The nice thing about an exoskeleton, is that it wears itself. So even if it needs to be very heavy in order to protect against radiation, this is not a problem for the user, as they don't have to carry the weight.
I understand that you are angry and looking for revenge.
However, I don't like your suggestion to 'blow it up' through slashdot , because I don't like being used for political means, and I doubt many others are willing either.
If you truly care about the people, you need to understand that we are not tools for you to wield, nor weapons to ensure your victory. We are human beings, with general and specific concerns.
You are not the first politician to make this mistake, but you seem to be willing, so here goes nothing :
- Present yourself , show your ideas to the public ( through your blog, whatever ) and engage in debate with the public. - Listen openly to people, without judging them - Always follow your heart : don't change your views because some people don't like them. There will always be people who dislike them.
It may not help you get elected, but if you do go elected, you will be able to truly help the people, because you will know what they need.
The best action towards ABC would have been to simply not care about them, maybe even to thank them, and then find another medium. If you become popular through other means, they will begin to wonder why they didn't include you then. And since the relationship wasn't broken, they would probably invite you then.
I can Google for information on how to build something, and then use that information to build something. Seriously, there are so many 'make your own...' sites out there, you can create almost everything yourself, and many people do that, just for fun.
It's ironic that the article complains about the lack of 'do-it-yourself' people . Why worry about others, if you want to do it yourself ?
You are right, but you are forgetting the frame of mind of that time. I'm sure most lower class workers took it as part of the job, and were happy that they were at least free, and had a job.
When looking back on history, it always seems cruel, because we are used to higher standards of living.
For all we know, somewhere in the future, people will pitty us because our foods contained to much salt.
This is true, but the art requirements for a game like arkham city are insane. Sure there are some really awesome indy games, but nothing quite like that. Fallout 3 also comes to mind. No way could a small team accomplish that. I'm not trying to diminish what people do with less, but more is always better.
Depends on what you need. Neat graphics usually means heavy system requirements. A lot of people may be fine with a game that isn't as beautiful, but can be run smoothly on their systems.
Actyally : less cars wouldn't be a bad idea to reduce the amount of accidents ( a lot of accidents happen due to traffic jams ). But it doesn't need to be forced : ensure good public transportation, and people will use that instead of their cars.
Has a question mark, but can't really be answered with yes or no. I see it more like : any headline, which poses a question which can be answered with yes or no , is not really worth the read.
Which makes sense : If it can't even answer a question with yes or no, what can it answer ? Reading the above headline tells you right away, they don't know if there is surface water on titan. Otherwise it would have been an assertive statement "Surface water on Titan !"
They should change the headline to : "scientists researching possibility of water on Titan" , which would be accurate ( but I guess it wouldn't sell ).
Also, unhappy people may be so deep they feel they can't change. If they sell it as 'easy to lose weight' , many people might be tempted, but it's not going to work. It's just taking money from people who are already unhappy.
I would like to see honest advertisements, about things I really want, with the information I want,and nothing else. Do that, and not only will it be much less annoying, it will also be more effective ( as you targeting people who actually want to buy it ).
You either have a majority which dictates what will happen ( democracy ) , or a minority who dictates what will happen ( tyranny , oligarchy , etc... ) .
Democracy may not always work well, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.
Everyone is a majority and a minority, depending on your view of legislation ( there will be things you agree with the majority, and other things where you don't, making you a minority ).
You just have to trust that people are diverse enough to make a collective decision which benefits everyone.
They are at least partially right : a big fuss is made about it, and then it's proven to be false.
But that's not the fault of the scientists, it's the media that makes a big fuss out of it. However, the skeptic in me wonders if this isn't nice publicity for the scientists ( capturing the public's imagination, and maybe some big wallet at the same time ).
True, the analogy is wrong. They should calculate how much water that would be , and what the effect would be on human beings.
One thing to take into account is the position of the body and area of impact : I have a feeling that if you put the amount of water on someone head while standing up, it would be harder to withstand than if you were crouched down , and the water is put on your back.
Did you read the post you're replying to? What do you think his first point was regarding wikipedia?
The point is that a checksum doesn't contain all the data , so it's theoretically possible that two sets of content produce the same checksum ( it's very,very unlikely , but not impossible ).
So by altering the checksum continuously, the chance rises that it matches another, harmless file, which then gets blocked.
This is different from the point about wikipedia, where google would block an entire site if it finds a file with this checksum. Put both together, and you get a lot of collateral damage, while only being mildly successful in blocking the intended content.
I think the question lies in what you consider worse. Do you fear unlimited, unaccountable, and unbridled surveillance, like the kind that's being proposed in the US, that effectively covers the entire world... or are you more worried about censorship, virtual toll roads that make the doing business more expensive, and totally unrepresented taxation?
They are both part of the same thing : finding dissident voices and shutting them up. And I want neither.
The government can certainly try to control the internet. They can block a few websites, or even firewall off must parts of it, but people will always find a way to get around it, just like they have gotten around other forms of government control.
The internet is more than the hardware, it's also an idea. And that's not so easy to take down.
Slashdot Mirror
The nice thing about an exoskeleton, is that it wears itself.
So even if it needs to be very heavy in order to protect against radiation, this is not a problem for the user, as they don't have to carry the weight.
I understand that you are angry and looking for revenge.
However, I don't like your suggestion to 'blow it up' through slashdot , because I don't like being used for political means, and I doubt many others are willing either.
If you truly care about the people, you need to understand that we are not tools for you to wield, nor weapons to ensure your victory.
We are human beings, with general and specific concerns.
You are not the first politician to make this mistake, but you seem to be willing, so here goes nothing :
- Present yourself , show your ideas to the public ( through your blog, whatever ) and engage in debate with the public.
- Listen openly to people, without judging them
- Always follow your heart : don't change your views because some people don't like them. There will always be people who dislike them.
It may not help you get elected, but if you do go elected, you will be able to truly help the people, because you will know what they need.
The best action towards ABC would have been to simply not care about them, maybe even to thank them, and then find another medium.
If you become popular through other means, they will begin to wonder why they didn't include you then. And since the relationship wasn't broken, they would probably invite you then.
I can Google for information on how to build something, and then use that information to build something. ...' sites out there, you can create almost everything yourself, and many people do that, just for fun.
Seriously, there are so many 'make your own
It's ironic that the article complains about the lack of 'do-it-yourself' people . Why worry about others, if you want to do it yourself ?
You are right, but you are forgetting the frame of mind of that time.
I'm sure most lower class workers took it as part of the job, and were happy that they were at least free, and had a job.
When looking back on history, it always seems cruel, because we are used to higher standards of living.
For all we know, somewhere in the future, people will pitty us because our foods contained to much salt.
Wikipedia is not ugly.
It has an interface suited for it's purpose : providing concise information on basically anything.
When just looking for information, you don't want a super slick colorful interface, that's just going to distract you, and waste your time.
Also, having a lot of different content, it's kind of necessary to have a light interface that works with all content.
This is true, but the art requirements for a game like arkham city are insane. Sure there are some really awesome indy games, but nothing quite like that. Fallout 3 also comes to mind. No way could a small team accomplish that. I'm not trying to diminish what people do with less, but more is always better.
Depends on what you need. Neat graphics usually means heavy system requirements.
A lot of people may be fine with a game that isn't as beautiful, but can be run smoothly on their systems.
I think there's a market for both.
Actyally : less cars wouldn't be a bad idea to reduce the amount of accidents ( a lot of accidents happen due to traffic jams ).
But it doesn't need to be forced : ensure good public transportation, and people will use that instead of their cars.
So you are angry because people care enough to call 911 ?
Thanks.
"Why do vacuum clear suck ? "
Has a question mark, but can't really be answered with yes or no.
I see it more like : any headline, which poses a question which can be answered with yes or no , is not really worth the read.
Which makes sense : If it can't even answer a question with yes or no, what can it answer ?
Reading the above headline tells you right away, they don't know if there is surface water on titan. Otherwise it would have been an assertive statement "Surface water on Titan !"
They should change the headline to : "scientists researching possibility of water on Titan" , which would be accurate ( but I guess it wouldn't sell ).
I thought it , posted it in almost the same way, and then realized someone else had posted it earlier :-)
Guess I should read comments before replying.
No.
No.
Also, unhappy people may be so deep they feel they can't change.
If they sell it as 'easy to lose weight' , many people might be tempted, but it's not going to work. It's just taking money from people who are already unhappy.
I would like to see honest advertisements, about things I really want, with the information I want,and nothing else.
Do that, and not only will it be much less annoying, it will also be more effective ( as you targeting people who actually want to buy it ).
You either have a majority which dictates what will happen ( democracy ) , or a minority who dictates what will happen ( tyranny , oligarchy , etc... ) .
Democracy may not always work well, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.
Everyone is a majority and a minority, depending on your view of legislation ( there will be things you agree with the majority, and other things where you don't, making you a minority ).
You just have to trust that people are diverse enough to make a collective decision which benefits everyone.
They are at least partially right : a big fuss is made about it, and then it's proven to be false.
But that's not the fault of the scientists, it's the media that makes a big fuss out of it.
However, the skeptic in me wonders if this isn't nice publicity for the scientists ( capturing the public's imagination, and maybe some big wallet at the same time ).
No !
Mod parent up.
can carry a hundred times their body weight and I can carry thousands of ants.
I wouldn't recommend it. They have a mean bite.
True, the analogy is wrong.
They should calculate how much water that would be , and what the effect would be on human beings.
One thing to take into account is the position of the body and area of impact : I have a feeling that if you put the amount of water on someone head while standing up, it would be harder to withstand than if you were crouched down , and the water is put on your back.
Did you read the post you're replying to? What do you think his first point was regarding wikipedia?
The point is that a checksum doesn't contain all the data , so it's theoretically possible that two sets of content produce the same checksum ( it's very,very unlikely , but not impossible ).
So by altering the checksum continuously, the chance rises that it matches another, harmless file, which then gets blocked.
This is different from the point about wikipedia, where google would block an entire site if it finds a file with this checksum.
Put both together, and you get a lot of collateral damage, while only being mildly successful in blocking the intended content.
they are red,blue, yellow, black and white. And the enemy is green.
I think the question lies in what you consider worse. Do you fear unlimited, unaccountable, and unbridled surveillance, like the kind that's being proposed in the US, that effectively covers the entire world... or are you more worried about censorship, virtual toll roads that make the doing business more expensive, and totally unrepresented taxation?
They are both part of the same thing : finding dissident voices and shutting them up.
And I want neither.
The government can certainly try to control the internet.
They can block a few websites, or even firewall off must parts of it, but people will always find a way to get around it, just like they have gotten around other forms of government control.
The internet is more than the hardware, it's also an idea. And that's not so easy to take down.
he => who .
Must sound funny as I was talking about women.
I should really read my text before I send it.