If one is going to do something, it should be done before N. Korea is able to put these nukes on missiles and before they manufacture large amounts of these. The other option is to arm South Korea and Japan with Nukes. I am sure that China would love that.
There are Islamic Radicalists and Al Qaeda types in NE Africa trying to convert the population to radical Islam. There are a lot of liberals who try to make Africa dependent on hand outs, etc. Many of the governments adopt leftist policies that obviously don't work. The governments are often times not democratic. The corruption and wars are the fault of Africans themselves. Just study what happened in Liberia. It had little to do with outside forces, and everything to do with their corrupt government and even leftist/socialist policies.
Your comment sums up how slashdot readers think both about PS3 and about 'evil' corporations. I think it is because most readers graduated from our failing public school system.
As long as you buy it, Sony doesn't give a shit whether it will overheat at your house or not.
Sony would not be in business if they operated this way. People would tell other people about their experience, causing those other people not to buy a PS3, etc.
Plus, if you leave it OFF, it won't overheat!
Yes, companies do try to resolve problems this way in order to prevent having to recall their products or RMA them. By this time, people have probably stopped buying their product because of the rumours of problems and they don't want to lose even more money than they already have lost or will lose. The truth is that companies would rather not have these problems in the first place.
Either way, it can't be Sony's fault because by definition the PS3 is perfect!
I doubt Sony feels this way internally, but they have to put on a good face because A LOT is at stake. This isn't some small product that Sony is putting out there. The company employs a lot of people, and many jobs are at stake if Sony makes too many mistakes.
iPod only worked with Mac when it first came out (for the reason of selling more Macs). Apple eventually had to make the iPod work with Windows because they needed more customers. Microsoft has no need to make Zune work on the Mac. This is just common logic.
The executive branch should have had the power to regulate what goes across our federal borders in the first place. Even FDR realized this when he had all mail read that was going in and out of the country during WWII. When you get on an airplane, you have your luggage checked. This luggage might have your freedom of expression in it (arwork, postcards to your wife, etc.). The X-Ray machine sees through your clothes, for heaven's sake.
Even the Democrats voted for the patriot act, in case you forgot. They have excuses about it now, but they knew what they were doing. You will not have rights if your country is not protected from its enemies both foreign and domestic. You and your fellow leftists do nothing but embolden the enemy. They use your words against us. Al Qaeda sounds like Democrat talking points. You don't take it seriously. You all hate G.W. more than Al Qaeda. In fact, you've been brainwashed to blame America first and foremost for all problems. You say things like: We are creating more terrorists by going after them, etc. As if we are the problem and they are innocent people who need their rights protected.
Ah yes, Linux. The OS copied from 70s Unix technology. Linux has always been a "johnny-come-lately" copy of whatever is out there, starting with Unix. It is popular only because it is free and has applications that are free. AIX, Solaris, AIX, IRIX, and even "OS X" are all based on similar 70s Unix technology. You are right about compatibility though. Microsoft began with a Disk OS, not a real OS. Even OS/2 was a better OS underneath. Application compatibility is the main reason why Microsoft has prevailed over these others.
But if you were really wealthy you would do things differently, right? Somehow you are different than everybody else, right? Keep drinking the socialist kool-aid.
Very large companies have very large bureaucracies, they employ a lot of people, and they are risk averse. This is why they don't generally innovate (or at least they don't do it at a fast pace). Small companies can run circles around large companies as far as innovation and a changing market, but they also come and go very quickly because they have to take risk to survive, and more often than not that risk does them in.
Once the company you work for gets very large, it will need more people, and with more people comes more bureaucracy. With more bureaucracy comes more sluggishness, etc. It is just reality. It has nothing to do with some evil plot by the wealthy.
Why not have a 12 VDC plug right beside your 120 VAC plug in your home. Many components have to downconvert / rectify the 120 VAC, losing energy to heat, etc.
Yes, and if they had done this study a 1000 years ago they would have come to the same conclusion. Ever since the last ice age, the earth has been warming. Nobody disputes that because it is obvious that we are no longer in an ice age. What is in dispute is whether or not humans are the cause and whether or not anything can or should be done about it.
Yes, and if they had done this study a 1000 years ago they would have come to the same conclusion. Ever since the last ice age, the earth has been warming. Nobody disputes that because it is obvious that we are no longer in an ice age. What is in dispute is whether or not humans are the cause and whether or not anything can or should be done about it.
Leftists want to convince us that it is evil corporations and industry that is raping our planet and we should all go live in communes and grow our own organic food and let them redistribute our wealth. They come up with names like greenpeace, the green party, WWF, etc. They make propaganda cartoons like "captain planet." And let's face it, scientists are welfare babies. They spend other people's money, and have little accountability. They work in leftist Universities. Scientists get things wrong all the time, more often than not. I hate to be skeptical, but I have no other choice. And how is Al Gore going to make me less skeptical? He is a leftist, a hypocrite, and a moron.
1. Let the market use the term for a while for free advertising in order to sell more iPods. 2. Profit! 3. After market saturation, decide that you don't want the term iPod to be used like the term kleenex. Sue everybody... 4. Profit again!
Yes evil Big Oil. What about Big Coal, Big Nuclear, and Big Electric? Are these companies not "Big" enough to compete against "Big Oil" for your business? Your logic is like saying that "Big Burger King" will never let you eat at "Big McDonalds". Oil companies will continue to make money long after automobiles stop using gasoline. Plastics are used everywhere, even in cars that don't run on petrol.
1. Many leftist organizations exploit the environmental cause to try to steer us towards socialism: The Green party, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Foundation, et al. "Earth Day" is leftist concept and the "captain planet" cartoon was a Ted Turner and Jane Fonda project. During the early 90s, when Ted and Jane were still together and there was no competition to CNN, CNN basically gave greenpeace video coverage every day. "Save the whales" was the big thing at the time. Al Gore became vice president, and all the sudden everyone was into saving the planet. Everyone was biking and wearing Hemp, LL Bean, and Eddie Bauer. All that earth watching required a 4x4 and gas was cheap, so all the yuppies went out and bought SUVs. Wow, that movement really backfired on them. But it gave them another cause--get rid of the evil SUV! Too bad gas prices (i.e. market forces) did that for them.
2. Scientists are generally tax-payer subsidized welfare babies. They aren't subject to market forces, but they still need to find ways to get grant money or they will be out of a job. They work in Universities, the last bastion of communism.
3. Al Gore just did a movie that was pro "humans caused Global Warming." But you didn't notice this because you are blind from your own leftist leanings.
They are forced to run to the center because that is where their constituents are. This, and the fact that most have spent their whole lives spending other people's money, makes them seem like the same party. This is what happens when you don't have term limits and when you pay your leaders more than the national average.
The whole health care industry has been handing out death sentences to women by recommending hormone therapy, which looks to have been giving many of them breast cancer and killing them. How's that for a cure for hot flashes?
Scientists are not perfect, and they have been wrong more times than right. Consensus in being wrong is also not so unusual. Of course, when companies like Phillip Morris fund these types of things, it leaves a bad taste in our mouths. The same can be said for leftist organizations, which have been known to do the same.
If "big tobacco" is so bad, then why didn't we just outlaw tobacco or try to regulate nicotine? (For slashdot hypocrites: It would be hard to justify making pot legal if tobacco is made illegal.) It was obviously a shake down. Government and lawyers make too much money off of "big tobacco".
A movie screen tries to be like a piece of paper or a photograph held much closer, therefore it needs much higher resolution to make up for both size and detail. This means that it needs even more resolution than a piece of paper or a photo because these items are relatively small and basically need the resolution mostly for detail.
We look at reality through a much higher DPI. Movies try to immerse us in an alternate reality. While I'd agree that you don't need to read fine print on a movie screen unless it has subtitles, one would like to see a diagonal line in a movie without the jaggies or anti-aliasing blur.
Resolution is not just for size, it is also for detail. I read text on my computer screen at about the same distance as a piece of paper. My paper is 600dpi, our screens are 72-120 dpi. A large wide movie screen at 30 megapixels would probably be even less DPI than your computer screen!
Megapixels aren't the only factor, size of the display plays into the equation. I would think that some of the resolution is so that the picture looks good even on a big screen, where the eye must pan around to see the whole scene. That said, my printer does 600dpi, which equates to a 12.8 x 7.2 inch picture at 7680 x 4320. This would make for a fairly small monitor size. Does your eye notice a difference between 300dpi and 600dpi? Mine does. Why do we not have a problem with our printers being this high def, but we cannot imagine our displays being this high def?
And all Germans are Nazis, and all blacks are violent, etc. etc. Thanks, good point.
Notice that I wrote "most," whereas you wrote "all." Do YOU lean left? Be honest.
That doesn't change that fact that pretty much all relevent scientists believe it to be true.
The key word is 'relevent'. In other words, those you agree with.
And its not the methane levels [...and water vapor...] that the scientists are worried about.
Only because methane and water vapor aren't put out by evil corporations, but instead by good plants and oceans.
I'm not sure where you get this idea that there are more plants.
Perhaps because once uninhabital places like deserts are now occupied by humans. Phoenix Arizona has golf courses, trees, and grass. The dust bowl areas of the U.S. now have more trees and praries. We have more lakes than we've ever had, due to the fact that man has made them. These lakes hold fresh water, allowing more plants to grow in those areas. We have more forests here in the U.S. than we had 150 years ago. They may not have as many old growth trees, but they exist.
A car or factory put out significantly more CO2 than a horse. Horse waste usually decays on the ground, and is not dumped wholesale into rivers.
If we instead had as many horses on the street as we do cars, we would have polluted ground water due to runoff (same issue as dumping sewage into our drinking water). Horses breath out CO2 and fart methane. The waste gives off methane as it decays. In order to keep all those horses going, more food would have to be grown. Growing this food would have all the same issues as growing ethanol. It would take us longer to get across town and be productive, leading to fewer advancements in health, medicine, technology, and science. This means that we would have even less ability to scrub power plant emissions, etc., because the technology wouldn't have been invented as fast.
We aren't keeping balance, and that's the argument. You seem particually dense. If your post was an attempt at humor, it failed miserably..
Like I said, the left's equivalent of the church lady. The United States has improved its pollution problems considerably thanks to corporations. We will continue to do so without the need for socialism.
Most Environmentalists are socialist types. They hate the fact that we are not all "sacrificing for the greater good." Global warming is just another form of political correctness, where if you say anything against it you get shouted down by bitter people who want to control other people. It's the left's equivalent of the church lady. Kyoto was just a way for socialist countries to control us.
We are no longer in an ice age, so of course global warming is real. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the glaciers have been slowly melting for the past 10,000 years. Has it been sped up? I don't think anyone thought that the warming that has taken place on average for the past 10,000 years has always been linear. Are we contributing? Yes, we breathe out CO2. We have not had a good world war in about 50 years to cut down on the population. Fortunately, plants love CO2. We have more plants than we've ever had, and some more will soon spring up from the melting permafrost and ice caps. Of course, we've recently found that it is possible that live plants are giving off methane, a greenhouse gas. Animals give off CO2 and methane too. In fact, it's probably a good thing we aren't driving around in horse and buggy any more, as I think those horses were aweful polluters. You don't think that their waste got into the ground water?
Water vapor is also a huge greenhouse 'gas'. The more the ice caps melt, the more water vapor gets into the atmosphere and the more stored methane and CO2 get into the atmosphere. There's probably not a whole lot we tiny humans can (or should) do about it. We can try to "use as much as we lose" and keep balance, but that's just common sense. We don't need some bitter activist, some welfare scientist, or some corrupt U.N. "Hall of Justice League" to tell us that.
I see plenty of people ahead of me in the supermarket with WIC vouchers and cards. Next?
Let me guess, they were buying donuts and squished white bread, right? Just because we still have some forms of welfare does not make welfare a success. One of the problems with it is that it breeds dependency. I believe that the poor should be helped by private, non-profit organizations if at all possible. The government can give tax breaks to those who give to these private organizations. People should give to the poor out of the goodness of their heart, not because they are forced to by gunpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
If one is going to do something, it should be done before N. Korea is able to put these nukes on missiles and before they manufacture large amounts of these. The other option is to arm South Korea and Japan with Nukes. I am sure that China would love that.
I call B.S.
There are Islamic Radicalists and Al Qaeda types in NE Africa trying to convert the population to radical Islam. There are a lot of liberals who try to make Africa dependent on hand outs, etc. Many of the governments adopt leftist policies that obviously don't work. The governments are often times not democratic. The corruption and wars are the fault of Africans themselves. Just study what happened in Liberia. It had little to do with outside forces, and everything to do with their corrupt government and even leftist/socialist policies.
Your comment sums up how slashdot readers think both about PS3 and about 'evil' corporations. I think it is because most readers graduated from our failing public school system.
As long as you buy it, Sony doesn't give a shit whether it will overheat at your house or not.
Sony would not be in business if they operated this way. People would tell other people about their experience, causing those other people not to buy a PS3, etc.
Plus, if you leave it OFF, it won't overheat!
Yes, companies do try to resolve problems this way in order to prevent having to recall their products or RMA them. By this time, people have probably stopped buying their product because of the rumours of problems and they don't want to lose even more money than they already have lost or will lose. The truth is that companies would rather not have these problems in the first place.
Either way, it can't be Sony's fault because by definition the PS3 is perfect!
I doubt Sony feels this way internally, but they have to put on a good face because A LOT is at stake. This isn't some small product that Sony is putting out there. The company employs a lot of people, and many jobs are at stake if Sony makes too many mistakes.
Now if we could just get the British to say "a hospital."
iPod only worked with Mac when it first came out (for the reason of selling more Macs). Apple eventually had to make the iPod work with Windows because they needed more customers. Microsoft has no need to make Zune work on the Mac. This is just common logic.
The executive branch should have had the power to regulate what goes across our federal borders in the first place. Even FDR realized this when he had all mail read that was going in and out of the country during WWII. When you get on an airplane, you have your luggage checked. This luggage might have your freedom of expression in it (arwork, postcards to your wife, etc.). The X-Ray machine sees through your clothes, for heaven's sake.
Even the Democrats voted for the patriot act, in case you forgot. They have excuses about it now, but they knew what they were doing. You will not have rights if your country is not protected from its enemies both foreign and domestic. You and your fellow leftists do nothing but embolden the enemy. They use your words against us. Al Qaeda sounds like Democrat talking points. You don't take it seriously. You all hate G.W. more than Al Qaeda. In fact, you've been brainwashed to blame America first and foremost for all problems. You say things like: We are creating more terrorists by going after them, etc. As if we are the problem and they are innocent people who need their rights protected.
Ah yes, Linux. The OS copied from 70s Unix technology. Linux has always been a "johnny-come-lately" copy of whatever is out there, starting with Unix. It is popular only because it is free and has applications that are free. AIX, Solaris, AIX, IRIX, and even "OS X" are all based on similar 70s Unix technology. You are right about compatibility though. Microsoft began with a Disk OS, not a real OS. Even OS/2 was a better OS underneath. Application compatibility is the main reason why Microsoft has prevailed over these others.
But if you were really wealthy you would do things differently, right? Somehow you are different than everybody else, right? Keep drinking the socialist kool-aid.
Very large companies have very large bureaucracies, they employ a lot of people, and they are risk averse. This is why they don't generally innovate (or at least they don't do it at a fast pace). Small companies can run circles around large companies as far as innovation and a changing market, but they also come and go very quickly because they have to take risk to survive, and more often than not that risk does them in.
Once the company you work for gets very large, it will need more people, and with more people comes more bureaucracy. With more bureaucracy comes more sluggishness, etc. It is just reality. It has nothing to do with some evil plot by the wealthy.
Why not have a 12 VDC plug right beside your 120 VAC plug in your home. Many components have to downconvert / rectify the 120 VAC, losing energy to heat, etc.
Yes, and if they had done this study a 1000 years ago they would have come to the same conclusion. Ever since the last ice age, the earth has been warming. Nobody disputes that because it is obvious that we are no longer in an ice age. What is in dispute is whether or not humans are the cause and whether or not anything can or should be done about it.
Yes, and if they had done this study a 1000 years ago they would have come to the same conclusion. Ever since the last ice age, the earth has been warming. Nobody disputes that because it is obvious that we are no longer in an ice age. What is in dispute is whether or not humans are the cause and whether or not anything can or should be done about it.
Leftists want to convince us that it is evil corporations and industry that is raping our planet and we should all go live in communes and grow our own organic food and let them redistribute our wealth. They come up with names like greenpeace, the green party, WWF, etc. They make propaganda cartoons like "captain planet." And let's face it, scientists are welfare babies. They spend other people's money, and have little accountability. They work in leftist Universities. Scientists get things wrong all the time, more often than not. I hate to be skeptical, but I have no other choice. And how is Al Gore going to make me less skeptical? He is a leftist, a hypocrite, and a moron.
1. Let the market use the term for a while for free advertising in order to sell more iPods.
2. Profit!
3. After market saturation, decide that you don't want the term iPod to be used like the term kleenex. Sue everybody...
4. Profit again!
Yes evil Big Oil. What about Big Coal, Big Nuclear, and Big Electric? Are these companies not "Big" enough to compete against "Big Oil" for your business? Your logic is like saying that "Big Burger King" will never let you eat at "Big McDonalds". Oil companies will continue to make money long after automobiles stop using gasoline. Plastics are used everywhere, even in cars that don't run on petrol.
1. Many leftist organizations exploit the environmental cause to try to steer us towards socialism: The Green party, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Foundation, et al. "Earth Day" is leftist concept and the "captain planet" cartoon was a Ted Turner and Jane Fonda project. During the early 90s, when Ted and Jane were still together and there was no competition to CNN, CNN basically gave greenpeace video coverage every day. "Save the whales" was the big thing at the time. Al Gore became vice president, and all the sudden everyone was into saving the planet. Everyone was biking and wearing Hemp, LL Bean, and Eddie Bauer. All that earth watching required a 4x4 and gas was cheap, so all the yuppies went out and bought SUVs. Wow, that movement really backfired on them. But it gave them another cause--get rid of the evil SUV! Too bad gas prices (i.e. market forces) did that for them.
2. Scientists are generally tax-payer subsidized welfare babies. They aren't subject to market forces, but they still need to find ways to get grant money or they will be out of a job. They work in Universities, the last bastion of communism.
3. Al Gore just did a movie that was pro "humans caused Global Warming." But you didn't notice this because you are blind from your own leftist leanings.
They are forced to run to the center because that is where their constituents are. This, and the fact that most have spent their whole lives spending other people's money, makes them seem like the same party. This is what happens when you don't have term limits and when you pay your leaders more than the national average.
Why don't we just introduce rabbits into Australia!
The whole health care industry has been handing out death sentences to women by recommending hormone therapy, which looks to have been giving many of them breast cancer and killing them. How's that for a cure for hot flashes?
Scientists are not perfect, and they have been wrong more times than right. Consensus in being wrong is also not so unusual. Of course, when companies like Phillip Morris fund these types of things, it leaves a bad taste in our mouths. The same can be said for leftist organizations, which have been known to do the same.
If "big tobacco" is so bad, then why didn't we just outlaw tobacco or try to regulate nicotine? (For slashdot hypocrites: It would be hard to justify making pot legal if tobacco is made illegal.) It was obviously a shake down. Government and lawyers make too much money off of "big tobacco".
We are all dying from the heat and the ice caps melting, but we've finally figured out how proteins fold!
..and they haven't even lost the election yet!
A movie screen tries to be like a piece of paper or a photograph held much closer, therefore it needs much higher resolution to make up for both size and detail. This means that it needs even more resolution than a piece of paper or a photo because these items are relatively small and basically need the resolution mostly for detail.
We look at reality through a much higher DPI. Movies try to immerse us in an alternate reality. While I'd agree that you don't need to read fine print on a movie screen unless it has subtitles, one would like to see a diagonal line in a movie without the jaggies or anti-aliasing blur.
Resolution is not just for size, it is also for detail. I read text on my computer screen at about the same distance as a piece of paper. My paper is 600dpi, our screens are 72-120 dpi. A large wide movie screen at 30 megapixels would probably be even less DPI than your computer screen!
Megapixels aren't the only factor, size of the display plays into the equation. I would think that some of the resolution is so that the picture looks good even on a big screen, where the eye must pan around to see the whole scene. That said, my printer does 600dpi, which equates to a 12.8 x 7.2 inch picture at 7680 x 4320. This would make for a fairly small monitor size. Does your eye notice a difference between 300dpi and 600dpi? Mine does. Why do we not have a problem with our printers being this high def, but we cannot imagine our displays being this high def?
And all Germans are Nazis, and all blacks are violent, etc. etc. Thanks, good point.
Notice that I wrote "most," whereas you wrote "all." Do YOU lean left? Be honest.
That doesn't change that fact that pretty much all relevent scientists believe it to be true.
The key word is 'relevent'. In other words, those you agree with.
And its not the methane levels [...and water vapor...] that the scientists are worried about.
Only because methane and water vapor aren't put out by evil corporations, but instead by good plants and oceans.
I'm not sure where you get this idea that there are more plants.
Perhaps because once uninhabital places like deserts are now occupied by humans. Phoenix Arizona has golf courses, trees, and grass. The dust bowl areas of the U.S. now have more trees and praries. We have more lakes than we've ever had, due to the fact that man has made them. These lakes hold fresh water, allowing more plants to grow in those areas. We have more forests here in the U.S. than we had 150 years ago. They may not have as many old growth trees, but they exist.
A car or factory put out significantly more CO2 than a horse. Horse waste usually decays on the ground, and is not dumped wholesale into rivers.
If we instead had as many horses on the street as we do cars, we would have polluted ground water due to runoff (same issue as dumping sewage into our drinking water). Horses breath out CO2 and fart methane. The waste gives off methane as it decays. In order to keep all those horses going, more food would have to be grown. Growing this food would have all the same issues as growing ethanol. It would take us longer to get across town and be productive, leading to fewer advancements in health, medicine, technology, and science. This means that we would have even less ability to scrub power plant emissions, etc., because the technology wouldn't have been invented as fast.
We aren't keeping balance, and that's the argument. You seem particually dense. If your post was an attempt at humor, it failed miserably..
Like I said, the left's equivalent of the church lady. The United States has improved its pollution problems considerably thanks to corporations. We will continue to do so without the need for socialism.
Most Environmentalists are socialist types. They hate the fact that we are not all "sacrificing for the greater good." Global warming is just another form of political correctness, where if you say anything against it you get shouted down by bitter people who want to control other people. It's the left's equivalent of the church lady. Kyoto was just a way for socialist countries to control us.
We are no longer in an ice age, so of course global warming is real. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the glaciers have been slowly melting for the past 10,000 years. Has it been sped up? I don't think anyone thought that the warming that has taken place on average for the past 10,000 years has always been linear. Are we contributing? Yes, we breathe out CO2. We have not had a good world war in about 50 years to cut down on the population. Fortunately, plants love CO2. We have more plants than we've ever had, and some more will soon spring up from the melting permafrost and ice caps. Of course, we've recently found that it is possible that live plants are giving off methane, a greenhouse gas. Animals give off CO2 and methane too. In fact, it's probably a good thing we aren't driving around in horse and buggy any more, as I think those horses were aweful polluters. You don't think that their waste got into the ground water?
Water vapor is also a huge greenhouse 'gas'. The more the ice caps melt, the more water vapor gets into the atmosphere and the more stored methane and CO2 get into the atmosphere. There's probably not a whole lot we tiny humans can (or should) do about it. We can try to "use as much as we lose" and keep balance, but that's just common sense. We don't need some bitter activist, some welfare scientist, or some corrupt U.N. "Hall of Justice League" to tell us that.
I see plenty of people ahead of me in the supermarket with WIC vouchers and cards. Next?
Let me guess, they were buying donuts and squished white bread, right? Just because we still have some forms of welfare does not make welfare a success. One of the problems with it is that it breeds dependency. I believe that the poor should be helped by private, non-profit organizations if at all possible. The government can give tax breaks to those who give to these private organizations. People should give to the poor out of the goodness of their heart, not because they are forced to by gunpoint.