What happens when you put a Sony Music CD into a Diebold machine?
Well, if you hold the SHIFT key down, you vote for Pat Buchannon.
Re:I think I buy into this "ajax" thing
on
Ajax in Action
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
One of the nice things about AJAX is that it just absolutely blows people away. The click, they expect a page load or a refresh. But it's just there. It really breaks the user's image of what is about to happen. It allows web applications to transcend the "toy" level, just a little.
Imagine Slashdot never re-loading a page. We could watch as posts spring into existence in real time. A little spooky, if you ask me.:)
There is an exploit that my computer suffers from every day. It's called the 'Slash.ORG' worm, and it doesn't matter what kind of browser you use. Once the browser navigates to a certain website, it tends to stay there, refreshing as needed. It's called a DoPE attack, or 'Denial of Productivity for Employer.'
making jokes about the powerful (ie. Southern white folk)
I don't think the targets of the original insult were Ted Turner types. I think the targets were poor white southerners, who will apparently be spat upon for generations to come.
And the blue state people ask, "Why can't these morons vote for us? We're so much better than them!" Jesus...
Sure it's a joke. But it just blows my mind that so many people modded it 'Funny'. At best, it's not funny. More properly, it's 'Troll' or 'Offtopic' or 'Flamebait.'
Just you wait, I have been meta-moderating a lot lately..:)
So Alambamans (who can't speak English, and who marry their sisters - or, I guess the men do; the girls have to marry their brothers, or fathers. Can't have any gay weddings!) are also Southern Baptists? And it's OK to make jokes, for what reason? Oh, yeah, everybody who possesses real intellect hates them....
Try not to let all bile affect your brain too badly. Your grip on reality is questionable right now, as it is.
It always amuses me that people use the total population of the earth to explain why we need X number of whatever. Do the billion or so babies need an IP address? What about the billion+ sustenance farmers?
OTH, there is a fair point that it's not about people, it's about devices..
TFA makes a good point.
What's your opinion of your anti-virus software that failed to detect such a malicious piece of software?
Sony offended precisely the wrong people, the nerds that would eventually detect this thing. Once they did, they were appalled. Nerds were good Sony customers, once... Nerds buy hardware for non-nerds, sometimes.
Was this game "Nord and Bert Couldn't Make Head or Tail of It", by any chance?
No, it was an Amiga game called Valhalla & The Lord Of Infinity. I remember the ads for "Nord and Bert" though. It looked weird, which is what it was supposed to be I guess.
The games that I really hated involved you having to perform some off-the-wall action to get a result that made no sense what so ever. An example: there was one game (it was graphical - you moved your little guy around, but the principal was the same) where you needed to boil some water for something. The water was available, but no bucket to fetch and boil it in. Well, there was this slug, and at another place there was a shaker of salt. Dump the salt on the slug, and voila - a bucket! Makes sense, huh?
Well at least I knew the game wanted me to put the salt on the slug. There are worse examples.
As far as wars go - why isn't the US invading Rwanda? Easy - no oil. The US occassionally invades
non-oil-related nations, but many of the long and messy wars tend to be over oil.
I guess this is where we part ways. I just don't see that many wars being fought to preserve our pipeline, so to speak. Let's take the last 100 years, a timespan where oil might be a valuable commodity to be fought over.
* World War I - a fight to preserve Europe against the Germans
* World War II - ditto; fighting facism
* Korean War - fighting against communism
* Vietnam War - ditto
* Grenada - ditto, in a way
* Gulf War - I will grant you this one
* Afghan War - basically an attempt to nab Bin Laden, and take down the Taliban; one may see some concern over oil here
* Iraq War (now) - I won't grant you this one, but I can see the argument. However, if oil were the overriding concern, wouldn't the US have been pushing to lift sanctions, so that we could just buy it? It's the easiest way
Keep in mind, I know the "justifications" as I have outlined are simplifications, but I think that pre-Gulf, it seems our conflicts were about limiting expansionism of totalitarian ideologies. As far as long and messy goes, it doesn't get much worse than Vietnam. Let's hope our situation in Iraq never approaches it.
I think this will be my last post, since by now, it's probably just me and you talking. But it's been a good thread, as far as I'm concerned.
Ok, I'll admit that I don't a hard idea of what the cost/benefit ratio of petroleum is. But as I read your reply, I realized that when you start factoring in all the things you want, the calculation becomes unwieldy and unreliable.
Let's use another product, shoes. What is the "true" cost of shoes? Well, we can measure things like the cost of materials, no problem. But what about those sweatshops? What about the the ecological cost when we harvest the raw materials for those shoes? (Maybe not a perfect example, but hey.) As we cast our net wider, we can basically imagine a negative impact anywhere we want.
About the impact of fossil fuels on health: would anyone care to share links where we can find good, unbiased studies on this? I can imagine one could claim the impact was anywhere from "negligible" all the way to "planet-threatening." I'm not being snide here, just would be interested to see the information.
As far as the argument that the US went into Iraq to stop terrorism goes...
I don't think I ever made that argument. And what's all this business about "wars" for oil? (I am not necessarily adressing you here.) I think it would be fair to say we went to the Gulf in the early 90s to stop Hussein's land and oil grab, and to help keep the region stable (hah hah - groan). So that was kind of "for oil." We went back again to remove him from power. (I know - WMD and all that.) Did the war in Afghanistan have anything to do with oil? I know, a lot of people say everything has to do with oil.
I think it should be kept in mind also, in our cost/benefit analysis, that petroleum is involved in a LOT of products, many of them life-saving. And certainly many of them contribute to quality of life.
This is the kind of rationalization about wars that scares the hell out of me.
I was not attempting to rationalize, but explain that in my opinion, it's not the extraction of oil itself that leads to a war. Why is their something "wrong" with our policy? Might it be that somebody else is "wrong?"
This blanket generalization scares me even more
I explained in my post that I recognize it as a generalization, most Islamic people are peace loving, yada yada yada.
Nobody is saying oil is evil. It is the irresponsible use of a limited resource, in an enviromentally damaging way, maintained by a myopic national energy policy which uses wars as a policy tool, that is evil.
As far as I can tell, this is total nonsense, so I cannot even form a response. I think you're claiming we (the U.S.) use war to enforce our energy policy? Or something? If you would like to clear it up a little, I would be happy to respond.
...scares the hell out of me......scares me even more...
I believe they might actually subsidize it directly. And it's good that we do so.
The benefit of petroleum right now far outweighs the negative effects, looking at it in a "cost to benefit" way.
As for needing wars to get that oil, these wars come about by interacting with a stunted, xenophobic society. It is unfortunate that this happens. But when was the last time we were at war with Canada, or had to deal with suicide bombers from Mexico? They are among the top sources of US oil (Saudia Arabia is in there too). So war is not really necessary to obtaining oil. It's just that the populations of Islamic societies don't want to be in contact with Westerners.
Of course, I am speaking in general here, and it should be inferred that I don't mean all the populations of Islamic countries are this way.
Over all, though, I would really like to see alternative energies take off. Don't get me wrong about that. But just to say oil is evil, etc. is not a solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you hold the SHIFT key down, you vote for Pat Buchannon.
Imagine Slashdot never re-loading a page. We could watch as posts spring into existence in real time. A little spooky, if you ask me. :)
There is an exploit that my computer suffers from every day. It's called the 'Slash.ORG' worm, and it doesn't matter what kind of browser you use. Once the browser navigates to a certain website, it tends to stay there, refreshing as needed. It's called a DoPE attack, or 'Denial of Productivity for Employer.'
I don't think the targets of the original insult were Ted Turner types. I think the targets were poor white southerners, who will apparently be spat upon for generations to come.
And the blue state people ask, "Why can't these morons vote for us? We're so much better than them!" Jesus...
Just you wait, I have been meta-moderating a lot lately.. :)
Try not to let all bile affect your brain too badly. Your grip on reality is questionable right now, as it is.
It's great to know that there are still a few groups out there that are "safe" to hate and make crude jokes about. Way to go, moderators!
OTH, there is a fair point that it's not about people, it's about devices..
...Microsoft and Amazon race to patent 'bumps on blocks.'
She seems to have the knack for getting the first post, though!
Sony offended precisely the wrong people, the nerds that would eventually detect this thing. Once they did, they were appalled. Nerds were good Sony customers, once... Nerds buy hardware for non-nerds, sometimes.
<snip>
<snip>
<snip><snip>
FIRST!!!
(Yes, I know it will be modded Offtopic and deservedly so, but I just can't help myself!)
For example, "The Bible:"
Credit where credit is due, I think I say that in the National Lampoon.
Hmmm... looks fine on my Atari 400. :)
No, it was an Amiga game called Valhalla & The Lord Of Infinity. I remember the ads for "Nord and Bert" though. It looked weird, which is what it was supposed to be I guess.
Well at least I knew the game wanted me to put the salt on the slug. There are worse examples.
> /dev/null
Well, you did say "average".
My God! It's full of emos!
And by posting on AskSlashdot, you probably have hundreds of thousands in the volunteer pool.
I guess this is where we part ways. I just don't see that many wars being fought to preserve our pipeline, so to speak. Let's take the last 100 years, a timespan where oil might be a valuable commodity to be fought over.
* World War I - a fight to preserve Europe against the Germans
* World War II - ditto; fighting facism
* Korean War - fighting against communism
* Vietnam War - ditto
* Grenada - ditto, in a way
* Gulf War - I will grant you this one
* Afghan War - basically an attempt to nab Bin Laden, and take down the Taliban; one may see some concern over oil here
* Iraq War (now) - I won't grant you this one, but I can see the argument. However, if oil were the overriding concern, wouldn't the US have been pushing to lift sanctions, so that we could just buy it? It's the easiest way
Keep in mind, I know the "justifications" as I have outlined are simplifications, but I think that pre-Gulf, it seems our conflicts were about limiting expansionism of totalitarian ideologies. As far as long and messy goes, it doesn't get much worse than Vietnam. Let's hope our situation in Iraq never approaches it.
I think this will be my last post, since by now, it's probably just me and you talking. But it's been a good thread, as far as I'm concerned.
You are welcome to send your excess dollars to those services that you enjoy/approve of.
Let's use another product, shoes. What is the "true" cost of shoes? Well, we can measure things like the cost of materials, no problem. But what about those sweatshops? What about the the ecological cost when we harvest the raw materials for those shoes? (Maybe not a perfect example, but hey.) As we cast our net wider, we can basically imagine a negative impact anywhere we want.
About the impact of fossil fuels on health: would anyone care to share links where we can find good, unbiased studies on this? I can imagine one could claim the impact was anywhere from "negligible" all the way to "planet-threatening." I'm not being snide here, just would be interested to see the information.
As far as the argument that the US went into Iraq to stop terrorism goes...
I don't think I ever made that argument. And what's all this business about "wars" for oil? (I am not necessarily adressing you here.) I think it would be fair to say we went to the Gulf in the early 90s to stop Hussein's land and oil grab, and to help keep the region stable (hah hah - groan). So that was kind of "for oil." We went back again to remove him from power. (I know - WMD and all that.) Did the war in Afghanistan have anything to do with oil? I know, a lot of people say everything has to do with oil.
I think it should be kept in mind also, in our cost/benefit analysis, that petroleum is involved in a LOT of products, many of them life-saving. And certainly many of them contribute to quality of life.
I was not attempting to rationalize, but explain that in my opinion, it's not the extraction of oil itself that leads to a war. Why is their something "wrong" with our policy? Might it be that somebody else is "wrong?"
This blanket generalization scares me even more
I explained in my post that I recognize it as a generalization, most Islamic people are peace loving, yada yada yada.
Nobody is saying oil is evil. It is the irresponsible use of a limited resource, in an enviromentally damaging way, maintained by a myopic national energy policy which uses wars as a policy tool, that is evil.
As far as I can tell, this is total nonsense, so I cannot even form a response. I think you're claiming we (the U.S.) use war to enforce our energy policy? Or something? If you would like to clear it up a little, I would be happy to respond.
You sure do scare easy.
...is, after roaming the galaxy for 200 years collecting information, it will come back to Earth to destroy us.
The benefit of petroleum right now far outweighs the negative effects, looking at it in a "cost to benefit" way.
As for needing wars to get that oil, these wars come about by interacting with a stunted, xenophobic society. It is unfortunate that this happens. But when was the last time we were at war with Canada, or had to deal with suicide bombers from Mexico? They are among the top sources of US oil (Saudia Arabia is in there too). So war is not really necessary to obtaining oil. It's just that the populations of Islamic societies don't want to be in contact with Westerners.
Of course, I am speaking in general here, and it should be inferred that I don't mean all the populations of Islamic countries are this way.
Over all, though, I would really like to see alternative energies take off. Don't get me wrong about that. But just to say oil is evil, etc. is not a solution.