Why won't the government just come out and say - "We want to see your private data"? I mean seriously, they're going to monitor traffic to stop terrorism. Maybe if they were this upfront about their operations, I can actually respect the fact that they were honest, but they actually think we're stupid enough to believe Al Queda has a Facebook group? WOW.
I'd hardly call this a study. They took 345 people dying of terminal cancer. You can make a hundred different inferences from such a small sampling. Here's a few:
Maybe some/most of these people were pious because they were dying
Maybe these people actually enjoyed their life more because they were pious
Maybe they were more pious because they were younger and didn't actually want to die
etc.
Nothing is learned from this study other than the fact that some religious people who have cancer don't want to die.... WOW. That should be in tomorrow paper... errr perhaps they'll need a special edition.
It drives me nuts when traffic violations are used as tax rather then for public safety, and these things typically get passed under the guise of safety.
There's no guise of public safety here. The article says that they view the red light cameras as profit centers plain and simple. At least they're honest. But again, it doesn't appear that it has anything to do with running red lights... moreso with driving uninsured.
It's not the name that makes it "geeky"... it's the content, change the content to something less geeky and you'll get a more mainstream crowd. A simple name change might result in a small spike in ratings... mostly because people don't know what the SyFy network is, but once they realize that the 24 hour Enterprise marathon is a staple, they'll probably flip back over to whatever reality show the mainstream networks are crapping out these days.
That being said, I hope they don't change the content... because it fills a niche in the market.
Yes, because trailers are always the best source for determining a film's success. In fact, why bother releasing the movie, since its success is assured?
Correction - Trailers aren't good indications of how good a movie is, but they certainly usually determine how much money a movie will make in theaters. The trailers have created quite the fervor in non-trekkies and trekkies alike, so from a profit standpoint, I think it will be successful.
You do realize that Google also licenses out their applications for you to run internally right?
True, but with most businesses it helps to have applications hosted locally on your machine. It's the same arguement essentially for thin clients. Sure, they sound like a great idea, but what about when you're on business travel?
1. What does Google have to do with it?
2. The browser wars are basically over (the monopoly stage, that is). Everyone and their dog has heard about firefox by now, and how good it is.
1. Google has developed a browser.
2. If the war is over and firefox has allegedly won, why does the large majority of internet users still use IE?
IE7 is actually getting a bit outdated as it is, so this claim isn't as bold as it seems. Why didn't they compare it to IE8? Or better yet if they really want to talk about speed, Google's Chrome is pretty fast.
Honestly, what do you expect? If MS is going to be forced to allow competition on their operating system, of course they are going to stack the odds a bit. Do you realistically expect them to put the latest and greatest on their operating system when they can easily cite that they are putting an outdated version of some crappy browser on there for the purpose of stability.
It's going to come down to the same thing as it always has - if you want a particular browser, go download it and stop whining.
I'm so against this idea I've decided to pull some census data to prove my point. There are an estimated 299,398,484 people in the United States as of 2006. There are only 2,982,085 people in Iowa. If every person in Iowa voted for McCain, currently those electoral votes would go to McCain as they would in almost every other state. However, if this legislation were enacted, those votes would go to Obama despite the majority vote for McCain in the state of Iowa even if Obama only received one more vote on the national level than McCain. This is exactly why we have an electoral college - because the founders couldn't figure out a better way to allow smaller, lesser represented areas and states have a stake in the Presidency. Maybe that system has run its course due to major media outlets that let you know everytime a candidate sneezes, but changing this law in some peacemeal fashion only stops your state's citizens from being represented. If I were a voter in Iowa, I simply wouldn't vote because I now realize that the entire election, at least for my state, is being decided by California, New York, Pennsylvania, etc.
Change the consititution if you really want this change, or have the states at one time adopt this legislation - otherwise, your Governor O'Malley simply doesn't care about his consitutants. You need to realize that unless you make either one of these changes - your vote doesn't count.
This is exactly what the electoral college was meant to protect against, larger areas chosing the President based on population. I'm not saying it's a great system, but this is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. If every state in the union did this, then it would be a great idea because it would effectivly null the electoral vote we have now in favor of a popular system without altering the Consitution. But as it stands, Iowa citizens would be largely unrepresented in the presidential vote due to living in a sparsely populated state.
Religious types are always going to believe what they believe because thats what they do. Are you really so naive to think that if you rebrand something it's going to make an ounce of difference? The ironic part in my mind is every article I've ever read on the subject pretty much perpetuates the idea that there's this big debate going on in America, and I really don't believe there is. I've never really met a creationist in my life, and if I did, I'd prefer not to engage them in a debate because I know ultimately it's like arguing with a 5 year old over the existance of Santa Claus. I think if the pro-evolutionists simply dropped it, the whole issue would become irrelevant... more irrevelvant then it already is.
I doubt our Government's incompetence as much as the next guy, BUT is there any verification that these files are legitimate. Could just be one giant fraud.
I only heard them correctly mention this once, but Barrack Obama is the 43rd person to hold the job of President. Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms, and is considered both the 22nd and 24th President of the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Why won't the government just come out and say - "We want to see your private data"? I mean seriously, they're going to monitor traffic to stop terrorism. Maybe if they were this upfront about their operations, I can actually respect the fact that they were honest, but they actually think we're stupid enough to believe Al Queda has a Facebook group? WOW.
Because they don't really believe and haven't had time to consider and come to terms with their own mortality.
They're dying of terminal cancer... I'm sure they had at least a month or two to kick around the idea of death and the afterlife... idiot.
I'd hardly call this a study. They took 345 people dying of terminal cancer. You can make a hundred different inferences from such a small sampling. Here's a few:
Maybe some/most of these people were pious because they were dying
Maybe these people actually enjoyed their life more because they were pious
Maybe they were more pious because they were younger and didn't actually want to die
etc.
Nothing is learned from this study other than the fact that some religious people who have cancer don't want to die.... WOW. That should be in tomorrow paper... errr perhaps they'll need a special edition.
Are they sure it's not a mynock?
"Probably chewing on the power cables"
It drives me nuts when traffic violations are used as tax rather then for public safety, and these things typically get passed under the guise of safety.
There's no guise of public safety here. The article says that they view the red light cameras as profit centers plain and simple. At least they're honest. But again, it doesn't appear that it has anything to do with running red lights... moreso with driving uninsured.
It's not the name that makes it "geeky"... it's the content, change the content to something less geeky and you'll get a more mainstream crowd. A simple name change might result in a small spike in ratings... mostly because people don't know what the SyFy network is, but once they realize that the 24 hour Enterprise marathon is a staple, they'll probably flip back over to whatever reality show the mainstream networks are crapping out these days.
That being said, I hope they don't change the content... because it fills a niche in the market.
Where else would they test it? IE isn't really known for it's portability, if you want portability stick to firefox.
Yes, because trailers are always the best source for determining a film's success. In fact, why bother releasing the movie, since its success is assured?
Correction - Trailers aren't good indications of how good a movie is, but they certainly usually determine how much money a movie will make in theaters. The trailers have created quite the fervor in non-trekkies and trekkies alike, so from a profit standpoint, I think it will be successful.
You do realize that Google also licenses out their applications for you to run internally right?
True, but with most businesses it helps to have applications hosted locally on your machine. It's the same arguement essentially for thin clients. Sure, they sound like a great idea, but what about when you're on business travel?
How is this marked insightful if the poster hasn't read the comment he's replying to?
1. What does Google have to do with it?
2. The browser wars are basically over (the monopoly stage, that is). Everyone and their dog has heard about firefox by now, and how good it is.
1. Google has developed a browser. 2. If the war is over and firefox has allegedly won, why does the large majority of internet users still use IE?
Come on guys? what do you expect, it's still in beta testing.
IE7 is actually getting a bit outdated as it is, so this claim isn't as bold as it seems. Why didn't they compare it to IE8? Or better yet if they really want to talk about speed, Google's Chrome is pretty fast.
Honestly, what do you expect? If MS is going to be forced to allow competition on their operating system, of course they are going to stack the odds a bit. Do you realistically expect them to put the latest and greatest on their operating system when they can easily cite that they are putting an outdated version of some crappy browser on there for the purpose of stability.
It's going to come down to the same thing as it always has - if you want a particular browser, go download it and stop whining.
Apple would NEVER make propietary hardware and then proceed to lock it down... that's just ridiculous....
I'm so against this idea I've decided to pull some census data to prove my point. There are an estimated 299,398,484 people in the United States as of 2006. There are only 2,982,085 people in Iowa. If every person in Iowa voted for McCain, currently those electoral votes would go to McCain as they would in almost every other state. However, if this legislation were enacted, those votes would go to Obama despite the majority vote for McCain in the state of Iowa even if Obama only received one more vote on the national level than McCain. This is exactly why we have an electoral college - because the founders couldn't figure out a better way to allow smaller, lesser represented areas and states have a stake in the Presidency. Maybe that system has run its course due to major media outlets that let you know everytime a candidate sneezes, but changing this law in some peacemeal fashion only stops your state's citizens from being represented. If I were a voter in Iowa, I simply wouldn't vote because I now realize that the entire election, at least for my state, is being decided by California, New York, Pennsylvania, etc.
Change the consititution if you really want this change, or have the states at one time adopt this legislation - otherwise, your Governor O'Malley simply doesn't care about his consitutants. You need to realize that unless you make either one of these changes - your vote doesn't count.
This is exactly what the electoral college was meant to protect against, larger areas chosing the President based on population. I'm not saying it's a great system, but this is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. If every state in the union did this, then it would be a great idea because it would effectivly null the electoral vote we have now in favor of a popular system without altering the Consitution. But as it stands, Iowa citizens would be largely unrepresented in the presidential vote due to living in a sparsely populated state.
Oh yes... the deal. They get out of the way of our airplanes and we look the other way when they defacate on our statues.
Now we need to start throwing a few dozen blind people in jail, ya know, to send a message.
He will just have to change his name so it matches Wikipedia. Problem solved.
As far as I'm concerned if it's on wikipedia, it's already true. Wikipedia is a public record.
Religious types are always going to believe what they believe because thats what they do. Are you really so naive to think that if you rebrand something it's going to make an ounce of difference? The ironic part in my mind is every article I've ever read on the subject pretty much perpetuates the idea that there's this big debate going on in America, and I really don't believe there is. I've never really met a creationist in my life, and if I did, I'd prefer not to engage them in a debate because I know ultimately it's like arguing with a 5 year old over the existance of Santa Claus. I think if the pro-evolutionists simply dropped it, the whole issue would become irrelevant... more irrevelvant then it already is.
Isn't that a little bit like testing out a corvette in a driveway?
I doubt our Government's incompetence as much as the next guy, BUT is there any verification that these files are legitimate. Could just be one giant fraud.
I only heard them correctly mention this once, but Barrack Obama is the 43rd person to hold the job of President. Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms, and is considered both the 22nd and 24th President of the US.