I always found that one of the great things about the Prius was how quite it was, but I guess with as many idiots out there not paying attention a little audio warning is needed.
The real question is this: which idiots are you referring to - the drivers or the pedestrians?
for some reason when the government is the one who releases the product into the market, it's no longer consider market dynamics. It would have been market only if a private entity had released the product.
Best to not tell them about the other industries the government has also engendered - like tax preparation and high fructose corn syrup.
But the again, maybe that's because Assange committed the cardinal sin of questioning the US military, whereas all Osama's done is blow up a few buildings and since then acted as a convenient Emmanuel Goldstein.
Still not quite up to par, as shown on the home page itself:
New in version 2.0: Ads are actually BLOCKED FROM DOWNLOADING now, instead of just being removed after the fact!
Note that Chrome doesn't actually support this all the way, so a few resources might still load before AdBlock can get to them, in which case we'll remove those as usual.
Which means that while most content is blocked, some gets loaded -- and any content that gets loaded is great for those who like to aggregate your usage data across multiple sites.
Nowhere. But right now it's the most widely adopted and implemented
For what? Actual video content? I don't think so. Would some of us like to see it more popular than, say, Flash to serve up video? Sure. But that's not the way it is now.
To suggest it's the most adopted is wishful thinking.
Except that IE, Chrome, and Safari all support it. Doesn't this mean that it's the most widely adopted and implemented codec supported for use with HTML5? GP didn't say it was the most widely *used* codec, only the most widely *supported*.
Hear hear! I've a very similar situation - was diagnosed several years ago in my late 20s. The diagnosis and treatment has made great improvements in my life -- yet I would not have wanted to have been treated for this during my school years. First because nobody yet actually *knows* the long term effects of these drugs on the developing mind; but second because it would have taken away a lot from "being a kid" (which - for the most part - I had a great deal of fun with).
I use Facebook all the time. I've never heard of Foursquare. Is this another one of those "I use it, therefore I assume everybody uses it" kind of things?
As opposed to one of those "I don't use it, so I assume nobody does" kind of things?;)
These people were doing what was necessary to acquire these stats long before having an iPhone. Therefore it is obvious that having more sex induces people to buy iPhones.
Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying. Probably it's that chorus of nerd rage that the well-crafted headline and misleading summary invoked on demand.
So you're willing to accept the choice of information -- as long as the price of that choice is paid by people other than yourself. If you'll be so free with that information when the cost is yours to bear, I commend you.
Personally, I value my own skin; and would not throw it away in order to provide information that effectively changes nothing*. I'd even have to think damned hard before trading it for information of significance in all but the most extreme cases -- because my wife and kid would bear the cost of my choice. Consequently, I cannot presume to make that choice for others without their knowledge and consent. I fail to understand the mentality of those who will -- the currency here is lives, not just political reputation or transparent governance.
It's not like the information couldn't have been redacted even without the government's help. There was also no urgency to when the data was released; if it took a year to redact it, he could have released it then -- or even a few hundred documents at a time. Instead, he chose to act with complete disregard for the people he was bringing direct harm to. If those people were the government -- fine, more power to him. Unfortunately, casualties are it wasn't just the government here.
* the vast majority of the uninformed public remain uninformed; and though it's early I don't see any changes coming about as a result of what the rest of us have learned
First, you misunderstand that quote. It's about the struggle between information being valuable and information wanting to get out (as in those who have secrets want to keep them secret and everyone else wanting to find out, typically the latter force becomes more powerful hence the first part of it is often cut off).
There are unfortunately about half a dozen different meanings attributed to that quote -- so it's probably best to retire it from our lexicon and avoid further confusion.
Secondly, If he is having unprotected sex with multiple partners while infected with AIDS, would you lambaste the nurse who publishes his full medical history demanding that they should have kept this secret.
Of course not - because the release of this information is protecting far more people than it could harm.
This is basically what Wikileaks does.
I can't agree with this - more in a moment.
Wikileaks does not and should not publish every bit of secret information,
Agreed - and that's where the problem is. Wikileaks seems to revel in publishing whatever grabs it headlines and donations that enable it to keep running. It's essentially become a tabloid - though worse, because the only cost extracted by tabloids is damage to someone's reputation.
only the bits that are contrary to our purpose as free nations (I.E. Mai Lai massacre is published, plans for Operation Rolling Thunder are not).
Also agreed. But how does the data published in this event fit that criteria? If he had removed the names and locations of people he was putting at risk -- then yes, a case could be made for it. In absence of his ability to do that properly, the correct response was not "Aw screw it, I'll do it anyway."
Assuming you want to live in a democracy and not a military state, the documents needed released. Hiding information from voters just makes our government a farce. He gave the government a chance to whitewash the names and such that would cause danger, and they chose to ignore him.
Seriously... you sound like you'd have been perfectly happy with the government telling you that the Jews were evil.
Wow, that was impressive. Let me guess - you also think the public has a "right to know" all of the planned movements of our troops?
Some data should be classified, precisely because the costs of making it public are too high. While the government may not be the entity I trust most with that responsibility, there really aren't any better options out there; and at least in theory we've elected the officials of our government because we trust them with some degree of responsibility.
As this incident - and your comment - demonstrates, we certainly can't trust your average citizen to handle it.
You know very well that's not how I meant it, but hey, if you want to be a reactionary and ignore my point, I expect it.
I reconsidered after I posted it, but I was initially reacting to the insightful mod -- call me pessimistic, but I suspect those who modded you took it at face value.
Oil is cheaper, more efficient, better for the economy, for the country, for jobs, more "American" (whatever that means). Oil might even be more ecological. I cannot fathom what motivates such conclusions. I just wonder if it has anything to do with money, and the the term "petro-dollars", and prices and profits and stuff. And I assume "yes", and I have no friggen clue why, other than my own brain seems to say so.
Erm... you realize this was a Canadian study, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I daresay the idiots not paying attention are the drivers - because if they were, they wouldn't be mowing down passengers [by accident].
I always found that one of the great things about the Prius was how quite it was, but I guess with as many idiots out there not paying attention a little audio warning is needed.
The real question is this: which idiots are you referring to - the drivers or the pedestrians?
for some reason when the government is the one who releases the product into the market, it's no longer consider market dynamics. It would have been market only if a private entity had released the product.
Best to not tell them about the other industries the government has also engendered - like tax preparation and high fructose corn syrup.
Markets exist no matter who the players are...
Citation needed????!!!!!
Look at it this way - a year is only man's measurement of time, and need bear no relation to the deific concept of time.
NOW can't we all just get along?
They really ought to be inflating the price,
Yep, they should definitely take steps to make the price balloon now, before it's too late.
What? Why are you looking at me that way?
When you have made your educated vote you return the ballot to the polling station.
Well there's your fatal flaw in an otherwise good plan.
So the person who wrote the article called it flimsy. I'm not sure that qualifies as an explanation of where the machine came from.
But the again, maybe that's because Assange committed the cardinal sin of questioning the US military, whereas all Osama's done is blow up a few buildings and since then acted as a convenient Emmanuel Goldstein.
Also, because they know where he lives ;)
without support for these in anything, but lynx.
Lawn. Mine. You - off.
New in version 2.0: Ads are actually BLOCKED FROM DOWNLOADING now, instead of just being removed after the fact! Note that Chrome doesn't actually support this all the way, so a few resources might still load before AdBlock can get to them, in which case we'll remove those as usual.
Which means that while most content is blocked, some gets loaded -- and any content that gets loaded is great for those who like to aggregate your usage data across multiple sites.
For what? Actual video content? I don't think so. Would some of us like to see it more popular than, say, Flash to serve up video? Sure. But that's not the way it is now.
To suggest it's the most adopted is wishful thinking.
Except that IE, Chrome, and Safari all support it. Doesn't this mean that it's the most widely adopted and implemented codec supported for use with HTML5? GP didn't say it was the most widely *used* codec, only the most widely *supported*.
Hear hear! I've a very similar situation - was diagnosed several years ago in my late 20s. The diagnosis and treatment has made great improvements in my life -- yet I would not have wanted to have been treated for this during my school years. First because nobody yet actually *knows* the long term effects of these drugs on the developing mind; but second because it would have taken away a lot from "being a kid" (which - for the most part - I had a great deal of fun with).
Why would it be categorized as a stimulant then?
I use Facebook all the time. I've never heard of Foursquare. Is this another one of those "I use it, therefore I assume everybody uses it" kind of things?
As opposed to one of those "I don't use it, so I assume nobody does" kind of things? ;)
Dude, I just checked in -- and guess what? I'm the Mayor of your bar now.
These people were doing what was necessary to acquire these stats long before having an iPhone. Therefore it is obvious that having more sex induces people to buy iPhones.
And that's kind of the shame of it - very little of this was a surprise; so peoples lives were jeopardized for what was ultimately no good reason.
Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying. Probably it's that chorus of nerd rage that the well-crafted headline and misleading summary invoked on demand.
Oops. Meant to wrap up with "Unfortunately, the casualties go beyond political livelihoods", not the nonsense sentence I used instead.
So you're willing to accept the choice of information -- as long as the price of that choice is paid by people other than yourself. If you'll be so free with that information when the cost is yours to bear, I commend you.
Personally, I value my own skin; and would not throw it away in order to provide information that effectively changes nothing*. I'd even have to think damned hard before trading it for information of significance in all but the most extreme cases -- because my wife and kid would bear the cost of my choice. Consequently, I cannot presume to make that choice for others without their knowledge and consent. I fail to understand the mentality of those who will -- the currency here is lives, not just political reputation or transparent governance.
It's not like the information couldn't have been redacted even without the government's help. There was also no urgency to when the data was released; if it took a year to redact it, he could have released it then -- or even a few hundred documents at a time. Instead, he chose to act with complete disregard for the people he was bringing direct harm to. If those people were the government -- fine, more power to him. Unfortunately, casualties are it wasn't just the government here.
* the vast majority of the uninformed public remain uninformed; and though it's early I don't see any changes coming about as a result of what the rest of us have learned
First, you misunderstand that quote. It's about the struggle between information being valuable and information wanting to get out (as in those who have secrets want to keep them secret and everyone else wanting to find out, typically the latter force becomes more powerful hence the first part of it is often cut off).
There are unfortunately about half a dozen different meanings attributed to that quote -- so it's probably best to retire it from our lexicon and avoid further confusion.
Secondly, If he is having unprotected sex with multiple partners while infected with AIDS, would you lambaste the nurse who publishes his full medical history demanding that they should have kept this secret.
Of course not - because the release of this information is protecting far more people than it could harm.
This is basically what Wikileaks does.
I can't agree with this - more in a moment.
Wikileaks does not and should not publish every bit of secret information,
Agreed - and that's where the problem is. Wikileaks seems to revel in publishing whatever grabs it headlines and donations that enable it to keep running. It's essentially become a tabloid - though worse, because the only cost extracted by tabloids is damage to someone's reputation.
only the bits that are contrary to our purpose as free nations (I.E. Mai Lai massacre is published, plans for Operation Rolling Thunder are not).
Also agreed. But how does the data published in this event fit that criteria? If he had removed the names and locations of people he was putting at risk -- then yes, a case could be made for it. In absence of his ability to do that properly, the correct response was not "Aw screw it, I'll do it anyway."
Assuming you want to live in a democracy and not a military state, the documents needed released. Hiding information from voters just makes our government a farce. He gave the government a chance to whitewash the names and such that would cause danger, and they chose to ignore him.
Seriously... you sound like you'd have been perfectly happy with the government telling you that the Jews were evil.
Wow, that was impressive. Let me guess - you also think the public has a "right to know" all of the planned movements of our troops?
Some data should be classified, precisely because the costs of making it public are too high. While the government may not be the entity I trust most with that responsibility, there really aren't any better options out there; and at least in theory we've elected the officials of our government because we trust them with some degree of responsibility.
As this incident - and your comment - demonstrates, we certainly can't trust your average citizen to handle it.
So do I- that's where I got the example from. Just because the law says something doesn't make it logical or moral ;)
And hey, that's really nothing at all, right?
You know very well that's not how I meant it, but hey, if you want to be a reactionary and ignore my point, I expect it.
I reconsidered after I posted it, but I was initially reacting to the insightful mod -- call me pessimistic, but I suspect those who modded you took it at face value.
Oil is cheaper, more efficient, better for the economy, for the country, for jobs, more "American" (whatever that means). Oil might even be more ecological. I cannot fathom what motivates such conclusions. I just wonder if it has anything to do with money, and the the term "petro-dollars", and prices and profits and stuff. And I assume "yes", and I have no friggen clue why, other than my own brain seems to say so.
Erm... you realize this was a Canadian study, right?