you see a point you disagree with and go into attack mode.
No, to paraphrase your original post:
There is reason to allow this abhorrent practice.
There has to be oversight if it's done though.
There likely cannot be effective oversight so we shouldn't do it.
The first line is the problem. The rest means nothing in that context. If you meant otherwise you failed to clearly articulate it.
Got it, but where does the fact that the traffic has been requested by the users the target network play into it? The more appropriate term here is "puller" as opposed to "pusher". The traffic would not be there except for the end network requesting it in the first place.
Although for the number of discoveries we've had so far that claimed "may help to understand/treat Alzheimer's", you would think it would have gone the way of smallpox by now.
who are you/anyone come to the idea that atheists flock to science.
Why, I am ME. I have both the ability and the right to come to any idea or notion that I damn well choose. The question is who are you to imply otherwise? You must be from a place that tries to restrict what a person thinks. Welcome to freedom of thought and expression, it's a warm and inviting place that people flock to.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and you are getting hung up on semantics. Perhaps I should have said science tends to draw people that have a greater tendency question everything. The complete lack of credible evidence for religion eventually persuades them to release that belief in a deity. Drawn to, flocked, whatever.
What has the national academi of science to do with that?.
Ummm, it was a response to the question you asked. It is representative of the number of scientists that are atheists versus the number of theists, showing markedly "less" religious people in science, ergo less religious people "flocking" to science.
And science is always presenting us with new and wondrous things on an almost daily basis.
Any references why/where/when Atheists flock to science and religious peolple not?
I didn't say religious people didn't, actually, only that atheists as a whole do, so perhaps you are reading into it a bit. But, I can't say I've ever hear an atheist denouncing evolution... Just saying.
As far as I know many top scientists proclaim to believe in god... so do less believers flock to science?
Here's a quote, that I believe to be reasonably accurate, from Wikipedia: "Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7% believed in God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts" I don't really need to elaborate any more on that one, do I?
Sorry this whole story is some attempt to fill a noring summer void. There is nothing 'special' about atheists, they are just irdinary people.
Agreed, and I certainly never said otherwise. Seems like you are a bit sensitive about atheism. Take a breath, relax, and remember his noodly goodness loves you even if you don't believe in him.
Yup, that comment nailed it. It's a strawman argument, lacking an understanding of what actual science and the scientific process is. It has nothing to do with atheism, but atheists flock to it because it gives them the proof and rationality they crave.
That's why they would buy a company that already has that expertise as well as supply and distribution chains. They would also be buying that production expertise, plus enough patents and patent licenses to allow them to actually move forward. Google is not completely without experience in this kind of situation.
Given the likely intractability of the big car makers to Google's advances (they want the whole pie for themselves, they do not like to share), there may be little alternative if they want to go big at a faster pace than starting a car company from scratch would allow.
There are stroke commercials on TV pointing out that exact symptom, saying know the symptoms and act fast. What the hell is wrong with that doctor that they missed that? IANAD and I get that that the symptoms weren't apparent when she was actually being examined, but really?
You forget that the details being available is where things started, and the option for details to be hidden showed up because of the problems having that information openly available has caused. The "social will" you talk about is not society at at large, it is governments and law enforcement wanting that information out in the open for their own purposes. General society either outright prefers the ability to remain anonymous or could give a crap about the details being shown except in very specific cases.
Having a website in no way equates to driving a car, that is a ridiculous analogy. Your driver's license is not openly available to millions at any given time, and a website is not a large vehicle that can be driven into a crowd of actual flesh and blood people. And if the service provider has monopoly, where exactly do you take your business?
Actually, those states sought to replace the religious worship of gods with religious worship of the state. North Korea is a perfect example of that. They can't abide a possible rival for the hearts and souls of the people, so they just replaced the religions. It amounts to the same thing as any organized religion, with the exception of the state and their leaders being real actual things, while religions that have nothing but an unprovable promise.
The Bible has has intrigue, death on a massive scale, hypocrisy, and damnation, the makings of a great work of fiction. And that's just the parts the character god plays, never mind the other players that come and go. As you move through the stories, you get a sense of the ruthlessness of all involved (especially the writers) to stop at nothing in their attempts to control those around them through fear and intimidation. Thrilling!
On the minus side they forgot to do a continuity check after the constant re-writes that were done century after century to "update" it to current "standards". This leads to a fair amount of contradictions the subplots, such as what a person can and cannot do to anger the main character (spoiler: He gets mad at pretty much anything that has to do with personal pleasure, or things that don't involve group chanting and prostrating).
It is an epic read though, and if you can stick with it you are certain to come away with a greater appreciation of those afflicted with mental illness.
Umm, what the hell are you talking about? No one here is hating on the Chinese for this, and I dare say the pictures aren't exactly proof of anything. It's a couple of pixels with an arrow pointing to it. I'm not saying the lander is a hoax though, and didn't know anyone was.
You do come across like one of those paid Chinese propagandists though, mr. anonymous coward.
Agreed, the usefulness should not have any bearing on it's legality. Cameras in every home would be useful in stopping domestic violence, arguably more effective than the current NSA collection is for it's stated purpose, but it is still not only illegal but completely undesirable.
My first thought as well, another attempt to justify spying on everyone. Let's reel in the guys we been pushing and prodding for months into saying something incriminating. I'll wait to see more details before I believe it.
It's terrible that my first impression on news like this is "ya, right...", especially after the Kenyan incident.
This increases the labor for the pirates and actually gives you some labor flexibility on producing content.
You clearly have not seen the tenacity that pirates are capable of. For most, it isn't about ripping someone off, it's about sharing something. Add to that a lot of people with with a lot of time on their hands, and they will work tirelessly to put those articles together, day after day, month after month.
The other posters suggesting the value-adds mixed with free are bang on. Forums, article archives, lots of "free" stuff, and a reasonable price will potentially get you far more revenue on the net than your print editions would. Embed short videos or effects that help get the article's point across. That's tougher to include in pirated versions, and generally won't be, so you have one up one the pirated version. Use the medium to it's potential, and they will come.
Most important, work on eyeballs for advertising revenue, not necessarily subscriptions. You have the potential,make so much more money on the web if you have good content.
Here sir, please put this thin foil hat. You'll be fine.
Ya, right. MS has shown over the years that they are above that sort of behavior, right? Suspecting that they have ulterior motives is completely misplaced and without precedent? And the whole Scroogle thing is about them being concerned for the public's best interests, rather than just trying to discredit Google as a company any way they can?
Anyone who has watched the industry over the last 10 years fully expects MS to be doing whatever they can to monetize whatever they can, at anyone's expense that they can get to pay or contribute. Given that history, how could anyone not suspect them of doing exactly the same thing, only not as well as Google?
I pity you, you must constantly fall for the "Pssst, come into the alley and drop your pants. I have candy for you and just want to be your friend...".
Slashdot Mirror
you see a point you disagree with and go into attack mode.
No, to paraphrase your original post:
There is reason to allow this abhorrent practice.
There has to be oversight if it's done though.
There likely cannot be effective oversight so we shouldn't do it.
The first line is the problem. The rest means nothing in that context. If you meant otherwise you failed to clearly articulate it.
Got it, but where does the fact that the traffic has been requested by the users the target network play into it? The more appropriate term here is "puller" as opposed to "pusher". The traffic would not be there except for the end network requesting it in the first place.
Although for the number of discoveries we've had so far that claimed "may help to understand/treat Alzheimer's", you would think it would have gone the way of smallpox by now.
Just saying...
who are you/anyone come to the idea that atheists flock to science.
Why, I am ME. I have both the ability and the right to come to any idea or notion that I damn well choose. The question is who are you to imply otherwise? You must be from a place that tries to restrict what a person thinks. Welcome to freedom of thought and expression, it's a warm and inviting place that people flock to.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and you are getting hung up on semantics. Perhaps I should have said science tends to draw people that have a greater tendency question everything. The complete lack of credible evidence for religion eventually persuades them to release that belief in a deity. Drawn to, flocked, whatever.
Was that your attempt to illustrate what a straw man is?.
No. That statement stood on it's own.
What has the national academi of science to do with that?.
Ummm, it was a response to the question you asked. It is representative of the number of scientists that are atheists versus the number of theists, showing markedly "less" religious people in science, ergo less religious people "flocking" to science.
And science is always presenting us with new and wondrous things on an almost daily basis.
Any references why/where/when Atheists flock to science and religious peolple not?
I didn't say religious people didn't, actually, only that atheists as a whole do, so perhaps you are reading into it a bit. But, I can't say I've ever hear an atheist denouncing evolution... Just saying.
As far as I know many top scientists proclaim to believe in god ... so do less believers flock to science?
Here's a quote, that I believe to be reasonably accurate, from Wikipedia: "Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7% believed in God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts" I don't really need to elaborate any more on that one, do I?
Sorry this whole story is some attempt to fill a noring summer void. There is nothing 'special' about atheists, they are just irdinary people.
Agreed, and I certainly never said otherwise. Seems like you are a bit sensitive about atheism. Take a breath, relax, and remember his noodly goodness loves you even if you don't believe in him.
Yup, that comment nailed it. It's a strawman argument, lacking an understanding of what actual science and the scientific process is. It has nothing to do with atheism, but atheists flock to it because it gives them the proof and rationality they crave.
Exactly. But until they capture and show something better than this I say Meh.
That's why they would buy a company that already has that expertise as well as supply and distribution chains. They would also be buying that production expertise, plus enough patents and patent licenses to allow them to actually move forward. Google is not completely without experience in this kind of situation.
Given the likely intractability of the big car makers to Google's advances (they want the whole pie for themselves, they do not like to share), there may be little alternative if they want to go big at a faster pace than starting a car company from scratch would allow.
Problem solved. The others would be scrambling to catch up after that.
There are stroke commercials on TV pointing out that exact symptom, saying know the symptoms and act fast. What the hell is wrong with that doctor that they missed that? IANAD and I get that that the symptoms weren't apparent when she was actually being examined, but really?
You forget that the details being available is where things started, and the option for details to be hidden showed up because of the problems having that information openly available has caused. The "social will" you talk about is not society at at large, it is governments and law enforcement wanting that information out in the open for their own purposes. General society either outright prefers the ability to remain anonymous or could give a crap about the details being shown except in very specific cases.
Having a website in no way equates to driving a car, that is a ridiculous analogy. Your driver's license is not openly available to millions at any given time, and a website is not a large vehicle that can be driven into a crowd of actual flesh and blood people. And if the service provider has monopoly, where exactly do you take your business?
Oh, too bad, you forgot to throw in a quick global warming is a hoax reference too. You could've hit a home run...
Actually, those states sought to replace the religious worship of gods with religious worship of the state. North Korea is a perfect example of that. They can't abide a possible rival for the hearts and souls of the people, so they just replaced the religions. It amounts to the same thing as any organized religion, with the exception of the state and their leaders being real actual things, while religions that have nothing but an unprovable promise.
Good pick!
The Bible has has intrigue, death on a massive scale, hypocrisy, and damnation, the makings of a great work of fiction. And that's just the parts the character god plays, never mind the other players that come and go. As you move through the stories, you get a sense of the ruthlessness of all involved (especially the writers) to stop at nothing in their attempts to control those around them through fear and intimidation. Thrilling!
On the minus side they forgot to do a continuity check after the constant re-writes that were done century after century to "update" it to current "standards". This leads to a fair amount of contradictions the subplots, such as what a person can and cannot do to anger the main character (spoiler: He gets mad at pretty much anything that has to do with personal pleasure, or things that don't involve group chanting and prostrating).
It is an epic read though, and if you can stick with it you are certain to come away with a greater appreciation of those afflicted with mental illness.
Umm, what the hell are you talking about? No one here is hating on the Chinese for this, and I dare say the pictures aren't exactly proof of anything. It's a couple of pixels with an arrow pointing to it. I'm not saying the lander is a hoax though, and didn't know anyone was.
You do come across like one of those paid Chinese propagandists though, mr. anonymous coward.
Agreed, the usefulness should not have any bearing on it's legality. Cameras in every home would be useful in stopping domestic violence, arguably more effective than the current NSA collection is for it's stated purpose, but it is still not only illegal but completely undesirable.
My first thought as well, another attempt to justify spying on everyone. Let's reel in the guys we been pushing and prodding for months into saying something incriminating. I'll wait to see more details before I believe it.
It's terrible that my first impression on news like this is "ya, right...", especially after the Kenyan incident.
The NSA wants to streamline it's work with a single foreign key...
This increases the labor for the pirates and actually gives you some labor flexibility on producing content.
You clearly have not seen the tenacity that pirates are capable of. For most, it isn't about ripping someone off, it's about sharing something. Add to that a lot of people with with a lot of time on their hands, and they will work tirelessly to put those articles together, day after day, month after month.
,make so much more money on the web if you have good content.
The other posters suggesting the value-adds mixed with free are bang on. Forums, article archives, lots of "free" stuff, and a reasonable price will potentially get you far more revenue on the net than your print editions would. Embed short videos or effects that help get the article's point across. That's tougher to include in pirated versions, and generally won't be, so you have one up one the pirated version. Use the medium to it's potential, and they will come.
Most important, work on eyeballs for advertising revenue, not necessarily subscriptions. You have the potential
I think this is more appropriate for their proposal... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0
While I've never been there, I am somewhat confident they have rain from time to time.
Here sir, please put this thin foil hat. You'll be fine.
Ya, right. MS has shown over the years that they are above that sort of behavior, right? Suspecting that they have ulterior motives is completely misplaced and without precedent? And the whole Scroogle thing is about them being concerned for the public's best interests, rather than just trying to discredit Google as a company any way they can?
Anyone who has watched the industry over the last 10 years fully expects MS to be doing whatever they can to monetize whatever they can, at anyone's expense that they can get to pay or contribute. Given that history, how could anyone not suspect them of doing exactly the same thing, only not as well as Google?
I pity you, you must constantly fall for the "Pssst, come into the alley and drop your pants. I have candy for you and just want to be your friend...".
If I was sitting in the ISS, I'd probably want to do it myself.