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).
Debt is how much you owe, like how much your credit card balance is.
Deficit is how much you're borrowing/losing/hemorrhaging in a given time, like how much your credit card balance increases in a year.
Cutting the deficit by 1 trillion dollars would save TEN TRILLION DOLLARS in ten years.
I guess, technically, the summary could be valid if we're talking about a ten-year budget, but the national budget is something that's settled upon on an annual basis. Cutting the deficit by "an average of 100 billion dollars per year" would be more accurate.
Seriously, what business does an organization that claims to be for animal rights have sticking its nose in software development?
Just because you can grow it, doesn't mean anyone actually wants to buy it.
But that's just the case with corn. There's been so much of it, and it's so darn cheap to grow, that people figured "well, crap, we have all this corn, let's figure out something else to do with it!" and thus the prevalence of high fructose corn syrup, and of using corn as the primary feed for a bunch of animals that had previously eaten grasses and such. Hell, I recall hearing they're feeding corn to FISH now.
If one of our entries was rejected due to exceeding the CPU limit, it was always due to a problem in our logic that the sample data hadn't triggered, but that the actual test data had.
I wonder if, to counter that, they would have the same consequence be a punishment to one kid and a reward to another.
Click on some of the links here, then read the articles. Seems to be about 50/50.
As for the last part of what you wrote: Ever consider that the decline in human attention span and the commoditization of news media might account for what you wryly observe as "get[ting] all the information you need from the headline"? And you would suggest that this is a good thing?
They are related, but different. I get all the information from a headline when the story has very little news to offer. Visiting Google News, some examples from the first page, and my reactions in parens:
- Fewer Americans think Obama has advanced race relations, poll shows (fluff)
- ATTACK ON FLIGHT 253 Accountability sought at terror hearings (more finger-pointing rather that addressing the real issue)
- Photos Purport to Show Woods at Rehab Center (celebrity fluff)
- Football legend Archie Griffin raising awareness of H1N1 vaccinations (celebrity fluff)
- More Men Marrying Wealthier Women (good for them)
- Palin and McCain will campaign again (and I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys until 2012. wtf are we doing reporting on presidential elections this year?)
- Jets-Colts Preview (sports, and not even "what happened" but a bunch of speculative fluff)
- Americans See Economic Recovery a Long Way Off (Captain Obvious is alive and well on staff at Gallup)
Essentially, I get all the information from the headline when the article is shit, and I read further when the headline suggests a possibility of worthwhile content. I was actually surprised and somewhat more hopeful at how many articles I clicked on while compiling the list above because they seemed possibly interesting.
Then there are inaccurate and misleading headlines. I don't know who is responsible, but a link on Google News for "Michelle Obama Unveils Anti-Obesity Initiative" links to a story called "Michelle Obama's Anti-Obesity Plan," and the article itself says she "is expected to unveil an anti-obesity initiative next month." Another article, entitled "First lady surprises White House visitors," is simply linked to a video of her shaking hands with people on the White House tour. WTF is this doing on the first page of Google News?
Maybe if newspapers were to write more articles exposing the horrendous fustercluckery going on locally and abroad, making meaningful commentary on artistic endeavors, giving relevant information on local events, etc. rather than living off press releases, whitewashed statements from politicians, and reprinting AP/Reuters feeds, people might be more inclined to read them.
Hell, one somewhat respected (though less so lately) newspaper in my area reserves the back page of its front section for photographs of its readers holding up a copy of their paper while on vacation. Every day.
The very fact that The Family Circus is still in print is a testament to the utter incompetence and out-of-touchery of newspapers.
I don't think this out-and-out corruption through bribery
You, sir/madam, are what is called an idealist.