Slashdot Mirror

These days? What do you suppose is produced at a truck farm?

The terms confused me for a long time, but the dictionaries are pretty consistent.

Perhaps you are confused, because you obviously haven't looked at them.

Many dictionaries support a range of definitions for atheism, not just those who believe God doesn't exist, but also those who reject belief, disbelieve, with some going so far as to cover anyone lacking belief. There are at least three definitions of "atheism":

* Lack of belief (also called implicit)
* Rejection of belief (also called explicit weak)
* Belief in non-existence (also called explicit strong).

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism - "The varieties of atheism are numerous, but all atheists reject such a set of beliefs."

http://www.answers.com/atheism gives "Disbelief in or denial", and lists that separate to "The doctrine that there is no God or gods"; Philosophy Dictionary says "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none".

And I don't know of any dictionary that supports your definition of agnosticism. Agnosticism means that you either don't know if God exists, or you claim God's existence is unknowable. See http://www.answers.com/agnosticism : "The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist." Even if we did only accept the "strong" definition of atheism, it is still completely incorrect to misuse "agnostic" to mean a lack of belief. Instead, we'd just end up with no word for people who didn't believe in God - hardly a useful situation.

Also see http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm .

But most people who say they are Atheist are actually Agnostic and are just not using the standard English definitions.

They're not using the definitions that you made up, you mean. In reality, most people who claim they are agnostic are actually atheists, as shown by my dictionary refererences.

But who cares - the point is that they don't believe in God, that's more important than quibbling over definitions. It astonishes me how eager agnostics (at least, I bet you are?) are to criticise people who identify as atheists, and either claim they are using the wrong word, or absurdly claim that they are "in the same boat as the theist". On the contrary, it is agnostics who believe something without evidence (i.e., the claim that God cannot be proven nor disproven).

The terms confused me for a long time, but the dictionaries are pretty consistent.

Perhaps you are confused, because you obviously haven't looked at them.

Many dictionaries support a range of definitions for atheism, not just those who believe God doesn't exist, but also those who reject belief, disbelieve, with some going so far as to cover anyone lacking belief. There are at least three definitions of "atheism":

* Lack of belief (also called implicit)
* Rejection of belief (also called explicit weak)
* Belief in non-existence (also called explicit strong).

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism - "The varieties of atheism are numerous, but all atheists reject such a set of beliefs."

http://www.answers.com/atheism gives "Disbelief in or denial", and lists that separate to "The doctrine that there is no God or gods"; Philosophy Dictionary says "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none".

And I don't know of any dictionary that supports your definition of agnosticism. Agnosticism means that you either don't know if God exists, or you claim God's existence is unknowable. See http://www.answers.com/agnosticism : "The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist." Even if we did only accept the "strong" definition of atheism, it is still completely incorrect to misuse "agnostic" to mean a lack of belief. Instead, we'd just end up with no word for people who didn't believe in God - hardly a useful situation.

Also see http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm .

But most people who say they are Atheist are actually Agnostic and are just not using the standard English definitions.

They're not using the definitions that you made up, you mean. In reality, most people who claim they are agnostic are actually atheists, as shown by my dictionary refererences.

But who cares - the point is that they don't believe in God, that's more important than quibbling over definitions. It astonishes me how eager agnostics (at least, I bet you are?) are to criticise people who identify as atheists, and either claim they are using the wrong word, or absurdly claim that they are "in the same boat as the theist". On the contrary, it is agnostics who believe something without evidence (i.e., the claim that God cannot be proven nor disproven).

I don't know much about garbage, but 1.400 tons doesn't sound like an enormous number, considering the USA produces 220 milion tons a year.
Plus, it seems like a simple problem of foul play between companies, why does the government get involved?
I know waste disposal is a huge problem, but this sounds like attention-whoring.

Your failure to link to your source implies that you're well aware it contains an alternate definition of "arbitrary" that proves you wrong: "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference." So, in point of fact, when the previous poster was using "arbitrary" to mean based on Amazon's individual judgment, he was not using the word incorrectly. Yes, arbitrary can mean "random," but it can also mean something rather like "dictatorial" and it is in that sense that Amazon was being arbitrary.

Believe it or not, that was after Zimbabwe had lopped off a bunch of zeros from their currency the previous year.... twice. And then they did it a third time a month after they printed their first $100 trillion notes.

I was going to say something similar:-

On July 30, 2008, the Governor of the RBZ, Gideon Gono announced that the Zimbabwe dollar would be redenominated by removing 10 zeroes, with effect from August 1, 2008. ZWD10billion will become 1 dollar after the redenomination.

Then

[*After* the above revaluing] On 12 January 2009, Zimbabwe introduced the $50,000,000,000 note.

So you can multiply $50 billion by $10 billion (per new dollar) to get what it would have been if they hadn't done that sleight of hand; $500 billion billion.

Or let's put that another way (50 * 10^9) * (10 * 10^9) = 500 * 10^18 =

500 exadollars, or 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 dollars.

If 1,000,000 US dollars in 100 dollar bills weighs 10kg, then assuming Zimbabwean 100 dollars had similar weight, the unrevalued currency would weigh:-

$5*(10^18) / ($100,000 per kilogram) = 5*(10^13) kilograms = 5*(10^10) metric tonnes....

i.e. 50 billion tonnes!!!

I don't think I've ever seen a more undeserved insightful mod. That was non-specific heckling without a point.

Here are some points for you: the amount of innovation in green energy is tremendous these days. Take your pick, some of these are from this very site:

24/7 baseload electricity from the sun for utilities, great for sunny climates, cost-competitive with coal
Steady large-scale wind power from stacked kites
Cutting consumption and greenhouse gasses with microgrids
As seen on this very site, cost-effective solar thermal energy used to drive a stirling engine
Highly cost-effective thin-film solar electricity
Solar thermal panels for directly heating water
For efficiency, passive solar design for buildings
Inserting vertical wind turbines into electric towers for using existing structure
Tidal energy, pros and cons; Denmark certainly believes in the pros

That's just off the top of my head. Renewable energy is a matter of studying your surroundings and finding what is appropriate. Each locale is different, and of course, all of us can benefit from more efficient design than what we used on this past century while presuming that fossil fuel energy is cheap and disposable. All we need to do is stop being sloppy and wasteful. ...Or you can just be pointlessly negative on the internet. :)

haha- good points, to an extent, but only within the legal framework (regardless of whether you're actually a lawyer).

I was speaking in the more common meanings of the term, though :)
http://www.answers.com/lose /anon

Cancer has been with us throughout recorded history. Ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Chinese doctors described and drew tumours growing on their patients covering a span of about 2000-4000 years ago. There's also archeological evidence of cancers much older than that, e.g. in Bronze age fossils.

Cancer has become more common over the last hundred years or so. A huge part of that is simply the fact that we're living much longer, meaning that the odds of a given person developing cancer are much higher.

Of course you're right that environmental factors are important. Smoking and increased alcohol consumption are probably the biggest contributors, probably followed by poorly tested or controlled industrial synthetics like Asbestos. I've no idea what makes you think that no-one is researching this stuff. It's not exactly hard to find: cancer.org and cancerresearch.org.uk are great places to start reading about the known risk factors in modern life. Or, you know, there's google.

Probably the best source about risk factors is this huge meta-analysis of cancer papers. A science journalist's summary: In addition to the cancer risk associated with excess body fat, the WCRF-AICR study offered 10 lifestyle recommendations to help ward off cancer, including limiting red meat consumption and excessive drinking, exercising daily, avoiding processed meats such as bacon and ham, and eating a diet rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains. The research synthesizes many individual reports that have found similar lifestyle-cancer connections for specific cancers.

But even with cancers caused by environmental factors, there's still good reason to sequence genomes. Cancer develops as a result of a cell's DNA becoming damaged in ways that constitutively activate its replication programmes and suppress its checkpoint and suicide programmes. So sequencing the genome of cancer cells gives a lot of information about exactly how those cells became cancerous (although we're not sure what we're looking for yet), which in turn suggests ways to treat that specific cancer. Alternatively, sequencing healthy cells from people can give us information about why some populations are at higher risk of developing cancer. For example, carriers of specific forms of the BRCA1, BRCA2 or BRIP1 gene are at higher risk of developing breast cancer than the rest of the population. These discoveries gave us insight into how this cancer develops, which hints at possible treatments. Also, if someone has their genome sequenced and discovers these faulty genes they can take steps to avoid other risk factors (alcohol, etc) to control their risk, and attend more regular screening than the general population.

Interplanetary is defined as, "existing or occurring between planets" or "being or occurring between the planets or between a planet and the sun."

How is is a setup between a space station and a planet interplanetary?

Here.... now put it to rest :P

Largely 3, but also some of 2:

http://www.answers.com/mysticism

Modern science holds that if you know the state of the router, you cannot be certain that you are not transmitting that state to your friend, thus to gain accurate information, you must not know the state of the router (this is what double-blind means, neither the subject nor the experimenter know if the subject is a control or not). In the face of that, insisting that you have accurately measured your friends ability to sense the RF emanating from your wireless router is vague, groundless speculation.

It could even be something as nonsensical as you, on the days you leave the router one, reading the news immediately before your friend comes over and then discussing current events with him, thus giving him a headache.

n.

1. A scarce supply; a lack

from

http://www.answers.com/dearth

Maybe that is what you meant, but I read your comment as if you meant 'multitude' or some such.

Nope. Jeopardy attaches as soon as they begin to pick the jury.

Not as soon as they begin to pick the jury, but as soon as they are done picking the jury. The entire jury must be empaneled, including alternates. Anyway, returning to my original point, there are exceptions to the rule, one of them being as stated here: "... if the dismissal was requested by the defendant and was for a reason that would prevent prosecution, the prosecutor may appeal. If the dismissal is reversed, the defendant may be prosecuted again."

Above and beyond that, double jeopardy does not necessarily apply to multiple prosecutions if there is more than one offense involved arising out of the same act. There's an interesting article about the quandary of double jeopardy here. It is far from an open and shut case.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_speed_for_a_black_ant

Bullshit. The controller peaked with the Gravis Gamepad.

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Gravis_pc_gamepad.jpg/250px-Gravis_pc_gamepad.jpg

41% efficient for systems running at 100 celsius. 64% for 850 celsuis . Not sure that's suitable for consumer equipment!

The combustion chamber in your engine is around 1000 - 1800 Celsius .

What does starving have to do with energy?

Let's see you turn dirt and seeds into food without using energy.

You know, I can't buy the old school hydrochlorofluorocarbon [wikipedia.org] to use as a refrigerant in my new car. The new stuff doesn't work as well (it's close) but it's a lot better for the environment. Small things like this can be important to entities like the EPA.

Classic case! Thank you for pointing it out. I live in Texas and keep my thermostat at 75 degrees in my home. That's pretty warm, but it's about 25 degrees less than outside. I have a Puron AC unit. Like you said, it's not as efficient as the old freon we used to use, meaning that it has to run more to keep my house at a balmy 75 degrees, MEANING IT USES MORE ENERGY. It's a trade-off.

Tell me why there aren't nuclear power plants in every township in the United States? That is easy to see, right? People fear for their health and safety. The same could be said to a lesser degree of smokestacks and egregiously energy consuming automobiles.

And here is where you hit the nail on the head. There has been one nuclear accident in the US at Three Mile Island. No one died. For that matter, the safety protocols worked exactly as they should have. Unfortunately, the media and enviro-groups spread so much FUD that nuclear energy became a bad word (phrase... whatever). Also note that the same enviros that drove out nuclear are the same ones that are driving out every other energy source proposed today.

But if we can tell these idiots to STFU and allow for nuclear to become our primary power source, make electricity plentiful enough (read, CHEAP!) to not just power our homes and businesses, but our cars as well. We can do electric cars with batteries, supplemented by power rails on our interstates (like trains use). This will even make non-electrics more popular as we will no longer be using petroleum to power the processing our petroleum based and alcohol based fuels.

And yes, you have my full permission to build a nuclear plant in my back yard!

IANAL. Let's say that first, shall we?

Assuming she didn't declare bankruptcy, the estate would be reduced by the amount of the debt. If the estate could not cover the debt, it would be declared insolvent. Here's one answer with respect to credit card debt.

Beyond that, the reasonable extension is "the estate declares bankrupcy". Not even moths-in-the-wallet. Unless there was some contract specifically including the inheritors (as in the case of credit card debt on a joint account), I believe the debt is not inheritable.

someone here has forgotten the definition of troll

http://www.answers.com/troll

What's your point?

Cigar & cigarette uses the "-ette" suffix to mean "small".
Actor and actress uses the "-ess" suffix to mean "woman".

They're different suffixes entirely. "-ess" always means woman, "-ette" always means small. The former may be archaic and unpopular these days, but the meaning is still clear.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=-ess&gwp=13
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=-ette&gwp=13

What's your point?

Cigar & cigarette uses the "-ette" suffix to mean "small".
Actor and actress uses the "-ess" suffix to mean "woman".

They're different suffixes entirely. "-ess" always means woman, "-ette" always means small. The former may be archaic and unpopular these days, but the meaning is still clear.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=-ess&gwp=13
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=-ette&gwp=13

You have my undivided attention.

Here it is: How to make a dunce hat

Just use tinfoil as material.

Po - Ta - Ble

Here. It even says it for you.

What's potable, preciouss?

Po - Ta - Ble

Here. It even says it for you.

IIRC they'll pass #1, the DNA isn't identical across all sperm cells or eggs. Despite lots of searching of the interwebs and a heaping pile of old biology course notes I happen to have on my PDA, I can't turn up a good source for detailed information on the DNA inside sperm cells or eggs.

Here's the best I can find on this topic.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_all_the_sperm_cells_made_by_one_man_not_identical

Anyone with more knowledge want to clarify?

There's no point arguing with you

That's right, though it has been shown Apple originally canceled Mac clones because they ate into Apple's bottom line and almost drove them out of business all you have provided is your opinion or what you want. You have not provided facts whereas I provided a link to real clones which stated they were "financially unfavorable". I'm quite willing to learn but you have not provided evidence to back up your claims.

Seriously, I hear the same preconditioned responses from Apple fans every time this subject comes up

Just because Mac fans, which I am not one, say it does not make it untrue. Here's an other link saying clones were financially unfavorable. Others have said Apple is a hardware company not a software business. I say Apple is a systems company, Apple designs hardware and software to work together.

On another note, as of this moment, I shall no longer use the word hackintosh, as it implies to the average joe that the act of using software as the user sees fit is a crime, a view that I'm sure most slashdotters would agree is detrimental to the idea of user rights.

In general I agree a person should be able to use software they bought however they want so long as only they use it or it's installed only on one computer. However when it comes to driving a company out of business by doing so I disagree with breaking ULAs, of which Apple's has not been found unenforceable or illegal. And nobody, not even you, have proven that allowing OS X to be installed on OEM PCs will not drive Apple out of business. Heck I don't like Microsoft but I've said I don't want MS out of business either.

Falcon

1. The idiom "bold-faced lie" also exists you pretentious twat

You are incorrect: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_correct_term_'bold_face_lie'_or_'bald_faced_lie'_or_another_variation

v.tr. 1. To repeat in concise form.

Concise as in "omitting all of the undos".

Pure cocaine sells for, let's say, $30,000 per kg. To get a kilogram of cocaine from RedBull would take 2.5 billion liters, or roughly 7 billion 12 oz cans. A 24-case of Red Bull seems to cost about $34.80, or $1.45 per can.

[citation needed]

Now I'm cool too!

Should be easy enough to calculate:

Pure cocaine sells for, let's say, $30,000 per kg. To get a kilogram of cocaine from RedBull would take 2.5 billion liters, or roughly 7 billion 12 oz cans.

So, roughly half of a decent LAN party. Gotcha.

Should be easy enough to calculate:

Pure cocaine sells for, let's say, $30,000 per kg. To get a kilogram of cocaine from RedBull would take 2.5 billion liters, or roughly 7 billion 12 oz cans. A 24-case of Red Bull seems to cost about $34.80, or $1.45 per can.

In other words, to get 1 kg of cocaine from Red Bull would cost $10 billion, not to mention the enormous expense of purification. And all this would only be worth $30,000. It would cost 340,000 times more for the Red Bull than the cocaine would be worth.

As you said, the numbers don't exactly add up. Not even close.

There ought to be a Google calculator function for this.

"$30000 worth of cocaine in Red Bulls"

$30,000 dollars worth of cocaine = $10,000,000,000 dollars worth of red bull

I would imagine, since we're talking about nanogram amounts per liter, the expenditure would have to far exceed what they'd pay if they obtained it from a drug dealer.

Should be easy enough to calculate:

Pure cocaine sells for, let's say, $30,000 per kg. To get a kilogram of cocaine from RedBull would take 2.5 billion liters, or roughly 7 billion 12 oz cans. A 24-case of Red Bull seems to cost about $34.80, or $1.45 per can.

In other words, to get 1 kg of cocaine from Red Bull would cost $10 billion, not to mention the enormous expense of purification. And all this would only be worth $30,000. It would cost 340,000 times more for the Red Bull than the cocaine would be worth.

As you said, the numbers don't exactly add up. Not even close.

it isn't "carrot on a stick."

if is carrot and a stick. the phrase refers to using an obvious and visible punishment in tandem with a reward to get the desired result. its origin is in using a carrot to lead a stubborn donkey or pack horse and also liberally using a switch to get it moving.

50 years ago, movie tickets cost $0.15. Applying the consumer price index we find that the price today would be $1.12 if movie ticket prices had gone up in the same average proportion as other prices.

Considering how much films today depend on special effects, and considering that so many effects are done by computers, one would believe that the cost of producing a movie should be lower than fifty years ago.

Some people say that "all capitalists are greedy pigs", but obviously some pigs are greedier than others.

There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

So the loss of >40,000 lives per year and >$230,000,000,000. I never thought of that before, but since train systems are generally safer than cars, I wonder how that $230bn should be figured into costs when talking about public transportation costs.

But I'm way off topic...

But scientists already determined it's not the lack of exercise that is making Americans fat, it's the excess intake of food.

Which makes your point moot, like that guy from 4chan.

hence it does actively make you thinner.

Your statement needs qualification. While technically, yes, eating a stalk of celery might produce a negative calorie effect, the effect is so small as to be insignificant in the grand scheme of things. You'd have to eat several pounds of the stuff to have any meaningful effect.

When one considers that the vast majority of people eat celery with cram cheese or peanut butter, any small negative calorie effect is instantly negated.

For further information: Snopes and WikiAnswers

The Or is implied, and Google says it's correct, (and that you're an idiot.)

"Ye Gods," on the other hand, appears to be a mangling of egads.

It's like the blind leading the deaf. :P

Ah, I see the confusion.

I agree with you that I should have said "disc", although the two terms are actually far more interchangeable than you imply. Traditionally, it's the music industry that favoured spelling with a "c" (hence why it stuck to CDs) and computer science favoured "k" (and so for hard disks). http://www.answers.com/topic/compact-disc

I still get confused though, so just tend to scatter my usage evenly between the two and hope some of it ends up in the right place...

... I'd keep the Talisker 12yo for another 3 or 4 years because it improves quite noticeably in those last couple of years.

Unless you have the whisky stored in its cask, it will taste exactly the same as the day it left the distillery. Whisky doesn't age in glass.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_whiskey_age_in_a_bottle

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_sealed_whiskey_go_bad_after_time

... I'd keep the Talisker 12yo for another 3 or 4 years because it improves quite noticeably in those last couple of years.

Unless you have the whisky stored in its cask, it will taste exactly the same as the day it left the distillery. Whisky doesn't age in glass.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_whiskey_age_in_a_bottle

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_sealed_whiskey_go_bad_after_time

That is true, but you aren't protected against someone watching you without your knowledge.

If you are in a public area you can be watched, have pictures taken of you, etcetera. Any place a car can drive is pretty much public.

Vandalism would require some damage to the car, and also that, the accused damaged or destroyed some property, that the property did not belong to the accused, and that the accused acted willfully and with malice." If the beacon could be attached to the car in such a way that it doesn't damage the car, then

Is it? What law is it illegal under? You can legally put fliers and such under people's windshield wipers.

Have you tried that with a police cruiser? I'm not sure it shouldn't be considered between vandalism and pollution. I'm a hard core Objectivist type (sort of like a libertarian, sort of). Touching someone else's property in a non-inadvertent way crosses a line. If, in theory, my removal of the flyer causes it to fall on the ground or get me on the hook for pollution (a negative externality - in case you think that is something "libertarian" types don't frown upon - they do *not* like negative externalities), I'd say the perp who put it there ought to face an extreme liability.

On public property, the law varies from city to city depending on local ordinances that outline laws for trespassing, soliciting, and littering. If the advertisement material is discarded onto the property or cause injury to land, property, or patrons, then the party who initially ditributed the material will often be sought for liabilty.

So what made you think it was legal?

People, poke a stick through them and roast them on a fire; Yummy.

Sheesh, give it up. They weren't as backward as you make them out to be. Here's a list of others before Columbus who also weren't afraid of falling off the edge of the earth or other such nonsense. And don't forget the Vikings, who were in North America centuries before Columbus.

So yes, I do think businesses pay taxes, as they would just reap even higher profits, with most of the profits going to those select few that own stock already (which is a pretty small and rich group already, as they wouldn't stock otherwise).

So a small group is almost 1/2? This is from 2002. I've seen higher estimates more recently but don't have time to look them up at the moment.

The actual cannon is, I believe....

It's canon.

Lets not get carried away with fictional languages and worlds until we have a reasonable understanding of our own.

http://www.answers.com/topic/canon-fiction

-Taylor

http://www.answers.com/rampart

http://www.answers.com/rampant

http://www.answers.com/rampart

http://www.answers.com/rampant