from saying things that might offend people? But this is absolutely not an issue of free speech. O&A can say whatever they want, but XM does not have to carry what they say if they think it is too offensive. The right to free speech is not a right to be heard.
In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery. In my neck of the woods, about 80% of the passengers on the bus is either impoverished Americans (from ghetto neighborhoods) or illegal aliens from Mexico.
While that may be a factor (I've certainly heard that sentiment) it's certainly not the largest one. Where I live (Salt Lake City, UT) there's a fairly reasonable mass transit system, and in the morning and late afternoon/evening nearly everyone on the light rail and most of the people on bus routes are white collar workers. A fair amount of people I knew used public transportation to commute to work (although it's still a small number compared to most European countries). The city planning was carried out fairly well and the suburbs aren't too sprawled compared to other US cities and everything's pretty decent. My experience was also similar in Portland, OR although I wasn't there for long enough to make a solid judgment of it.
Compare that to some Midwestern cities that I've been to. I've lived in Kansas City and they have the worst city planning/mass transit that I have ever seen. It took me 15-20 minutes to drive to work and it would've been about a two hour bus ride with three transfers if I wanted to take public transit (which I very much did). Nearly every professional lives in the suburbs, most of which are sprawling and far away from the city center, and a large number live and commute from 30+ miles away. Businesses are scattered around the metro area, with no real central work location (although they're trying to fix that). Riding mass transit there wasn't even an option unless you literally did not have any money.
So it's not really a simple answer. Yes, we need better public transportation. But in some places we're probably at least twenty years away from re-aligning the way cities are built so that public transportation is even an option for most people. That also assumes that there's the political/social will to start that process. If there is, I haven't seen it (in KC at least).
Conditions are different here than in Europe. When these cities were being built there was a lot of land and cheap gas. Post-WWII most people were wealthy and land was cheap. We didn't have the opportunity or necessity to build/rebuild mass transit systems like Western Europe. It has nothing to do with Americans being stupid or greedy.
True, but Blizzard has never put out a crap game. Starcraft Ghost and Warcraft Adventures were both axed because they weren't going to be very good. At worst I expect it'll be like Warcraft 3, a solid game with great polish and an interesting storyline. Hell, even if it was Starcraft 1 with flashier graphics I would still be happy.
I think you're misjudging the amount of support that this had. *Maybe* if more attention was focused on it in the mainstream media some politicians and talking heads could've jumped on it and succeeded in making it a big political issue, but as it was nearly everyone that even knew about the issue (including most importantly ICANN) was opposed to it. If anything this should be viewed as a positive thing, because politicians attempting to influence ICANN were unsuccessful. If I'm missing something please don't hesitate to fill me in.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo. My brother recently started a business in the construction industry and one of the first things he bought (on credit) was a nice, big, fairly new truck. He didn't buy it because he wanted it or needed it to do his job (a $5000 beater with 100,000 miles on it would've worked). He bought it because he was starting a new business, and making an impression on people that he was successful and could afford a nice, big truck is extremely important when forging new business relationships. I guarantee he would lose contracts if he pulled up in a cheap vehicle. Sometimes you have to buy stupid shit to impress stupid people.
Obviously you've never been to a Raiders game. At least the Bronco fans have a good team to blindly root for.
5. Creates a registry of not only who's having sex, but who is using birth control. No privacy concerns there.
6. Still requires the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Sorry, try again. I, for one, would certainly not consider your proposal moderate. Drastically reducing the amount of freedom women have right now in order to placate a relatively small percentage of the population does not strike me as moderate. "A Modest Proposal" maybe, but definitely not moderate.
You've explained why you don't like payola, but what about that makes it *immoral*?
Actually, the US is the largest exporter of manufactured goods in the world. China is a close second.
On a completely unrelated note, can we get a different acronym for OOo? I hear it in my head like the "o-coaster" from Office Space.
The same reason Montana, Arkansas, Louisiana, et al have Democratic governors. National politics is different from state/local politics, even if they are in the same party.
It seems like every day I see someone say this on /., and it's just hyperbole. *Both* parties are customers. If you don't like a product, you can walk away easily. Your statement implies that they are somehow forcing you to use their product. Nobody is forcing you to watch TV.
If you don't like it then don't use it. It's as simple as that.
No. If research was done that proved scientifically that white people were smarter than black people, then white people would be smarter than black people. Sometimes the truth doesn't fit into our current view of the world, but that is a problem with our society, not the actual knowledge. Finding the truth is certainly not unethical.
Disclaimer for stupid people: Of course I don't think light-skinned people are inherently smarter than dark-skinned people.
I'll stop supporting animal testing when people like you stop using medicine and knowledge gained by animal testing. My guess is that if you had a life-threatening disease (like Ingrid Newkirk's diabetes) you would not stop treatment to show your support for "animal rights". Do you not take penicillin because it was tested on mice? Would you turn down an organ transplant because that procedure was tested on dogs and pigs? I will personally strangle, freeze, or torture every goddamn mouse on the planet if it results in an improvement in human health and knowledge.
Because at the current efficiency of renewable power sources (and anytime in the foreseeable future), renewable resources are not a viable option. We can't supply all our energy needs on renewables. It's just not feasible, not even close. With nuclear power we could easily match our demand and not have to windmills and solar panels in every open place and tidal plants all up and down the coastline.
They sell ads on battle.net. I seriously doubt they operate at a loss, even if no new copies were being sold (which others have pointed out is far from true).
It's also been suggested that dragons legends came from finding cave bear skulls. In many places marked "here be dragons" or some variant in Europe there have been cave bear skulls found. The Native Americans of the northern plains also had dragon legends based off of exposed fossils.
You're looking at market share too much and you're missing the point. IBM, Microsoft, etc. aren't going down. They are making more money and are larger companies than they were in the 70's, 80's, 90's, etc. They were/are losing market share, but the market has grown at an incredible rate. IBM is still one of the largest companies in the world. So is Microsoft. This is not a zero-sum game. Google, Apple, and Linux can grow without hurting Microsoft.
Fuck Al Gore.
I find it supremely hypocritical that you are criticizing other people for moving to your town when you did the same thing, just a few years earlier. I see this same type of thinking from a lot of people near where I live (rural Colorado). People move into a small town and want that town to retain the exact same character that it had at the time you moved there. I'm sure there were people in the town 15 years ago that didn't want *you* to move there. Either way, it's a waste of breath. Just be happy that you live in a place where growth is happening and people actually want to live. If you *really* hate the way development is going try and get into local government and make some changes. It's hard, but many towns have retained their rural character instead of just turning into a suburb that's 50 miles away from the city.
Speculators (real estate, stocks, commodities, etc.) may not necessarily *produce* anything, but they are a necessary part of any free market. If prices fluctuate, there will be people trying to buy low and sell high. That's just the way things work. The reward is directly related to the risk, however, so a very small amount of people have the money, intelligence, and desire to engage in pure speculation. You're more likely to lose your shirt than make a good profit if all you're doing is day trading or flipping real estate..
I guess you could say that speculators ensure an efficient market. I'm not much of an economist, I'm sure there are much more eloquent ways to describe it than that.
Learn how to read. The World Cup and the Olympics are held every four years. I'm not sure about TV coverage, but Indy Motor Speedway is the largest stadium in the world and they draw nearly 300,000 people every year.
As for the rest of it, your post is a classic example of F1/Euro snobbery. F1 obviously has more money and is larger worldwide, but that doesn't make Indy any less cool from a technological perspective. Whether you like it or not the Indy 500 is one of the oldest, most popular, and most important races in the world. They were racing world-class cars there 35 years before F1 even existed. There is a culture and tradition there that is unmatched by any race in the world, and by very few sporting events.
I never said that they weren't censored, in fact I said explicitly that they were censored by XM.
You are absolutely, completely wrong. For the last time, this is not a goddamn free speech issue! The owners of the media have absolutely no obligation to carry what you or anyone else says. In fact, you could easily make the argument that doing so would infringe upon their own freedoms. Opie and Anthony can still say and distribute whatever the hell they want, they just can't do it on XM for a short while.
This is a contract of employment. If they don't like the terms, they can go elsewhere. If I went on a rant at work graphically describing having sex with Laura Bush and the Queen I would get disciplined, and with good right! Freedom of speech does not mean that you are free from other people getting angry or offended, and most importantly it doesn't mean that anybody has to listen.
That is complete and utter bullshit. Nobody is preventing Opie and Anthony from saying anything. Nobody is putting Opie and Anthony in jail for saying anything. Opie and Anthony can still say whatever the hell they want. By your logic it would be a free speech issue if I fired or disciplined someone from my own company for using racist or hateful speech or vulgar language.
Personally, I don't think XM should have censored them. Why carry a "shock jock" if you're going to stop them from saying things that might offend people? But this is absolutely not an issue of free speech. O&A can say whatever they want, but XM does not have to carry what they say if they think it is too offensive. The right to free speech is not a right to be heard.
While that may be a factor (I've certainly heard that sentiment) it's certainly not the largest one. Where I live (Salt Lake City, UT) there's a fairly reasonable mass transit system, and in the morning and late afternoon/evening nearly everyone on the light rail and most of the people on bus routes are white collar workers. A fair amount of people I knew used public transportation to commute to work (although it's still a small number compared to most European countries). The city planning was carried out fairly well and the suburbs aren't too sprawled compared to other US cities and everything's pretty decent. My experience was also similar in Portland, OR although I wasn't there for long enough to make a solid judgment of it.
Compare that to some Midwestern cities that I've been to. I've lived in Kansas City and they have the worst city planning/mass transit that I have ever seen. It took me 15-20 minutes to drive to work and it would've been about a two hour bus ride with three transfers if I wanted to take public transit (which I very much did). Nearly every professional lives in the suburbs, most of which are sprawling and far away from the city center, and a large number live and commute from 30+ miles away. Businesses are scattered around the metro area, with no real central work location (although they're trying to fix that). Riding mass transit there wasn't even an option unless you literally did not have any money.
So it's not really a simple answer. Yes, we need better public transportation. But in some places we're probably at least twenty years away from re-aligning the way cities are built so that public transportation is even an option for most people. That also assumes that there's the political/social will to start that process. If there is, I haven't seen it (in KC at least).
Conditions are different here than in Europe. When these cities were being built there was a lot of land and cheap gas. Post-WWII most people were wealthy and land was cheap. We didn't have the opportunity or necessity to build/rebuild mass transit systems like Western Europe. It has nothing to do with Americans being stupid or greedy.
True, but Blizzard has never put out a crap game. Starcraft Ghost and Warcraft Adventures were both axed because they weren't going to be very good. At worst I expect it'll be like Warcraft 3, a solid game with great polish and an interesting storyline. Hell, even if it was Starcraft 1 with flashier graphics I would still be happy.
I think you're misjudging the amount of support that this had. *Maybe* if more attention was focused on it in the mainstream media some politicians and talking heads could've jumped on it and succeeded in making it a big political issue, but as it was nearly everyone that even knew about the issue (including most importantly ICANN) was opposed to it. If anything this should be viewed as a positive thing, because politicians attempting to influence ICANN were unsuccessful. If I'm missing something please don't hesitate to fill me in.
.xxx isn't a TLD. Maybe if "they" would've succeeded you might have a point.