Money. Cutting edge medical research and technology is/not/ cheap, even when things are good. And now with all this talk of recessions and depressions, well...
Well, it's only odd until you realise that 'Slashdot' isn't a single person or entity with a single will and single set of values, but is in fact comprosed of many individuals, with many individual and different value and points of view. Thus, the idea that 'Slashdot' could thing that copyright should both be enshrined in law, and also utterly erradicated, isn't contradictory at all, because those views, and many more alike and different to those views, are held by different people.
"The release of massive clouds of methane from icy hydrates buried under shallow ocean floors is the leading suspect for the most devastating extinction in the fossil record, according to a new analysis.
Methane best matches the unusual carbon-isotope fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, says Robert Berner of Yale University in Connecticut, US, though it cannot explain atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the time.
Berner says: "It's possible that you could have a combination" of effects causing the mass extinction that ended the Permian period, 250 million years ago. The event wiped out the vast majority of marine species and left Europe a near-desert."
It is impossible to teach Intelligent Design in a scientific manner, because Intelligent Design has/absolutely nothing whatsoever/ to do with science, in any way, shape or form.
Intelligent Design is 100% pure religious doctrine and dogma.
Heh, you sound like the sort of person who destroys companies from the inside out. If I were your boss, you'd be fired, and everyone working under and around you would probably hail me as a hero.
People like you are why Wikipedia is a failure if what it had intended to be.
How many people have to find something relevant or useful in order to stop it from being deleted from Wikipedia?
A hundered? A thousand? A million?
Nothing like that. Wikipedia is controlled by those what get off on deleting the work of other's, ignoring 'notability' or 'value' or 'usefulness' or 'relevance' entirely. If these few high priests of Wikipedia deem an article, whether it's about Pokemon or CNN, to be something they have a personal bias against, it will be deleted.
Frankly, it seems like Wikipedia has about as much credibility these days as Fox News.
So, that might be an interesting question: Given the fact that Wikipedia is controlled by a very few people with a very narrow view of what's notable, and use that to control what information is contained in Wikipedia, regardless of the truth, veracity, or notability of that information, should Wikipedia be regarded as a source of useful information, or as a propaganda machine to be avoided at all costs?
It's a painful question to have to ask - at one time, I espoused Wikipedia as, well, one of the best examples of the strengths of the internet.
More and more, however, I'm finding that, given the nature of those in control of Wikipedia... I just don't know anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Or have limited funds and resources, and want to put those funds and recources into games for your biggest market.
Money. Cutting edge medical research and technology is /not/ cheap, even when things are good. And now with all this talk of recessions and depressions, well...
Well, it's only odd until you realise that 'Slashdot' isn't a single person or entity with a single will and single set of values, but is in fact comprosed of many individuals, with many individual and different value and points of view. Thus, the idea that 'Slashdot' could thing that copyright should both be enshrined in law, and also utterly erradicated, isn't contradictory at all, because those views, and many more alike and different to those views, are held by different people.
So, based on what you've said, would it be fair to say that Firefox's police on sielf-signed certs... is damaging internet security?
Aside from random mindless fearmongering, your evidence for that happening is... what, exactly?
Flamebait for saying that it isn't against the law to use Linux?
You /do/ know what Linux is, right?
Why, exactly? You don't think his achievements are meaningful?
I'd say he's earned his 'high-horse'ness far more than most.
Um, you do know that using Linux isn't against the law, right? It's legal to use it.
Um, you know that Stargate is fictional, right? As in, not real?
Bullshit.
Ever heard of a little something called wind? How about wildlife? Water?
Things move and get moved, especially if they start a couple thousand feet up in the air. That's kinda just how things work.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2088
"The release of massive clouds of methane from icy hydrates buried under shallow ocean floors is the leading suspect for the most devastating extinction in the fossil record, according to a new analysis.
Methane best matches the unusual carbon-isotope fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, says Robert Berner of Yale University in Connecticut, US, though it cannot explain atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the time.
Berner says: "It's possible that you could have a combination" of effects causing the mass extinction that ended the Permian period, 250 million years ago. The event wiped out the vast majority of marine species and left Europe a near-desert."
Oh shi...
Huh? Of course we know how heavy metals are formed. Stars explode.
Or, for a more detailed explanation: "Stars Make Heavy Metal in Slow Burn" http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/heavy_metal_010823.html
It is impossible to teach Intelligent Design in a scientific manner, because Intelligent Design has /absolutely nothing whatsoever/ to do with science, in any way, shape or form.
Intelligent Design is 100% pure religious doctrine and dogma.
Just figured I'd comment that my post here has seen a heck of a ride.
Metamoderators, you paying attention?
Oh, I'm perfectly willing to celebrate, once I know it's true. Remember, just awhile ago, the posted details of the launch, /before/ they launched: http://gizmodo.com/5054776/china-launch-success-hits-web-hours-before-actual-blast+off
Why is it anti-Chinese to want to celebrate /real/ Chinese achievements?
The concern that I have is that this may also be faked.
Oh, I don't blindly trust any countries government. Rather, I trust any countries government to say only what makes them look best, true or not.
More importantly, because just recently, China announced the exactly same story http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/25/2145209 *before* they had even *launched*...
Well.
Just as it's not good to discount /everything/ that some countries announce, sometimes the skepticism is well earned.
Forgive my skepticism, but this is exactly the sort of thing that China commonly lies about.
If true, it is a wonderous and stunning achievement, and they have my utpost respect and admiration.
However... again, this is exactly the sort of thing that China lies about.
Are there any sources of information on the validity of this that aren't controlled by the Chinese government, that verify their claims?
Sounds like you've never been to China.
How else to you expect people to compare different things, other than by comparing them to things that are... different?
Seriously, comparing two things that are identical in every way would be a waste of time.
How else do you want them to compare graphics cards? By... not comparing them?
http://www.thepiratebay.org/
For informational, theoretical, hypothetical purposes, of course.
Do I even need a comment?
Abdiction of responsibility, folks, whether you want it or not.
Heh, you sound like the sort of person who destroys companies from the inside out. If I were your boss, you'd be fired, and everyone working under and around you would probably hail me as a hero.
People like you are why Wikipedia is a failure if what it had intended to be.
How many people have to find something relevant or useful in order to stop it from being deleted from Wikipedia?
A hundered? A thousand? A million?
Nothing like that. Wikipedia is controlled by those what get off on deleting the work of other's, ignoring 'notability' or 'value' or 'usefulness' or 'relevance' entirely. If these few high priests of Wikipedia deem an article, whether it's about Pokemon or CNN, to be something they have a personal bias against, it will be deleted.
Frankly, it seems like Wikipedia has about as much credibility these days as Fox News.
So, that might be an interesting question: Given the fact that Wikipedia is controlled by a very few people with a very narrow view of what's notable, and use that to control what information is contained in Wikipedia, regardless of the truth, veracity, or notability of that information, should Wikipedia be regarded as a source of useful information, or as a propaganda machine to be avoided at all costs?
It's a painful question to have to ask - at one time, I espoused Wikipedia as, well, one of the best examples of the strengths of the internet.
More and more, however, I'm finding that, given the nature of those in control of Wikipedia... I just don't know anymore.
You're old.
Because, seriously. It's not.