Slashdot Mirror

I watched the preview and it shows a woman arguing that there is an equal chance of being struck by lightning as being kidnapped (non-family). A little research shows that:

* You have a 1 in 560 chance of being kidnapped by a non-family member and of those 1/5 will be murdered.
* You have a 1 in 280,000 chance of being struck by lightning.
* You have a 1 in 100 chance of dying in a car accident.

While the lady in the video was grossly overestimating the chances of being struck by lightning, there may not be much cause to freak your kids out about "stranger danger". They need to know the information and how to protect themselves, but they definitely shouldn't be made to be hermits and more than they shouldn't be prevented from riding in cars.

One thing is for sure, though. Don't get your statistics from Penn and Teller videos.

Nowadays, it might be a perfectly good marketing strategy to *almost* get your advertisement aired during Super Bowl commercial time. Then, work with your PR department to get some articles run about how your commercial was rejected. Next upload your advertisement to YouTube and your own website, and allow social media to bring people to your website.

IMO, this is a much more cost-effective strategy toward advertising during the Super Bowl. You might not be ensured that 97 million people, but your company will not have to spend as much money and the viewers will actually be interested in seeing your commercial. Many people just watch the Super Bowl for the commercials, anyway.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=141

You included the cons from a Pros and Cons page but did not include the pros. However I'll address some of those cons.

"Smoked marijuana damages the brain, heart, lungs, and immune system."
"Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain"
"Does marijuana damage the heart?"
"Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco"
"4. Marijuana suppresses the immune system"

"3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day."
"No drug is always safe for everybody, but after 150 years of scientific study, the only proven health problem from cannabis is that its smoke can be linked to bronchitis"

""The most compelling concerns regarding marijuana smoking in HIV/AIDS patients are the possible effects of marijuana on immunity."
Actually cannabis has been shown to be helpful:
"The effectiveness of cannabis for treating symptoms related to HIV/AIDS is widely recognized."

Falcon

That is absolutely lovely, but that actually proves my point. The unit of measure "kilobyte" was defined LOOOOOONG before 1998; LOOONG before 1988; LONG before 1978 and I would venture to guess long before 1968 even though a kilobyte in those days was ridiculously expensive and hard to imagine. But I'll see your one link:

http://www.tekmom.com/buzzwords/zdkilo.html

And raise ya three:

http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid5_gci212444,00.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/kilobyte
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=kilobyte&i=45822,00.asp

And there are a LOT more places that state what I learned over 30 years ago. Best not to redefine units of measure. It confuses things especially when referencing older works using those measures. It also confuses and sometimes even angers the consumer. But let's look at it another way -- one day, you just might end up with less than a gallon or litre of gasoline one day because someone decided it would be okay to change a unit of measure to something they found more convenient. But that shouldn't bother you should it?

The definition of a "solution" depends on what side are you analysing. If you consider the palestinian side, a solution will certainly consider educating a large mass of people and providing them the adequate means of living. Sure, some idiots will certainly call that "westernization", as if achieving proper education and respect for one another is something exclusively western, but it's a solution.

No doubt. Complete agreement there.

But if you're on the other side of the conflict, a solution might consider on just not being attacked anymore.

Again, complete agreement. The problem is finding out how to accomplish that goal. Obviously, not easy.

The real catch is: helping any side of the conflict to achieve a better life is not, and never will be, an obligation.

Never said otherwise. I mentioned the type of person they need as a leader, the type of government they must have to foster change. I never said anything about anyone from the outside helping.

You're still wrong. I still live on a society that preaches and practices respect on a daily basis. There is continous discussion about the problems of society, about tolerance, about minorities, about giving people equal opportunities.

Yes, we're doing much better now. Which was precisely a point I mentioned. It wasn't that long ago when segregation was in full swing in the US, though.

When I walk on the street, I interact with white people, black people, asian people, poor people, rich people. And everybody gets along. Violence is never considered to be a solution to any problem and we work hard to actually provide means for people to achieve a better life.

If you think violence is never considered to be a solution, you're not paying much attention. Just because the front is a little farther from your home doesn't mean the war isn't going on.

There's no comparison between a western man giving cheap ideas from behind his keyboard to a sand monkey firing an AK-47 to a jewish family just because they're jewish

No shit?

or a hate-filled idiot teaching kids that jews should be beheaded

Well, let's see...

But even genocide, if discussed and decided by a civilizated society that sees no other solution to the conflict, is superior than living at stone age and teaching kids to hate people based on their ethnicity or religion.

Congratulations. You've just made it comparable.

Besides, any society that considers genocide as an option is not civilized by definition: "showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable."

but you forgot to account the fact that hate and war is the result coming from their "side". The internal issues of their society that are causing the creation of this troubled interface with other societies is their problem, not ours.

Placing the blame on any side doesn't solve the issue in question. What the hell are you going to do about it? Attack them back? Will that cause their hate against you to subside?

Perfect! I really hope that such a nice and caring leader arises and lead them into the light.

As do I. I say this without sarcasm.

Until then, whoever is being attacked by the result of the collective ignorance of the said people will continue to pursue violent actions to defend its own people. Or did you expected everyone else to just wait and sacrifice so these people can solve their own internal issues?

Have you read what this discussion is about? The original poster I replied to said that Egypt is justified in stopping speech on facebook because the content is disagreeable. I replied saying that speec

Does it really matter if people were "commies"?

Its just a political ideology, and just like the rest of them, it has good points and bad points. Discriminating, or ruining peoples lives in this case, against people because you don't personally like their opinion is wrong.

Communism, at the time, was equated with Nazism. The US government, driven by hysteria on the part of a few blowhards whose sole purpose is to win re-election by sowing fear (gee, that sounds familiar) worked to make belief in any political ideology short of "Democracy" (we have never had that on a national level in the United States) illegal. As a member of a union I was forced to join (by nature of my work) I had to, in the 1990s sign a paper indicating that I was not a member of the Communist Party or any organization allied with Communism. Everyone who joins a union today still has to sign such a statement.

Frankly, when I signed that statement, I realized it was a direct violation of my rights as a citizen to associate with whom I wish and to believe in what I prefer to believe in.

As a part of our "campaign against godless Communism," Congress even went as far as to have a new motto imprinted on all of our money: "In God We Trust" and they also changed the Pledge of Allegiance to include under God after "One nation" and before "Indivisible."

These latter measures, designed to oppose Communism, have been "reinterpreted" by part of he political spectrum as proof that the United States is a "Christian nation" which I understand means "theocracy."

But it did matter if people were "commies." They lost their jobs and were forced to find other work, usually for a lot less pay. The blacklist didn't end until the 1960s and was a list of people "convicted" mostly on hearsay evidence with no trial.

The creepy thing about Bush is that he was using the same techniques Nixon used against journalists and others perceived to be "enemies." Everyone knows today that Nixon was extremely paranoid. I don't think Bush is paranoid like Nixon, he is just mean, like his mother.

And, with the President of the United States allowed to incarcerate anyone who he declares to be an "enemy combatant," your hatred of Bush, his policies, wars and Constitutional abuse makes you not anti-American as much as an "enemy combatant."

And I use that term, based on the Bush Administration's definition of "returned to the battlefield" applied to released inmates of Gitmo: Anyone who wrote an article or whose lawyer wrote an article or spoke out to describe their captivity was considered having "returned to the battlefield." So, I am assuming you spoke out about your dislike of the past administration.

How does it feel to be an "enemy combatant?"

Words have meanings, unfortunately for you they also mean things which you did not intend. Plenty of people don't pay their taxes and nothing happens to them so while Coercion is accurate you need to use the full meaning of the word. Because, there is nobody actively pointing a gun at you.

"Coercion (/ko().()n/) is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force." "The term is associated with circumstances which involve the unethical use of threats or harm to achieve some objective, but maybe equally often applies to other means of influence such as sweet talking, begging, charming, lying, and seduction." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Usage > http://www.answers.com/coercion

Some people speak of cultural coercion when the fear of falling out with the group may force people into wearing a certain style of dress, publicly reciting a creed or a pledge of allegiance which they find ethically reprehensible or starting to smoke when they would have preferred not to etc. Within the definitional framework adopted here, all such things amount to (psychological) coercion if and only if the fear of falling out with the group is the result of purposeful threats by someone. See Peer pressure, Sociology of religion, Pledge of Allegiance.

Some people include deception in their definition of (psychological) coercion. Yet deception does not generally involve any threat at all, as it works by creating a mere false perception by the victim of his or her given transformation rules.

My current provider is BCBS, and they're terrible. I had insurance through the university I worked for, and while it wasn't great, it was better than this BS. I *think* a lot of that has to do with the fact that it was a very large university, with a very large hospital system itself - so they kind of had a clue.

I'm with you on airlines though, but I think the problem is less the unions, and more they CEO's who ask for bailouts and pocket it. It alwasy strikes me as odd when people blame the workers, and not the people running the ship.

You've got a good point. Both are fault, I'd say. Pilots in general are severely underpaid for what they do and the responsibility they have. No, flying a plane isn't rocket science, but if you F it up good enough you're going to kill a couple of hundred people at least. That should be worth something. However, it seems relevant to point out that the only modern airline to ever turn a profit is Southwest - IIRC the only unionized folks are some of the ground people - machinists, etc. I think SWA recently had their first quarter where they were in the red. They're doing something right - probably several things. I'll also point out that I've never once had a problem with SWA that couldn't be worked out. The people have always treated me very well, and I can't recall any of them ever being nasty even when things got a little bit crazy.

We looked at this situation a little bit in an aviation survey course, and talked about why the legacy (Delta, United, etc) carriers have such a hard time - and it is basically because they still haven't figured out how to operate in a market where the price isn't controlled by the government. Their pay structure favors, as you mentioned, executives and middle managers and they've been unable to wrench themselves from the old business models.

Of course in that $1,500 won't buy them what it would buy them now. You got that right! Like any subsidy, it will increase prices. The demand for used cars will increase, and the supply will decrease (the entire point of this proposal is to permanently remove large numbers of used cars from service). The market price goes up, just like the Econ 101 textbook says it would.

There _may_ be environmental benefits as people dump less fuel efficient cars for already existing more fuel efficient cars... The article said the program would be $2B per year. At an average $3K subsidy, that would cover less than a million cars per year. It sounds like a lot, but it comes to about 1/3 of 1% of the cars registered in the US. In other words, the difference it makes will be too small make a noticeable difference.

This reminds me of a proposal one of the car magazines published many years ago. They said that compared to the cost and effects of tightening pollution laws for new cars, we could achieve more pollution control at less cost by trading owners of old, highly polluting cars a brand new Cadillac for their old stink-bomb clunkers.

http://answers.com/there
http://answers.com/their

http://answers.com/what
http://answers.com/want

Knowing these words may help you with future posts in English.

Cheers,
Ryan

http://answers.com/there
http://answers.com/their

http://answers.com/what
http://answers.com/want

Knowing these words may help you with future posts in English.

Cheers,
Ryan

http://answers.com/there
http://answers.com/their

http://answers.com/what
http://answers.com/want

Knowing these words may help you with future posts in English.

Cheers,
Ryan

http://answers.com/there
http://answers.com/their

http://answers.com/what
http://answers.com/want

Knowing these words may help you with future posts in English.

Cheers,
Ryan

The first improvement would be removing the "Write the tax code by hand" requirement.

Why? Maybe it would give them an idea of just how ridicious the tax code really is. According to this the Federal tax code consists of 3.7 million words. By contrast, all seven Harry Potter novels only clock in at around 1.1 million words.

What's wrong with that picture? It really requires that much complexity to fund the Federal Government?

I think it was not so much a criticism of the idea as it is pointing out that it is a "fox guarding the henhouse" situation. Basically, short of a constitutional amendment requiring them to hand-write the tax code, they would just legislate it out of existence first chance they got.

It's better to first worry about whether an idea is sound and good. Only after deciding that does it really make sense to concern yourself with what it would take to bring it about, like a constitutional amendment in this case. The difficulty of doing a thing, alone, is not a valid argument against the soundness of an idea so long as it really could be done, which is true in this case. It does take a measure of courage to see and entertain possibilities like this despite knowing that these good things are also unlikely, but I believe that not succumbing to hopelessness is the beginning of real change.

The first improvement would be removing the "Write the tax code by hand" requirement.

Why? Maybe it would give them an idea of just how ridicious the tax code really is. According to this the Federal tax code consists of 3.7 million words. By contrast, all seven Harry Potter novels only clock in at around 1.1 million words.

What's wrong with that picture? It really requires that much complexity to fund the Federal Government?

I think it was not so much a criticism of the idea as it is pointing out that it is a "fox guarding the henhouse" situation. Basically, short of a constitutional amendment requiring them to hand-write the tax code, they would just legislate it out of existence first chance they got.

The first improvement would be removing the "Write the tax code by hand" requirement.

Why? Maybe it would give them an idea of just how ridicious the tax code really is. According to this the Federal tax code consists of 3.7 million words. By contrast, all seven Harry Potter novels only clock in at around 1.1 million words.

What's wrong with that picture? It really requires that much complexity to fund the Federal Government?

It's a "bald-faced lie", as in here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_correct_term_'bold_face_lie'_or_'bald_faced_lie'_or_another_variation

Check this out.

God knows what the answers are! There were grammatical errors on my test so I am not sure how much the answers really matter. The results of my assessment said I wasn't qualified for a job I had been doing for 10 years. No explanation was offered, just a "not recommended" result. I'd like to know why a company put that kind of authority in the hands of another company, and how such a conclusion could be drawn from a 100-question test.

up until it crosses national borders then yes it does. But if the guy running the show is in a country without extradition then it is useless. Warrants assume everyone is following similar laws and there is an agency that can police all affected areas equally.

I think you misunderstood - GP was talking about a warrant for action against the bot-net, not an arrest warrant. http://www.answers.com/warrant

Sure - a CRT is heavy, and it contains a lot of lead -- the front face (which is thick enough to withstand the near-perfect vacuum inside), at least, is made of leaded glass. It's a radiation shield to keep people from glowing in the dark after they've used the computer.

But, you see, they're not recovering any lead from the CRT itself, which would be a very difficult task indeed. They're only recovering it from the circuit boards which support the CRT. Specifically, they're melting the solder off of the boards.

Which, I must say, isn't very bloody much lead. If you've seen the inside of a modern (or low-end) CRT monitor, you'd understand that there just aren't many circuit boards in there.

And, sure: Fancier or older monitors tend to have more components inside, and therefore more solder. A decade and a half ago, I had a (fancy, old, heavy) 15" Viewsonic 5e which had circuit boards covering the entirety of both sides and the bottom of the monitor chassis, all stuffed full of components, but even then there was certainly far less than a pound of lead solder in use. (I'd dig up a reference, but everyone here should be familiar with raw solder and printed circuit boards to understand my point.)

I'm not arguing that unsafe recycling of CRT monitors does not represent a hazard. I'm simply trying to state the hazard for what it is, instead of fearmongering with lies about the quantities involved.

For fuck's sake: With the price of lead being what it is, if there really were 7 pounds of it recoverable lead in a CRT monitor, we would not have this problem in China. We'd have it right here in the States, with scrappers profitably burning the lead out of monitors right in their own back yards for a rate of $3.50-21.00 per display.

...TD has the added benefit of a location half a block from where I work...

When looking at TD Bank's website, I noticed that they use interactive data. Interactive Data's terms of services states:

All information provided by ComStock, Inc. ("ComStock") and its affiliates (the "ComStock Information") is owned by or licensed to ComStock and its affiliates and any user is permitted to store, manipulate, analyze, reformat, print and display the ComStock Information only for such user's personal use....

...NEITHER COMSTOCK NOR ITS AFFILIATES WILL BE LIABLE TO ANY USER OR ANYONE ELSE FOR ANY INTERRUPTION, INACCURACY, ERROR OR OMISSION, REGARDLESS OF CAUSE, IN THE COMSTOCK INFORMATION OR FOR ANY DAMAGES (WHETHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY) RESULTING THEREFROM.

Pretty standard stuff, however I started wondering who the affiliates were and how they might use your banking information?

There were 18 ripoff reports, FYI...considering that all banks have negative reports, and 18 is pretty low...as long as Interactive data and their affiliates are not mis using your data it sounds like a decent bank all in all.

If a bank uses Chexsystems (most do, but not all) be aware that if you get a negative report in chexsystems for any reason, it becomes very difficult if not impossible to open a new bank or checking account anywhere else. Check out these 137 reports to learn about this from others mistakes. Personally based on what I have seen, that 137 number appears to be very low, so check on other search engines as well.

Helpful link concerning chexsystems here. Remember that this information, even after you pay it current, remains on chexsystems for a minimum of five years, good luck.

To be safe, maintain a minimum of two bank accounts at all times, preferably three, so that if one bank does something stupid (anything customer no service) you can find a new bank first, before you drop the offending bank. Never drop an account until you have a replacement bank account open, otherwise you might have problems opening a new account. Remember that many banks have relationships with other banks and that makes it harder to find two banks that are not related. Make your third bank a Credit Union or Savings and Loan as they will honestly work with you when a regular bank will not.

Remember you catch more flies with honey, so treat the people you are talking to with respect and you will find that you get respect in return. Save the yelling for somewhere else as that just insures that they will NOT help you.

For instance use Google Finance to look up information on companies that are publicly traded. Refer to the Related Companies section (its right after the chart) to see if two banks are related. Did you know that while Bank of America and Washington Mutual use to not be directly related as they are today. However even back in the day, prior to December 2008, both banks were indirectly related via both Citibank and Wells Fargo. Today they are directly related vi

I was skeptical so I looked it up. I'm not a lawyer, but the tubes thinks that, indeed, X is a legal signature.

Hmmm...

Container ships now carry up to 15,000 TEU (approximately equivalent to 35 100-car double-stack intermodal freight trains) on a voyage.

Since the distance from China to the US West Coast is roughly 6000 miles, a cargo ship fill-up would have set you back at least $8.5 million bucks in April 2008. How much fuel does a container ship burn?

It strikes me that shipping a light bulb will cost the about same whether it is incandescent, florescent or LED.

Little practical difference in weight or bulk or fragility.

But you won't making as many runs if the florescent or LED lasts five to ten years.

It also strikes me that 15,000 TEU translates into a hell of a lot of bulbs.

... copyright is not a verb.

The dictionary disagrees. Like many words in English, depending on context, it can be a noun, a verb, or an adjective.

http://www.answers.com/topic/instant-coffee-1

As an owner of a Rancilio Silvia, I find that link in equal parts fascinating and horrifying.

Eh? Where do you think the rest of those 43 beans goes?

Spent coffee grounds from the brewing process are the primary waste product. At least one manufacturer burns these grounds to heat water and generate steam that is used in the manufacturing process. The process is designed to be environmentally friendly, minimizing waste products by maximizing the use of the raw materials.

http://www.answers.com/topic/instant-coffee-1

Are you sure?

n.

      1. Informal. A quotation.

According to this site. They are apparently some sort of order founded around the worship of dolphins.

Or, possibly they are just a bunch of special interest groups similar to the RIAA in the US.

I'm trending to the Sancta Orca theory myself.

According to this site. They are apparently some sort of order founded around the worship of dolphins.

Or, possibly they are just a bunch of special interest groups similar to the RIAA in the US.

I'm trending to the Sancta Orca theory myself.

Erm, yeah. "To author" is a standard verb, and it has been for a very long time. That said, "to read" is also a standard verb, and you should probably try more of it!

There's plenty of free extensions to IE! I can add smiley faces to my email with a simple IE extension, and I can get a nice search bar from 1800search. That little gorilla search buddy makes my day. The only downside is it makes the browser so small it's hard to view websites.

Sources inside Microsoft said again and again that both Xboxes in fact did run ports of Windows. You can find numerous supporting sources (who outside Microsoft would know better than people writing an Xbox emulator?) for this claim. Sorry, but I simply do not believe your reference.

It is even less likely that Microsoft wrote the operating system for the 360 from scratch. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, odds are it evolved from a duck - though it is not certain, it is the way to bet. Windows 2000 ran on the PowerPC until SP3 and was designed for portability - at least, it was redesigned for portability when they ported from the N-Ten to the x86. This is why they were able to port it to both DEC Alpha and IBM PowerPC in such a relatively short time. The Alpha port was the more commercially successful of the two since the Alpha was the more capable processor, and you could pay just as much for a PPC machine that would run NT with zero benefit, but the PPC port was probably the more capable of the two in another way - since it ran on standards-based PowerPC systems, it would run on a broader range of hardware including systems from IBM and Motorola.

PowerPC support alone is not sufficient reason for my prejudice, however; that lies in Windows NT's multiprocessor support. Anyone who has followed operating system history to any significant degree knows that multiprocessing has always been one of the most complex features to support. SMP has certainly been one of the most contentious issues in *BSD-land for just this reason. The idea that Microsoft just tossed off a new operating system with multiprocessor support which provides the Win32 APIs and is stable enough for a games console is not an impossible one, but it does seem highly unlikely to be true given Microsoft's track record, which is poor to say the least.

In summary, though Windows NT tends to have a lower penalty for thread creation than Unix and thus has some inherent advantages when it comes to multiprocessing and therefore even indicates that some people who work for or who have worked for Microsoft have some idea of what they are doing, I would not expect Microsoft to be capable of writing any operating system capable of providing a sizable portion of the Win32 (even though it is much less capable than Windows 2000, either operating system is a significant piece of software) from scratch at this point. If they were capable of doing this, they would certainly already have done so in order to replace Windows NT, which is long past the "showing its age" phase. Vista in particular is a mishmash of just about every computing model Microsoft has ever used. By far, the most logical explanation is that the Xbox operating system is based on Windows 2000, and so is the Xbox 360 operating system, but Microsoft's gaming business model is dependent on convincing people that they are not being sold a PC, and so they must deny any similarity unto their graves.

Put another way, YHBT by Microsoft.

"You'd be really pissed off if no laws were enforced, someone decided they wanted your computer and either beat the living shit out of you or shot you in the process of relieving you of its ownership."

Who is this "someone" that seems to be held back from killing and looting only by the continued integrity of our legal system?*

If murder and theft were suddenly decriminalized, my desire to commit them would remain unchanged. I suspect the great majority of people feel the same way.

Perhaps laws against murder and theft exist not to prevent people from killing and stealing, but to punish those who do?

If that's the case, the people might be able to do away with their legislative body without becoming murderous, avaricious berserkers.

(Aside to moderators: I know this discussion is off-topic, but he started it.)

*Sounds like a pirate, ironically. Arr! (Cue 57 responses debating the definition of irony. Tinny and Bronzy, now we only need 56.)

The union contracts are the single biggest anchor on the Big Three.

That's right. Let's make sure that the people who actually *make* the vehicles don't get compensated for making them. I'm sure the management class are the only people actually producing anything of worth.

Workers at the big 3 are getting about 28$/hour plus pension and benefits.

Did you even read your own link? GP called labor the "biggest anchor" on the big 3. Your link shows exactly that: hourly labor cost for Big 3: $70+/hr... for Japanese companies in the US: less than $50/hr! Frankly, that is an amazing difference.

Now you may or may not find that palatable, but you should be agreeing with the GP. Labor costs are a real issue here.

The union contracts are the single biggest anchor on the Big Three.

That's right. Let's make sure that the people who actually *make* the vehicles don't get compensated for making them. I'm sure the management class are the only people actually producing anything of worth.

Workers at the big 3 are getting about 28$/hour plus pension and benefits. Want to help them out? Move them to a single payer healthcare system and socialize their pensions...

I do agree that the big 3 should have to file bankruptcy like every other business, but not because of unions, and definitely not for the explicit purposes of extracting money which would otherwise be used to pay unionized workers.

Unions are all about collective bargaining. Do you really think that automakers would pay operators a living wage if UAW wasn't involved? I'm happy that they're finally suggesting limits on executive compensation. Chumps like Wagoner haven't exactly been adding value to their employers.

I would have been really happy to see any of the financial giants who came to Washington begging on their hands and knees for some government green actually have to justify their loans or give some sort of, you know, *plan*. Automakers get to jump through hoops to explain their lousy business plans and practices, but banks and other financial firms get a pass.

Gotta love the MGM icon logo they designed for the film. http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/8c/200px-Mgm-2001.jpg ...and ditched by MGM (even though it's way cool and decades ahead of it's time)

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
http://answers.com/then
http://answers.com/than
Cheers,
Ryan

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
http://answers.com/then
http://answers.com/than
Cheers,
Ryan

I think you put far more effort in to that post than the content of your message warranted.

Recension
1. A critical revision of a text incorporating the most plausible elements found in varying sources.
2. A text so revised.

From answers.com

Unfortunately, you can't type "rule 34" with the left side (although your right hand is probably busy).

I also agree that it's nonsense, but along those same lines, apparently part of the Apollo 11 contingency plans if the astronauts were not able to successfully take off from the moon after landing was for NASA to cut off communications and let them die "alone". The national archives has a draft copy of the speech that Nixon would have given had that happened.

http://www.answers.com/topic/in-event-of-moon-disaster

Answers.com isn't the most authoritative source out there, but there's plenty of other stuff online to verify this info if you care to look.

I also don't quite see a reason why it should be more difficult to build very high power electric engines than combustion ones.

The problem isn't being able to build the engine -- the problem is having a power source for that engine. If you assume that the typical truck has anywhere from 300 to 650 horsepower that works out to 224 to 485 kilowatts. Do you know of a battery technology (even on the drawing board) that could deliver that type of power in a reasonable weight? I don't.

Well what do you consider reasonable weight. If you think about a truck pulling 40 tonnes, batteries weighing 1-2 tonnes is quite reasonable IMO. The problem is probably more the distance out of one charge, so they would only be feasible for relatively short distances.

I also don't quite see a reason why it should be more difficult to build very high power electric engines than combustion ones.

The problem isn't being able to build the engine -- the problem is having a power source for that engine. If you assume that the typical truck has anywhere from 300 to 650 horsepower that works out to 224 to 485 kilowatts. Do you know of a battery technology (even on the drawing board) that could deliver that type of power in a reasonable weight? I don't.

It is refreshing to see that Obama is pulling from academia and groups such as ICANN, rather than just from industry to populate his cabinet. I believe that those that have served in industry can offer some of the best insight into policy, but choosing a significant number of executives definitely skews policy in the wrong direction. For that matter, having too many of any one group leads to problems.

I hope that Obama can see beyond what his party wants, and make decisions based on advice from all sides. Lincoln and Kennedy were both known for filling their cabinets with diverse members from a wide political and social background. After the fiasco at the Bay of Pigs Kennedy sought to limit group think - where all dissenting opinions are squashed by excessive group homogeneity - Kennedy specifically divided up similar advisors and brought in outside experts to help successfully diffuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. He had the political savvy to understand that difficult decisions have no right answer, just answers that are more or less positive for everyone.

Hopefully Obama will balance his cabinet appointments in a similar way. Drawing from universities is a good start, but some industry experts mixed into the bunch is an excellent step in the right direction as well. As L. B. Johnson said of Hoover, "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in." It's better to have dissenting opinions inside helping you make positive choices, rather than showering you from outside and making your life more difficult.

Can you really call a rover a "spacecraft"?

Yes, because it's in space. I'm guessing you falsely don't consider Mars to be part of space.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Might I suggest "workaholic", "inconsiderate" or "preoccupied" as replacements?

Ok, I'm sure this is a troll, but I'll bite. It really is scapegoat, and the source of the word is from the Hebrew story of Aaron sacrificing a goat which bore the sins of his people. This event is celebrated on the Jewish Holiday of Yom Kippur. Hmm... I guess Jews have a goat, Christians have a lamb
http://www.answers.com/topic/scapegoat

As I've said, the research I've read say otherwise (I'm unaware of like research that contradicts these results); I don't have a link right now, but you could try googling a bit. The research was conducted in Sweden and the conclusion is that gay marriages have 50% more chance of ending in divorce than heterosexual marriages.

Well that didn't take long. You know, when you're dealing with a study like this, you can't just look at the numbers and draw your own conclusions. You have to look at why the numbers came out to be the way they did. That's what the authors of the study did, and here's what they had to say: The authors cited that this may be due to same-sex couples "non- involvement in joint parenthood", "lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions" as well as differing motivations for getting married. Soooo, you're arguing that children will be negatively affected by the divorce rate, when the divorce rate actually seems attributable to the lack of children.

And gays should not be singled out, I agree. They should join a group of singles who also shouldn't be able to adopt (again, children need two parents, it's too much for a single parent), financially unstable (we don't want adopted kids to eat out of a garbage can, or steal because they don't have food...), drug abusers etc, etc.

How big of you. You're not going to single out homosexual couples, you're just going to treat them differently than heterosexual couples. You're equating two entirely different things. When you do an adoption, your life is examined by the authorities to determine stable homelife. You're letting them bypass this annoying step by just assuming that if the couple is gay they're clearly unstable. Also, lets take a look about your comment on single parent families. From answers.com on the topic: "One out of every two children in the United States will live in a single-parent family at some time before they reach age 18. According the United States Census Bureau, in 2002 about 20 million children lived in a household with only their mother or their father. This is more than one-fourth of all children in the United States." So, guess all those kids were doomed and living by eating out of garbage cans, eh?

Let's keep in mind, it's not about homosexuals, it's about children. We want a safe and stable home for them. If someone is too impatient for research to be carefully done and is willing (and is, apparently, very aggressive about it) to gamble with children's fate then he/she/they is extremely selfish and because of that unfit to be a parent/parents.

No, it's not about the children. Being married does not confer an automatic right to adopt, and I rather doubt the majority of these couples would be trying to. Believe it or not, there are other reasons to get married than to have/adopt kids. They're largely the same reasons that childless hetrosexual couples marry.

Here's how I'd handle the situation; get in touch with institutes that usually do sociological and medical research in countries gay adoptions are allowed and fund them (separately, without each other knowing about it) to find out the impact on children, what's best and worst case scenarios, with a wide range of things to monitor. If the objectively attained results are favorable present them to the people and governments in non-aggressive way and let them vote about it. Sure, it takes a lot of time, but keep in mind - it's about the children.

What's with the focus on children. The topic is gay marriage, not adoption by gay couples. You're giving me plenty of reasons why you're against allowing gay couples to adopt, but again, marriage does not confer an automatic right to adopt children. I'm curious though, with

That was an extremely interesting post, but these carbon-nanotube speakers are not vibrating at all! Read the article, they put a laser vibrometer on the thing, and didn't detect a single movement. Now, you have to admit that's pretty great. They think it is happening because of rapid oscillation of temperature, which is what happens with a thermophone. Which is an obscure little thing I had never heard of. They unfortunately don't mention anything about sound quality, but it at least matches youtube's! The idea of carbon nano-tube speakers is something I had not considered, but is definitely cool. I was actually, believe it or not, daydreaming about better headphone speakers last night. Not that I actually have any clue how to do it.