A lot of posts here mention that this is a bit over the top. I just want to point out a couple things -- first of all, Ron Paul is currently trying to win the Republican base, which has a heavy TEA-party vote to factor in. Rhetorical ideas such as this sound great to them and it really doesn't matter if they are impossible -- it's what they want to hear. Every candidate (regardless of party) makes similar campaign promises to help secure the party nomination.
I could be wrong, but I think you'll see Ron Paul tone this rhetoric down quite a bet if he gets the nomination. You can't win a lot of independents with this kind of talk and you certainly won't swing anyone from the left to the right with it. Obama did the same thing. He promised some really big things that were really on the edge of possibility, and the independents ate it up in 2008. Obviously he didn't come through on a lot of these things because once you're president, you learn about reality real quick.
So, I will not rule Ron Paul out yet. He's one of the few candidates from the right that seems to at least be able to put some specifics down on what he'll do without just spewing rhetoric. I'm willing to give him a pass until he's through the primaries and see what he's like in the general election.
Full disclosure: Part of the reason I'm willing to give him a pass is because my wife seems to like him as a candidate, and I respect her very smart, reasonable thought process as much as my own. This doesn't mean he'll automatically get my vote, but it does mean I'll consider him when I would have long-since ruled out other candidates.
Oh, I do believe we are causing some degree of the warming, and that the warming is causing climate change and therefore potentially causing some strange weather patterns, especially in the last decade.
On the other hand,
Everything should be 100% recyclable, societies should be energy neutral and all extra emissions should be sequestered.
Do you really think that's possible? I mean, it sounds a lot like cold fusion to me -- ideal, but not realistic. Especially if our populations on this planet continue to grow. We have to clear forests to build homes. We have to produce electricity for these people. I mean, I'm with you on the ideal, but how could it be possible?
That doesn't settle any of the debates:
1. How bad is it?
2. Are humans causing it?
3. Will it continue?
Personally, if it's happening and it's going to affect the world I live in, I think we should stop arguing about whose fault it is and just find ways to correct it. If it's natural -- for example more cloud cover, ash, etc. in the atmosphere = more retained heat -- then maybe we should be looking for ways to control nature. If it's man-made, maybe we should be looking at the ways we've caused it -- carbon emissions? Water consumption? Deforestation? -- and correct those. Likely, it's a combination of both natural and unnatural causes, and we'll need a bit of both to fix it.
In my mind, the one thing that's NOT an option is to continue life as usual without attempting to address the problem. I don't care how many jobs it creates, IF deregulating leads to the degradation of the planet we live on it's not worth it. I'd rather have a planet to live on than a job, if I had to choose between the two.
Off topic, but I've always felt similar to the atheism vs. religion debates -- the atheists are so anti-religion, that they've made a religion out of it.
-The public tried to get in, only to be told "you're not invited yet.. go dig around for a while in your friends to see if one of them can invite you"
Hmm I don't think this was really the case. I think what really happened is a lot of people (like Slashdotters) wanted to get in early and did, which drove the initial membership rate way way up (1200% according to someone's earlier post here). Then, those slashdotters had a bunch of invitations left so they posted on FB and Twitter: "Hey, I have some G+ invites, anyone want one?" and got one or two replies asking for it, but that's it. Now you've got a bunch of early adopters with very few friends on there, and they are sitting on a ton of invites nobody wants.
Gotta tell you, I really like Microsoft products for development, but I totally agree that IE is just too damn naggy. I use chrome for all my personal browsing these days because, like you said, it's minimalist. It's very clean and usually very easy to find things. I was not much of an "alternative browser" person (i used FireFox occasionally just for FireBug) but now I've all but stopped using IE except for connecting to various things on our corporate intranet.
I think I missed the entrance exam when I signed up for my account. I'm not sure what else about reading aggregated news on a specific website could imply about my savviness. Last I checked, anyone could read this, regardless of qualifications.
I have to say, that you are willing to make such an assumption makes me question your overall savviness.
That's like saying the guy who fixes your car and the guy who designs the engine are in the same field.
Yes, it is just like saying they both work in the *automotive industry*. IT (Information Technology) is a very broad & vague term and I have seldom seen it exclude developers as you claim it does.
You'd think a website for nerds with a ton of computer scientists would appreciate someone attempting to normalize such a large set of data in order to help keep it clean. I can't even get my users to spell "Infrastructure" correctly, let alone expect them to enter 140,000 different kinds of injury correctly.
Yup, Ford has made planes before... it wouldn't be THAT surprising if they wanted to break back in to that business. Not to mention, engine manufacturers often make aircraft engines, too...
Slashdot Mirror
Ya, you're right -- and that's true of both sides as well.
A lot of posts here mention that this is a bit over the top. I just want to point out a couple things -- first of all, Ron Paul is currently trying to win the Republican base, which has a heavy TEA-party vote to factor in. Rhetorical ideas such as this sound great to them and it really doesn't matter if they are impossible -- it's what they want to hear. Every candidate (regardless of party) makes similar campaign promises to help secure the party nomination.
I could be wrong, but I think you'll see Ron Paul tone this rhetoric down quite a bet if he gets the nomination. You can't win a lot of independents with this kind of talk and you certainly won't swing anyone from the left to the right with it. Obama did the same thing. He promised some really big things that were really on the edge of possibility, and the independents ate it up in 2008. Obviously he didn't come through on a lot of these things because once you're president, you learn about reality real quick.
So, I will not rule Ron Paul out yet. He's one of the few candidates from the right that seems to at least be able to put some specifics down on what he'll do without just spewing rhetoric. I'm willing to give him a pass until he's through the primaries and see what he's like in the general election.
Full disclosure: Part of the reason I'm willing to give him a pass is because my wife seems to like him as a candidate, and I respect her very smart, reasonable thought process as much as my own. This doesn't mean he'll automatically get my vote, but it does mean I'll consider him when I would have long-since ruled out other candidates.
Did I accidentally click over to the Drudge Report or something? Leaving out facts like the one you pointed out should not be acceptable at Slashdot.
Do you really think that's possible? I mean, it sounds a lot like cold fusion to me -- ideal, but not realistic. Especially if our populations on this planet continue to grow. We have to clear forests to build homes. We have to produce electricity for these people. I mean, I'm with you on the ideal, but how could it be possible?
That doesn't settle any of the debates:
1. How bad is it?
2. Are humans causing it?
3. Will it continue?
Personally, if it's happening and it's going to affect the world I live in, I think we should stop arguing about whose fault it is and just find ways to correct it. If it's natural -- for example more cloud cover, ash, etc. in the atmosphere = more retained heat -- then maybe we should be looking for ways to control nature. If it's man-made, maybe we should be looking at the ways we've caused it -- carbon emissions? Water consumption? Deforestation? -- and correct those. Likely, it's a combination of both natural and unnatural causes, and we'll need a bit of both to fix it.
In my mind, the one thing that's NOT an option is to continue life as usual without attempting to address the problem. I don't care how many jobs it creates, IF deregulating leads to the degradation of the planet we live on it's not worth it. I'd rather have a planet to live on than a job, if I had to choose between the two.
Off topic, but I've always felt similar to the atheism vs. religion debates -- the atheists are so anti-religion, that they've made a religion out of it.
The Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane. They were the first to achieve powered flight, however.
Maybe I'm only recalling AT&T, but I don't think you can even buy an iPhone without a data plan.
So then he's "SCISO" right? (Schizo... )
I agree that invites were a mistake, but I don't think invites were the outstanding reason for its lackluster uptake.
Hmm I don't think this was really the case. I think what really happened is a lot of people (like Slashdotters) wanted to get in early and did, which drove the initial membership rate way way up (1200% according to someone's earlier post here). Then, those slashdotters had a bunch of invitations left so they posted on FB and Twitter: "Hey, I have some G+ invites, anyone want one?" and got one or two replies asking for it, but that's it. Now you've got a bunch of early adopters with very few friends on there, and they are sitting on a ton of invites nobody wants.
That's how it happened for me, at least.
The person you replied to didn't say any of those quotes... just FYI.
Those didn't disappear in six years.
Gotta tell you, I really like Microsoft products for development, but I totally agree that IE is just too damn naggy. I use chrome for all my personal browsing these days because, like you said, it's minimalist. It's very clean and usually very easy to find things. I was not much of an "alternative browser" person (i used FireFox occasionally just for FireBug) but now I've all but stopped using IE except for connecting to various things on our corporate intranet.
I think I missed the entrance exam when I signed up for my account. I'm not sure what else about reading aggregated news on a specific website could imply about my savviness. Last I checked, anyone could read this, regardless of qualifications.
I have to say, that you are willing to make such an assumption makes me question your overall savviness.
How do you define "better" in this case? Less crime? Isn't the definition of what is a crime defined by the morality of a society?
Yes, it is just like saying they both work in the *automotive industry*. IT (Information Technology) is a very broad & vague term and I have seldom seen it exclude developers as you claim it does.
You'd think a website for nerds with a ton of computer scientists would appreciate someone attempting to normalize such a large set of data in order to help keep it clean. I can't even get my users to spell "Infrastructure" correctly, let alone expect them to enter 140,000 different kinds of injury correctly.
So true! It's hard to be a moderate because those liberals think you're a conservative, and those conservatives think you're a liberal!
Thank you, Editors, for fixing the headline!
Slashdot, please fix the damned headline.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Nice guys finish last, especially when driving in heavy traffic.
Yup, Ford has made planes before... it wouldn't be THAT surprising if they wanted to break back in to that business. Not to mention, engine manufacturers often make aircraft engines, too...
Yes, attention to detail. That must be where the famous "You're holding it wrong" line came from.
Henry Ford is known for inventing the assembly line for automobile manufacturing. Not for inventing the car.