When we talk about things being like 1984, we don't literally mean 1984.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
"...could be engineered to show one number to the naked eye and another to an infared sensitive camera?"
Yeah, because intentionally falsifying your license information instead of just selectively obscuring it is so much less illegal.
You'll find that the people you want to kill aren't as docile as we were in the 1930s.
Or any number of other things that can obscure your face. Far cheaper and more effective.
I personally favour a bandana, enabling me to look like I'm about to hold up the stagecoach.
TNG is very different to TOS. TNG is soporific by comparison, its characters are too sanitized, and its universe is too disinfected.
Yeah, it's fine once you learn to avoid the rape gangs.
Wake up, that's a bunch of bullshit, we just happen to be following the shiniest crew in the fleet. Hell, they intended to make the Ferengi sophont-eaters originally.
> it was shown that Wikipedia is on par with dead tree encyclopedias
The linked article above is from 2005. A LOT has changed in a decade.
What has changed that's relevant? The existence of mobile devices? Bah.
> What makes it more true now than it was then?
Thanks to the wonders of modern technology and the rise of political correctness fanatics
Political correctness is new since 2005? Ummm, let me guess, you're under 30, aren't you?
You have groups openly state on Wikipedia that it's their goal to push their viewpoints on articles.
Which was also true before 2005.
Clickbait sites written by people close to these groups get turned into sources.
Also true before 2005.
I'll stop here, but nothing you mention was any different previously.
Here is a relatively economical digitizer($600) that just connects to any tv/projector: http://store.e-beam.com/ebeam-...
Requires a special pen, expensive and easy to misplace, cleaning lady hides it, etc.
Here is a $500 projector that supports a light pen: http://www.mitsubishi-presenta...
It's too bad they give absolutely zero details about the light pen on the page. They just say it exists. Won't even show it to you. I'm guessing this is also shit.
Real multitouch digitizers which attach to a display cost a lot more than the display. You want people to be happy with crappy alternatives. If they were good, they'd already be widely adopted.
Note that both points in your quote are quite true.
The North Vietnamese never beat the US on the battlefield and lost the war with the US.
Alas, once the US went home, there was a SECOND Vietnam War, with the sides being USSR+North Vietnam vs South Vietnam. The North won that one.
It's one of the things that can happen when you decide to quit fighting unilaterally.
I've never noticed that non-religious types were less prone to hypocrisy than the religious variety, actually.
As to the nine-year-old thing, "accepted customs of our tribe" actually covers that - it WAS perfectly normal to marry females approaching puberty there and then. Now, not so much (though I have read the marriage of 13-15 year old girls wasn't uncommon as recently as 200 years ago).
though there were idiots like Columbus who were convinced the world was much smaller then the generally accepted size.
There is a certain amount of evidence that Columbus lied about how big he thought the world was, in order to convince the Spanish crown to finance his expedition.
It's not like the New World was completely unknown in Europe before Columbus - FLemish fishermen were drying fish in Newfoundland before Columbus was born. And it's quite possible that Columbus knew that.
If so, and in light of Spain's interest in breaking the Portugese monopoly on trade with the Far East, a little "creative interpretation" of the world's size might have been sufficient to convince the Spanish Crown that a trip west was a worthwhile investment....
It had come a long way, then it started being manipulated by ideology pushing extremists that have become very adept at abusing the hell out of labrynthian policies to the point that even when the author of a news article flat out says "They're lying, I never said that at all" it's the author that gets punished.
This exact same complaint was common before it was shown that Wikipedia is on par with dead tree encyclopedias. What makes it more true now than it was then?
Nah, you can do things with GUI that can't be done at a text prompt. The reverse is also true. I don't think your analogy applies.
I'll bet your text prompt is displayed on a GUI, nearly all of the time. Mine certainly is.
Yes, but it's not progress if it destroys the more technical constructs that allow more knowledgeable people to be more productive. Replacing whole interfaces with a search box does just that.
Does it? I don't think so. The omnibox makes me more productive, not less. The difference is tiny, granted, but it's non-zero.
One example setup (albeit not a very good one) would be roughly if you took the EPA-as-is, separated its budget and revenue from the entire rest of the government, devised articles of incorporation, made all Americans shareholders, and made its officers subject to the same kind of accountability to shareholders as corporate officers.
Hm... Interesting. Only problem I see with it is that it might actually diffuse the power the American people have over the new corporation as opposed to the old EPA. Shareholders of large corporations tend to have less power over their CEOs than citizens have over the President, for example.
You'd probably also want to the new corporation to have some statutory power just to keep it from being immediately bankrupted by lawsuits from industry.
Also, how would said company gain revenue to give to the people, presumably in the form of dividends? The way I think of it would be what I propose - charging for pollution.
And if you think corporate officers aren't subject to 'lobbying', I have some bridges you might want to buy a share in...