Slashdot is meant to be news for nerds.
Yet most of these comments are basically against a companies idea to make searching faster. The main complaints seems to be:
The first complaint seems to be an argument about what made search engines good when 56K modems were all the rage. Simple meant fast loading times. Now though i don't think that this argument should be the rule of internet we have bigger and better bandwidths, why shouldn't search results be as rich as possible to save you time?
The second complaint is redundant because you can change your preferences to still need to use your loved enter button. I know what you are going to say though " i don't want to change my preferences" To which i say, "You are meant to be a nerd. Changing preferences to suit obscure purposes is what nerds do. Nerd up."
The third complaint is dumb because getting a thumb of broccoli is better than getting a full size page. Its like you've forgotten google has an image search which can produce the same broccoli results, without having to click a preview icon.
It all sounds like no-one wants any progress, things are great now. I used to think the same thing when i was forced to switch from the arrow keys to WSAD when playing games. I was wrong. I'm not saying this is right, but my guess is this won't kill google, In 5 years when google adds another feature to its search, you'll all complain about this as the good old days.
The diversity and timing of the new anthropoids raises two scenarios. Anthropoids might simply have emerged in Africa much earlier than thought, and gone undiscovered by modern paleontologists. Or they could have crossed over from Asia, where evidence suggests that anthropoids lived 55 million years ago, flourishing and diversifying in the wide-open ecological niches of an anthropoid-free Africa.
Animals can bite, and Animals can kick - Don't tell me they can't say no...
Children can bite, and Children can kick - Hell they can also say no. So is it OK to have sexual relations with a consenting child?No a child is not smart enough to make that decision.
A child of the age of 5 we would probably think of as smarter than a smart dog, or a horse. Does that make them smart enough to consent to sex? No they aren't developed physically yet there sex organs aren't ready.
How about a child of the age of 13 is that child old enough to consent to sex(see Richie Rich)? No. why not? all the criteria i have seen here in this discussion to decied whether you are allowed to have sex says go for it
There is an element to the problem that I'm missing. I'm not sure what it is, but we can't say that aware consent is enough to allow sexual relations between any two beings.
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman