Why do you put the word "unneccessary" in quotes? The war in question is undoubtably the Iraq war, which was completely and totally unnecessary. It did not advance US interests one bit; rather, it further destabilized the region.
It was necessary only for oil men Bush and Cheney to reap the benefits of a destabilized middle east. In case none of you geniuses have noticed, gasoline costs three times what it did when the Oil Barons began occupation of the White House.
The Afghanistan war, in contrast, was completely and totally necessary.
Funny how war in Iraq drives down the availability of oil while the Afghan war does absolutely nothing about the availability of heroin. I wish someone could explain this to me.
-mcgrew
PS: I also wonder why a comment that starts with "shut the fuck up" is modded insightful rather than the flamebaitit is? I see no insight whatever in the parent comment.
It's doubtful that this technology saves the banks a billion dollars.
I'm wondering why it's NECESSARY to save the banks a billion dollars? First off, can't they afford this technology? Second off, they did without check scanning for... how long have banks and checks existed now?
Thirdly I'd personally rather they sent the damned cancelled checks themselves back like they used to.
Fourthly if scanning saves the banks so much money, where's my reduction in bank fees?
Wow. Shows how passionate slashdotters are about this. "That's just fucking retarded" in any thread about any subject usually garners either a -1 flamebait or -1 offtopic, and this one is +5 insightful.
In the entire summary, "tumors in the salivary glands" (not cancer; tumors. not all tumors are cancerous) were mentioned once at the very beginning. Cancer was mentioned twice afterwards, including in the sentence about car crashes.
I think we can agree the summary was poorly written, and in a way that would lead one to believe that statistics show that cancer (not cancer of the salivary glands or even tumors in the salivary glands) is more prevalent than auto deaths.
New to reading AND thinking, are we? I've never met anyone with cancer of the saliva glands. Yes, I'm sure such people exist but they are so rare that seeing "danger in cellphone use" because of fear of cancer of the saliva glands is rediculous.
The summary said more people die of car wrecks than cancer. That's incorrect.
More people probably die from tripping over their shoelaces than salivary gland cancer.
Microsoft owns the copyright to Windows. It does not own Wondows itself, only the right to copy Windows. I bought my copy from Best Buy, who bought it from Microsoft. I have no right to distribute copies of it, but my copy is MINE. I have a sales reciept. If Microsoft doesn't like it then they can stop SELLING copies at Best Buy.
Yeah? Well, my site has a page with that nice picture of a soldier and a coffee cup with the caption "Have a nice cup of shut the fuck up". It also has a cartoon of Bush in diapers somewhere.
It has lots of swearing, and guess what? Slashdot has lots of fucking badass words, too. You want your kids to see this fucking filth?
If I want to put goatse on my site are you going to stop me? If I want to post pictures of me and some crack whores who's going to stop me? Not my government; its central document, the one piece of paper that all its other laws are based on, say I can say anything I damned well please.
If I want to post porn I'll post porn. If you don't want your kids seeing goatse or hearing the word "fuck" or seeing a picture of someone getting their brains blown out then keep your kids off the goddamn internet.
Sorry about the language but it was needed to make the point.
See what you get? If you'd previewed and caught that typo you'd have gotten "interesting" or "informative" instead of "funny". I believe what you were humorously trying to say unhumorously was
"Maybe its because they are talking all the time, drying out their mouths, and their salivary glands are stressed, causing cancers."
Although if this premise were correct, a study would show an increase on gum disease in cellphone-using people, not unlilke the increased incidence of gum disease in pot and cigarette smokers.
I'm 55. I have two grown kids. I fervently hope that at my age I don't have any more kids, but I'm too cowardly to let a surgeon close enough to my balls with a knife to get a vasectomy. So for me, a radio transmitter next to my balls wouldn't be such a bad isea. And as to my head, well, if it affects my brain, who's gonna know?
Redundant? Whatever. Don't you hate getting first post?
Now more ontopic and less redundant, the summary (at least) is wrong.
increased risk of cancer is small but real.'. Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year."
That's almost ten dead chemo patients for every dead motorist.
Far, far more people die on the highways. The terrorists at RJ Reynolds are far better at their carnage to the terrorist behind the wheel of that SUV, but she's still far more effective than the Jihadist terrorist. I vote we put some of that homeland security money into guard rails, and put the RJ Reynolds President in Guantanimo.
Online newspaper advertising as it's now done is the absolute WORST. You can barely read that damned paper without all the flashing and blinking and popovers and such garbege. As I read the paper on break at work and my employer uses IE it's especially odius.
When the Chicago Tribune got bought the first thing they did was to make the advertising worse, made the whole damned thing in Flash, with no way to right click, and every time you went back to the front page you got an intro ad.
It annoyed me so much I found the "contact" page and detailed exactly how mind bogglingly stupid they were, why, and how it cost them at least one reader, and how I was never going to buy ANYTHING any of their advertisers hawked in such an offensive manner. And didn't go back for quite a while.
Apparently their online circulation dropped dramatically after their attack of incredible stupidity, because it's back like it was.
How can you trust news from people stupid enough to annoy their audience?
Not in any country I ever heard of. If you sell me a thing it's mine. If I lease a car, I'm going to have to sign paper; a physical contract, before I get the keys.
You can't tell someone "you're bound by the contract in the glove box." You're not bound by any contract you don't sign.
I've never heard of any clickthrough EULA or any other non-signed "contract" being held up in any court anywhare. If I'm wrong I wish someone would link to it.
That's a damned bug assumption. You expect me to read a eula that doesn't apply to me? HE bought the software, I don't care about the EULA and he doesn't even know there is one. He doesn't know that I'm "acting on hiis behalf", he just wants his computer fixed. No different as if I'm "acting on his behalf" by making a sandwich for him.
if the child is his he will incur any responsibility for actions made by the child
What if it's the neighbor's child and the neighbor doesn't know the kid is installing it?
The EULA is unenforceable, ir it would have seeen the inside of a courtroom by now.
If my computer is infecting your computer, then you should call the FBI or Scotland Yard or whatever relevant police force in your country covers such a thing and have me arrested.
Otherwise when I think you've burglarized my house, I should feel obligated to burn yours down.
Vigilantism isn't good in meatspace and it isn't any better in cyberspace.
If only for what he, himself says is the greatest failure of his career. Interestingly, it isn't covered in the Wikipedia article about Lessig. But you can blame his lack of skill on the rediculously long copyright terms the music labels enjoy, as the SCOTUS said that "limited" means whatever Congress says it means.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you put the word "unneccessary" in quotes? The war in question is undoubtably the Iraq war, which was completely and totally unnecessary. It did not advance US interests one bit; rather, it further destabilized the region.
It was necessary only for oil men Bush and Cheney to reap the benefits of a destabilized middle east. In case none of you geniuses have noticed, gasoline costs three times what it did when the Oil Barons began occupation of the White House.
The Afghanistan war, in contrast, was completely and totally necessary.
Funny how war in Iraq drives down the availability of oil while the Afghan war does absolutely nothing about the availability of heroin. I wish someone could explain this to me.
-mcgrew
PS: I also wonder why a comment that starts with "shut the fuck up" is modded insightful rather than the flamebaitit is? I see no insight whatever in the parent comment.
It's doubtful that this technology saves the banks a billion dollars.
I'm wondering why it's NECESSARY to save the banks a billion dollars? First off, can't they afford this technology? Second off, they did without check scanning for... how long have banks and checks existed now?
Thirdly I'd personally rather they sent the damned cancelled checks themselves back like they used to.
Fourthly if scanning saves the banks so much money, where's my reduction in bank fees?
-mcgrew
Wow. Shows how passionate slashdotters are about this. "That's just fucking retarded" in any thread about any subject usually garners either a -1 flamebait or -1 offtopic, and this one is +5 insightful.
What worries me is I agree with the mods here.
If you need to know what time 3:30 is, this article gives offsets from UTC to your time zone.
Fot US Central time its offset is -6 hours, so if my math is correct (don't laugh, I'm still on my first cup of coffee) it should be about 9:00 here.
I wonder if it's a coincidence that they're shooting this thing down during an eclipse?
There is an old saying "never attribute to malice what incompetence can explain", but come on guys, this is comcast. A snake doesn't bite by mistake.
In the entire summary, "tumors in the salivary glands" (not cancer; tumors. not all tumors are cancerous) were mentioned once at the very beginning. Cancer was mentioned twice afterwards, including in the sentence about car crashes.
I think we can agree the summary was poorly written, and in a way that would lead one to believe that statistics show that cancer (not cancer of the salivary glands or even tumors in the salivary glands) is more prevalent than auto deaths.
New to reading AND thinking, are we? I've never met anyone with cancer of the saliva glands. Yes, I'm sure such people exist but they are so rare that seeing "danger in cellphone use" because of fear of cancer of the saliva glands is rediculous.
The summary said more people die of car wrecks than cancer. That's incorrect.
More people probably die from tripping over their shoelaces than salivary gland cancer.
Microsoft owns the copyright to Windows. It does not own Wondows itself, only the right to copy Windows. I bought my copy from Best Buy, who bought it from Microsoft. I have no right to distribute copies of it, but my copy is MINE. I have a sales reciept. If Microsoft doesn't like it then they can stop SELLING copies at Best Buy.
The trouble is, they're already satirically and stupidly long and dipshits everywhere agree that they're right.
tag in images to say that the image contains "Adult Content".
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="NSFW; charset=iso-8859-1">
Yeah? Well, my site has a page with that nice picture of a soldier and a coffee cup with the caption "Have a nice cup of shut the fuck up". It also has a cartoon of Bush in diapers somewhere.
It has lots of swearing, and guess what? Slashdot has lots of fucking badass words, too. You want your kids to see this fucking filth?
If I want to put goatse on my site are you going to stop me? If I want to post pictures of me and some crack whores who's going to stop me? Not my government; its central document, the one piece of paper that all its other laws are based on, say I can say anything I damned well please.
If I want to post porn I'll post porn. If you don't want your kids seeing goatse or hearing the word "fuck" or seeing a picture of someone getting their brains blown out then keep your kids off the goddamn internet.
Sorry about the language but it was needed to make the point.
I wish you would have added your reasons for saying "profit margin" , but since you didn't I will.
Google will find plenty of dirty pictures that don't cost a penny. This asshat's dirty pictures you have to pay for.
I'd say something about the technical impossibility of filtering out porn but since the thread has been up for two minutes I'm sure someone else has.
See what you get? If you'd previewed and caught that typo you'd have gotten "interesting" or "informative" instead of "funny". I believe what you were humorously trying to say unhumorously was
"Maybe its because they are talking all the time, drying out their mouths, and their salivary glands are stressed, causing cancers."
Although if this premise were correct, a study would show an increase on gum disease in cellphone-using people, not unlilke the increased incidence of gum disease in pot and cigarette smokers.
I work for a web startup I need to be constantly available
You poor, poor man. I don't care how much money you have or make, you are still poverty stricken.
I'm 55. I have two grown kids. I fervently hope that at my age I don't have any more kids, but I'm too cowardly to let a surgeon close enough to my balls with a knife to get a vasectomy. So for me, a radio transmitter next to my balls wouldn't be such a bad isea. And as to my head, well, if it affects my brain, who's gonna know?
I mean, you read my journals right?
What if he''s blind?
Now more ontopic and less redundant, the summary (at least) is wrong. According to Wrong Diagnosos.com there were 555,499 US cancer deaths, while there were 43,443 highway deaths.
That's almost ten dead chemo patients for every dead motorist.
Far, far more people die on the highways. The terrorists at RJ Reynolds are far better at their carnage to the terrorist behind the wheel of that SUV, but she's still far more effective than the Jihadist terrorist. I vote we put some of that homeland security money into guard rails, and put the RJ Reynolds President in Guantanimo.
Online newspaper advertising as it's now done is the absolute WORST. You can barely read that damned paper without all the flashing and blinking and popovers and such garbege. As I read the paper on break at work and my employer uses IE it's especially odius.
When the Chicago Tribune got bought the first thing they did was to make the advertising worse, made the whole damned thing in Flash, with no way to right click, and every time you went back to the front page you got an intro ad.
It annoyed me so much I found the "contact" page and detailed exactly how mind bogglingly stupid they were, why, and how it cost them at least one reader, and how I was never going to buy ANYTHING any of their advertisers hawked in such an offensive manner. And didn't go back for quite a while.
Apparently their online circulation dropped dramatically after their attack of incredible stupidity, because it's back like it was.
How can you trust news from people stupid enough to annoy their audience?
-mcgrew
(and now for more annoyance, the mcgrew journal The Robyn 'Hood. An old girlfriend, a true lady (not the girlfriend unfortunately), and a couple of whores. Brought to you by Microsoft. Microsoft: takes a licking and keeps on [no carrier]
pwned and owned are two different things. There isn't a court in the world that would agree with you.
Arthur? Is that you?
Not in any country I ever heard of. If you sell me a thing it's mine. If I lease a car, I'm going to have to sign paper; a physical contract, before I get the keys.
You can't tell someone "you're bound by the contract in the glove box." You're not bound by any contract you don't sign.
I've never heard of any clickthrough EULA or any other non-signed "contract" being held up in any court anywhare. If I'm wrong I wish someone would link to it.
assuming you made him aware
That's a damned bug assumption. You expect me to read a eula that doesn't apply to me? HE bought the software, I don't care about the EULA and he doesn't even know there is one. He doesn't know that I'm "acting on hiis behalf", he just wants his computer fixed. No different as if I'm "acting on his behalf" by making a sandwich for him.
if the child is his he will incur any responsibility for actions made by the child
What if it's the neighbor's child and the neighbor doesn't know the kid is installing it?
The EULA is unenforceable, ir it would have seeen the inside of a courtroom by now.
No. You have a right to call the law enforcent authorities. Vigilantism is as bad in cyberspece as it is in meatspace.
Otherwise if I think you raped my daughter I have every right to shove a pitchfork up your ass and feed you to my dog.
If my computer is infecting your computer, then you should call the FBI or Scotland Yard or whatever relevant police force in your country covers such a thing and have me arrested.
Otherwise when I think you've burglarized my house, I should feel obligated to burn yours down.
Vigilantism isn't good in meatspace and it isn't any better in cyberspace.
If only for what he, himself says is the greatest failure of his career. Interestingly, it isn't covered in the Wikipedia article about Lessig. But you can blame his lack of skill on the rediculously long copyright terms the music labels enjoy, as the SCOTUS said that "limited" means whatever Congress says it means.
I hope I'm not trashing the wrong lawyer...