Slashdot Mirror

This is just another of the many inputs for gathering fingerprints of every (soviet) American. For inclusion in the uberjoined database that BushCo will outsource to their old Iran/Contra IT wing, ChoicePoint and DataBase Technologies.

Securitized for Your Protection (TM).

Young College Graduates Are Struggling. Guess One (Unmentionable) Reason

This spring, thousands of young Americans are graduating from college. They and their tuition-strapped parents regard the degree as a good investment--a ticket to financial independence and a better life. Unfortunately, the labor market no longer seems to share this view.

The real wages of young college graduates (ages 25 to 35) fell in 2004 for the third consecutive year. According to figures complied by the Economic Policy Institute, "Young College Graduates Face Weak Labor Market," Job Watch, May 6, 2005.] Between 2001 and 2004, the real wages of young college graduates dropped from $23.04 per hour to $22.41 per hour.

Employment is finally turning around, but not fast enough to soak up the influx of new college grads. Thus the employment rate of young graduates in 2004 was 85.2 percent, down from 87.4 percent in 2000. It has been 20 years since the fraction of young college graduates with jobs has been as low as it was in 2003 and 2004.

It's trendy to blame the declining economic fortunes of the college-educated on outsourcing or the post-bubble collapse of high-tech. But immigration may be, as usual, the factor that dare not speak its name.

Immigrants represent a rapidly growing share of the college educated workforce--and an even larger fraction of the educated unemployed. (Table 1.)

From 2000 to 2003 (the latest year of available data):

• The college-educated labor force grew by 10.3 percent
• The foreign-born college educated labor force grew 24.6 percent
• The U.S.-born college educated labor force grew 8.2 percent

The growth rate of college-educated immigrants was three-times that of college-educated natives.

This occurred despite the post 911 slowdown in student visa processing. This also occurred despite a doubling of the unemployment rate of college-educated foreigners.

Economists call this a "supply-shock" --a situation where excess labor causes wages to fall.

The role of college-educated foreigners in depressing wages of U.S. natives is brought home by Harvard economist (and Cuban immigrant) George Borjas. In his seminal Quarterly Journal of Economics paper [The Labor Demand Curve Is Downward Sloping: ] Borjas concludes that immigration 1980-2000 reduced wages of the average U.S.-born worker by 3.2 percent in 2000.

The reduction varied dramatically among education levels. Native high-school dropouts suffered an 8.9 percent wage reduction. But even college-educated natives suffered an above-average reduction of 4.9 percent.

The impact was greatest on college graduates with 11-15 years of work experience - i.e., most likely to have

You guys are both effing hilarious. When will people realize that the two parties here in the US are nothing more than the corporate interests putting on a donkey puppet on one hand and an elephant puppet on the other hand...

Left Hand: "Vote for me!"

Right Hand: "No! Vote for me, that one over there is evil!"

Left Hand: "No no no! They're the evil ones. Really. Vote for me"

etc. etc. etc.

Meanwhile, you idiots fall for it with your little 'Us & Them' spats.

Do something about it. If it's zombies you want, vote for this guy. At least you know he'll bring some fresh blood to Washington DC.

The 3do was $700 US when it wa first launched. Adjusted for inflation, it has an even higher price. From Answeres.com, "the 3DO console itself was priced at $700." - http://www.answers.com/topic/the-3do-company-1/

whine, see def 2, i think he spelt it just fine you whiney little bitch

I can't believe we're not talking about people with synesthesia or who don't have wisdom teeth.

The mutants are among us already.

It's a little sad that most people still don't understand the difference between speed and acceleration. When I first read about the Scientific Revolution as a kid, the writer spent a lot of time sneering at medieval scholars who stubornly stuck to Aristotle's physics despite all the experimental evidence showing that it was wrong. But as far as most people are concerned (including the script writers on Star Trek) Aristotle has never been debunked.

First, there's a huge difference between the origin of the first self-replecating organism, and the outcome of billions of years of a completely different process. In other words, you absolutely can have one without the other.

Is a lightning strike identical to the process of a forest fire burning? No.

If you're going to propose a kind of bizarre Creationism variant in which J Random Deity sets the ball rolling and then runs away and hides to see what happens, I'm going to start laughing again.

Bizarre? You've never heard of Deism? It's been around a lot longer than you have. As Handy would say on The Tick, "Read a book!"

Laugh all you want, you still haven't responded to my challenge of explaining what YOU think happened.

PPC can switch big/little endian

Support for operation as in both Big-Endian and Little-Endian modes; the PowerPC can switch from one mode to the other at run-time. This feature is not supported in the PowerPC G5. (This is the reason why Virtual PC won't run on the G5 yet.)

Something like this?
http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/b/bb/Big _Book_of_Hell.gif

Nice straw man. I'm not asserting anything about good/bad, and it so happens I'm not arguing my personal values either. I'm making a claim about what I think is the objective reality of the opinion people (Americans) have of the LDS church; that a lot of people find (or found) those current and former practices of the LDS church extreme or offensive, in contradiction to the post to which I responded. Because it's a claim about objective reality, it's subject to verification (if someone wants to do the work). I've backed my assertion with external references to some evidence that supports my claim. If you've got evidence that polygamy is "acceptable" in the U.S., let's see it. ("acceptable" means "tolerated by at least a big plurality of the Americans.) Evidence might persuade me that I'm wrong about what I think a lot of Americans think about polygamy.

...just because Frist is pandering...

That's exactly my point! Senator Frist is trying to link gay marriage to polygamy (and other things with high negatives in U.S. culture) because polygamy has much higher negatives among the general populace than does gay marriage.
QED.
The observation of Senator Frist's action is not based on what you or I think about either polygamy or gay marriage or their relationship or lack thereof, it's an observation of what a leading politician thinks will work to sway opinion to his side on the issue.

It seems that what I'm trying to communicate just isn't "coming in". I'm *not* trying to change anyone's personal opinion of any LDS doctrine or former doctrine, pro or con, nor am I trying to characterize those practices. I'm trying to express my sense of what the general sentiment of my fellow Americans is towards certain practices or former practices that Americans generally found to be extreme or offensive.

To give you some practice, here are some other similarly structured statements that I think are also true.

• In 1860, a great many Southerners supported slavery, or politicians who did so.
• Now, most people in the U.S. thinks slavery is reprehensible
• People were hanged in the American colonies for preaching a different variety of Christianity than was approved by the local government.
• Until the attack on Pearl Harbor, many Americans favored isolationism and opposed U.S. involvment in World War II.
• Most voters preferred Al Gore for president in the 2000 presidential election.
• Some Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons, even when it may save a life.
• There seems to be a correlation between fear of death and unwillingness to be an organ donor.
• Most Americans don't consider horses to be food animals.
• During the American Revolution, some colonial leaders thought that the British were using germ warefare against them.

From the Wikipedia section:
PCB mixtures have been used for a variety of applications, including dielectric fluids for capacitors and transformers, heat transfer fluids. ... Their chemical and physical stability has also been responsible for their continuing low-level persistence in the environment, and the lingering interest decades after regulations were imposed to control environmental contamination.

The "correct" design should give you results relavent to what you searched for. i.e. "Tiger" or "Tigers" should give you info about furry creatures (and potentially furry creatures in advertising and sports), because that's what you searched for.

That's what Answers.com does. Also when you google for tigers. But the word "Tiger" is the name of an important operating system, and that's what Google should find.

I'm really trying not to be a dick, but how is this diagnosis more than just a bunch of vague symptoms?

[...] no email addresses have been blacklisted.

SPEWS does not block email addresses, it lists IP addresses. [...]

And just to make it crystal clear, they even have a tech definition: "A list of e-mail addresses of known spammers."

Instead it lands on the front page of /. and all those luddites can come out and say "Look at MS! What a bunch of bastards!"

I do not think that word means what you think it means: luddite

Slashdotters typically personify many things, but 'luddite' isn't one of them. :)

Doug

tithe

http://www.answers.com/duplicity&r=67

Of course, maybe that's what you meant...

Bork Bork Bork ;-)

And some more info from Answers.com...

it would indicate libel as libel relies on accusing a person of something that would be considered illegal in a court of law.

Libel does not have to be `accusing somebody of doing something that's illegal' -- all it has to do is damage somebody's reputation. (It (the claim made) also has to be false.)

If I accuse you of having lots of one night stands with random women, that might damage your reputation, especially if you're a priest or married. But having that sex is not against the law, but my claim may still be libel -- as long as it's not true.

Truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander claims, though our legal system can make it very expensive to even defend yourself against a claim of libel, even if you have that proof.

Not really, because water, once it allows them to join, quickly forces them apart again.

Flocculation. Maybe you should study some more science instead of thinking whatever dropout your school underpaid to keep you in line during chemistry "class" in high school was the sum total of all scientific knowlege.

BTW, this is used every day in wastewater treatment to remove various organic contaminants from the water.

Good thing, too, or we wouldn't be able to digest much of those massive polymers called protein.

Next time I throw up, I'll remember that all that burning smelly stuff coming out is just water.

I have a theory regarding ASOTV. Basically, we can all agree that (s)he is either an Apple employee or a very skilled troll. The problem with the Apple employee conclusion, and the reason he draws so much flak as of late, is that (1) Apple is secretive and tends to sack leakers as a general proposition; (2) (s)he makes no secret as to his/her "employer" with gratuituous use of the royal we; (3) while (s)he is usually correct with Apple insider-type information, (s)he does slip up sometimes.

So here's my take. I think (s)he does work for Apple. Now, any ordinary Apple employee would not have held onto his/her job for so long after so much Slashdot discourse, due to (1). But what we have here is no ordinary employee.

Who does Apple want to sell Macs to right now? Everybody, sure. But some folks are more amenable to switching than others. Windows users in general hate their computers, but not because of Windows insamuch as they hate the Microsoft 2-year upgrade cycle; they loathe having to "relearn their computer" at those fixed intervals. Luna and Outlook 2003 (yuck) notwithstanding, Windows/Office transitions are a hell of a lot easier to swallow for your grandma than switching to OS X. There isn't much Apple can do about that; we, their customers, want them to make NeXTSTEP++, not Longhorn or Blackcomb. Heaven forbid they ever start trying to "bend" OS X to be more Windows-like to get the switchers.

So your mom won't necessarily buy a Mac, and Apple cannot change this. But who will buy a Mac? Linux users, BSD users, Unix users in general. Apple does, in fact, occupy the space in the market that once belonged to SGI. Like SGI, they provide a system with (proprietary but damn good) value-adds for niche markets. But unlike SGI, their machines and software are affordable, often more so than the Wintel platform, and those add-ons (Aqua, Quartz, Spotlight, Finder when it behaves) make the system amenable to users of all skill levels, not just people with root. All the better to make root switch. And if root switches, grandma will eventually follow, because root makes software which grandma will use. Or so goes the theory. (Yes, even Linus uses a Mac now, but not for OS X.)

So here's my theory: Since root's /pub is Slashdot, ASOTV has likely been given a second job by Apple management. Her/His task is to try and convince /. users, by destruction of FUD and misconceptions regarding OS X, to give Apple a fair shake. So his activities are sanctioned, perhaps secretly, by Apple; this is why he hasn't been beheaded. If you think that's a crazy proposition, try to put yourself in the shoes of upper-level management in Cupertino. You need to get Unix folks to switch to Mac, because the Windows people keep saying "Windows has more software than Mac" (never mind that 60+% is malware). Meanwhile, people on Slashdot keep posting Apple FUD from the late '90s, which works quite effectively against your goal. Solution? Deploy a secret agent.

What about (1)? If ASOTV really worked for Apple, and needs not to conceal that fact, as in (2), why the secrecy? Because while Apple may want ASOTV to talk, they don't want their other employees to. This is the essence of the secret agent! And this secret agent probably is somewhere between PR and engineering, which is why his/her information is sometimes stale, which would explain (3).

So, I say, let him/her do her job. Since most Slashdot users bash Microsoft on a daily basis, then either resume using or dual-boot into Windows XP, I think there is some nobility in the goal of getting those folks to give the Mac a spin. So, there you go... take it or leave it.

"Of all those in the army close to the commander none is more in

And a propos is two words, not one.

Wrong. Apropos

> And I rely on faith that my car will start.

Always? I guess you've never been to a high crime district or somewhere where the temperature dips below 20 degress celsius or you've never run out of gas.

> And I rely on faith that there aren't unicorns.

Chances are, this too is true. Apparently, several types of unicorns exist:
http://www.answers.com/topic/unicorn
The unicorn goat (or even the oryx) is the most likely source of the legend.

> I rely on faith for many things.

Many of which are apparently false.

Let's really put this into context. While I find this to be a complete embarrassment, I think people are overreacting. Most of the people are this board on just spouting anti-American comments. And they call us racist.

Let's face it, in a world where people burying children alive as part of a religious ceremony, kill others in the name of Allah, and believe in Papal Infallibility, this surprises you? Really?

Hopefully this will either be laughed out of existence or maybe people will realize the disservice they will be doing to their children.

But just because one school system in one state decides to question science doesn't represent the downfall of mankind, much less whole of the USA.

Seems to me that this technology has been available on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD for quite some time now in the form of Howl. It's an opensource library that supports Rendezvous/Zero Conf. I've used it for a while now to do all sorts of fun stuff. In fact, the responder portion of it even runs on the WRT54G boxes.

The only difference here is that this is the blessed client by Apple.

Well, to be accurate, if Howl is based on the opensource library for Zero Conf, that, too is blessed by Apple, as they - in the form of Stuart Cheshire - were the ones to come up with it.

http://www.answers.com/topic/zeroconf

http://www.vmeng.com/mc/archives/2002-August/00003 6.html

You think router and DNS box makers would come up with Zero Conf by themselves?

I think at this stage it is clearly a problem of people clinging to different understandings of common words.

Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet".

Let's read this.

1) To "take the initiative" means to "begin a task or plan of action". This is an idiom. It uses "initiative" in the sense of "the power to originate something," a usage dating from the late 1700s.
2) To create is obviously "To cause to exist; bring into being".

We must note, of course, that the Internet was not created instantly on a certain day - instead it was a long process, during which something that wasn't Internet (APRANET) gradually became Internet. APRANET clearly wasn't Internet, it was a precursor of it. There were several important stages - transition to TCP/IP, creation of university backbone, creation of WWW and the Internet was created throughout these steps, not in 1969 when first computers were connected via APRANET.

This basically means that Gore was one of the major forces behind the process of creation of the modern Internet, he has the right to claim what he did.

There can be an alternative way to parse the sentence. May be it meant "initiative in the process", that is noone was leading the process and noone was taking the initiative. If Gore was in fact one of the leaders, then he is still justified in claiming what he did. Was he one of the leaders? Well, I think it is a safe bet to state that on the political front he was THE leader of Internet emergence. So far no one has come forward and claimed that someone else was.

I think at this stage it is clearly a problem of people clinging to different understandings of common words.

Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet".

Let's read this.

1) To "take the initiative" means to "begin a task or plan of action". This is an idiom. It uses "initiative" in the sense of "the power to originate something," a usage dating from the late 1700s.
2) To create is obviously "To cause to exist; bring into being".

We must note, of course, that the Internet was not created instantly on a certain day - instead it was a long process, during which something that wasn't Internet (APRANET) gradually became Internet. APRANET clearly wasn't Internet, it was a precursor of it. There were several important stages - transition to TCP/IP, creation of university backbone, creation of WWW and the Internet was created throughout these steps, not in 1969 when first computers were connected via APRANET.

This basically means that Gore was one of the major forces behind the process of creation of the modern Internet, he has the right to claim what he did.

There can be an alternative way to parse the sentence. May be it meant "initiative in the process", that is noone was leading the process and noone was taking the initiative. If Gore was in fact one of the leaders, then he is still justified in claiming what he did. Was he one of the leaders? Well, I think it is a safe bet to state that on the political front he was THE leader of Internet emergence. So far no one has come forward and claimed that someone else was.

The basic definition of illegal is simply "against the law". There are civil and criminal sections of law, and running afoul of parts of either is illegal. Is it illegal to sign a contract then not hold up your end of the deal? This may be a civil case (in most situations), but is it still illegal.

When you install software you are required to accept the license agreement and all its terms. The terms of the MSDNAA include stipulations about how and when the software can be used. It is not legal for me to run an administrative application for our university using the MSDNAA licensed software.

Perhaps you should have looked harder, a quick search found:

On September 28, 2000, an email jointly signed by Vint Cerf (often called the "father of the Internet") and Robert E. Kahn stated the
following:
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even
earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises. As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer cience. As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, proximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a
commercially-driven operation.
While Gore had made many contributions to the growth of the internet during his career, his claim to have "created" it remained an exageration. It was a gaffe that Gore would himself later have fun with. On the David Letterman Show, he joked that Americans should vote for him because "I gave you the internet, and
I can take it away!"

Perhaps you should have looked harder, a quick search found:

On September 28, 2000, an email jointly signed by Vint Cerf (often called the "father of the Internet") and Robert E. Kahn stated the
following:
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even
earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises. As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer cience. As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, proximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a
commercially-driven operation.
While Gore had made many contributions to the growth of the internet during his career, his claim to have "created" it remained an exageration. It was a gaffe that Gore would himself later have fun with. On the David Letterman Show, he joked that Americans should vote for him because "I gave you the internet, and
I can take it away!"

Perhaps you should have looked harder, a quick search found:

On September 28, 2000, an email jointly signed by Vint Cerf (often called the "father of the Internet") and Robert E. Kahn stated the
following:
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even
earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises. As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer cience. As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, proximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a
commercially-driven operation.
While Gore had made many contributions to the growth of the internet during his career, his claim to have "created" it remained an exageration. It was a gaffe that Gore would himself later have fun with. On the David Letterman Show, he joked that Americans should vote for him because "I gave you the internet, and
I can take it away!"

Perhaps you should have looked harder, a quick search found:

On September 28, 2000, an email jointly signed by Vint Cerf (often called the "father of the Internet") and Robert E. Kahn stated the
following:
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even
earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises. As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer cience. As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, proximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a
commercially-driven operation.
While Gore had made many contributions to the growth of the internet during his career, his claim to have "created" it remained an exageration. It was a gaffe that Gore would himself later have fun with. On the David Letterman Show, he joked that Americans should vote for him because "I gave you the internet, and
I can take it away!"

Literacy in this context means literacy(1), not literacy(2). Being able to read street signs is all that's required for basic literacy. Of course, the definition of "basic literacy" doesn't include AOL-speak yet. Literacy in India usually means "able to sign one's name in at least one language" (basically if you don't need to use your thumbprint as identification, you're good to go).

Adn let's not forget that PG-13 came into being because of Lucas and Speilberg's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Here's a history of the ratings system from Answers.com.

Facile also means : "Arrived at without due care, effort, or examination; superficial". and "Readily manifested, together with an aura of insincerity and lack of depth".

Though, fallacious also works.

You can start here... http://www.answers.com/topic/aids-conspiracy-theor ies

Or did you mean: chuff?
Obscure

chuffed

[Brit] proud, satisfied

3. a. To achieve or attain by effort: win concessions in negotiations.

b. To obtain or earn (a livelihood, for example). See synonyms at earn.

Funny, but your version isn't in the dictionary.

Jesus teaches in parables.
We are meant to be like Jesus.
We should teach in parables.
QED.
To say that there is only one way to interpret the Bible is to have accepted everything in it without even once considering what it might mean. Example: Two whore sisters, or two whore nations?

From here:

Nuclear power plants generally cannot reheat process steam due to safety requirements for isolation from the reactor core. This limits their thermodynamic efficiency to the order of 34-36%. Subcritical fossil fuel power plants can achieve 36-38% efficiency. Super critical designs have efficiencies in the low to mid 40% range, with new "ultra critical" designs using pressures of 300 Bar and dual stage reheat reaching about 48% efficiency.

At any rate, those efficiencies aren't really "incredibly low" given the constraints on heat engines dictated by the laws of thermodynamics. For example, typical automobile engines are a good deal worse than any of the above numbers.

Wow, thats SERIOUSLY pedantic. On the level of "Monopoly players do not pass go, they can only rest their piece on top of it or jump over it" pedantic.

Why is the act of signing the bill into law not "passing" (see transitive definition 11a/b) it?

Plus if power really gets tight, we'll just loosen up the ridiculously stringent anti-nuke laws and
hopefully start building integral fast reactors out the wazoo. IFR should solve the Yucca flats problem (no long-term storage needed since IFR burns it all up to short term nucleotides), proliferation (IFR material is nearly impossible to convert to weapons material due to comingling of isotopes) and fuel shortage (burns nearly anything, decommisioned weapons material, natural material, etc). Even better not only does it get rid of high grade weapons material for good but you get the energy out in the process.
http://www.answers.com/topic/integral-fast-reactor

Mark

The theory is derived using the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the Gibbs-Boltzmann relationship. The explanation is built on probabilities including chemical kinetics, Brownian motion, Gaussian and Poisson dynamics. It is still being fleshed out but the argument is very convincing.

There are a total of six installments to alpha theory. The derivation begins here.

ahh... yes. I could type this all myself but...
this seems accurate to my understanding.

http://www.answers.com/spelt&r=67

Idiot. Kill yourself before I hunt you down and smash your fucking head open.

I have never watched Nemesis all the way from beginning to the end - whenever it's on HBO or Showtime, I might pause for a minute or two, before moving on to something else [Stargate, BG, Matrix I/II/III, Starship Troopers, whatever].

Last night as I surfed through HBO/Showtime for the umpteenth gazillion time, and didn't pause at Nemesis for more than a second or two, it finally dawned on me why I can never summon the enthusiasm to watch that damned movie: Because I don't want to waste two hours of my life watching a narcissistic, self-absorbed, self-glorifying, idolatrous paean to Patrick Stewart.

See Patrick as a young man. See Patrick as an old man. Watch Patrick the young struggle with teen angst. Watch Patrick the old struggle with octogenarian angst.

No thanks - I've got better things to do with my time.

PS: When was the last time Picard got laid? At least Kirk had the decency to leave the galaxy littered with his bastard offspring by way of union with a veritable army of hot, sexy, vixen-ish, Russ Meyer-esque, 1960's sex kittens.

I think that deep down inside, Picard may suffer from the Eton Disease.

The launch vehicle will be a derivative of existing expendable launchers and wont have anything close to the power of a Saturn V

You do realize the SatV was not a LEO launch craft, right? If used in LEO mode and all three stages the SatV could put 130 tons of *payload* in orbit. The shuttle can not do that. Weight-wise the SatV could put the shuttle in orbit. With payload.

The Shuttle can put a mere 24 tons of payload into LEO (Columbia was higher but they lowered it). That is within the (estimated) range of the Atlas V heavy. It is also within the range of the Delta IV Heavy.

Do you not also realize a SatV powered launch will put a crew of 4-6 on Mars for two years in a sizable hab?

IIRC, the science lab proposed for ISS (Italian?) was 26 tons which actually puts it out of the Shuttle's official limits.

You don't *need* to replace a 25 tons to LEO payload capacity craft with one that can put 125 tons of payload to LEO.

On the other hand, a SatV lift capability could likely launch several modules for the ISS if you could get the positioning and balance right.

so every mission profile beyond putting a tin can in LEO requires multiple launches and docking all the pieces in orbit.

You do realize that is what the Shuttle does regarding ISS, right? We put a "tin can" into orbit and then hook them up. ISS is taking, and was always designed to take, multiple launches and on-orbit assembly.

Further, the Shuttle limits the diameter of cargo to 4 meters. SatV had a 10 meter capability.
http://www.answers.com/topic/saturn-v

Both the Atlas V heavy and the Delta IV heavy have diameters of 5 meters. Even the Atlas V (non-heavy) can lift approximately as much as the Shuttle to LEO and has a meter on it in diamter as well. The Atlas V is a current model.

Also, the ISS was never designed to be built using only the shuttle. Of the 50 initially determined flights, only 39 were shuttle flights.

The high-side estimates for re-developing the SatV for today's use is in the range of 1.5-2.25 billion dollars. That is less than the MSL will cost. That is less than the cost of say 4-6 launches of the shuttle. A seat of the pants guesstimate is that a single SatV ISS lift launch would be able to replace a minimum of four modules. With crew. so if the cost to the first launch of a new SatV was 3 million the first launch of four ISS modules would replace 4 Shuttle launches at an estimated cost of about 1.6 to 2 billion dollars. That means if you then launch another set of 4 modules, you just came out ahead, as the subsequent launches don't cost the full redevelopment costs.

That said, just because the ISS has turned out the be the collossal money pit/failure many of us knew it was destined to be is no reason to throw good money after bad. Most other nations invovled in it would actually love it if it was cancelled. Some can't seem to meet their end of the deal.