Slashdot Mirror

A liger's cells reproduce.

But a liger doesn't. That was the point. You can't break an item into its constituents bypass the statement on the whole item. If so, I can say that the atoms a liger's cells comprise of do not reproduce. This will also be as much missing of the point as your division of liger into its cells to determine whether it reproduces.

How would fire meet adaption?

adaption: the act of adapting.
adapt: to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or modify fittingly

A wood fire, when in contact with cotton, can start burning diesel. It has modified the chemical reaction, as per requirements. Requirement is of increasing its own size/intensity. Opportunity is the contact with diesel. Fire is opportunistic, and in that sense, adapts.

And how would it fit organisation

Fire organizes itself into different zones. Each zone has its
own characteristics, and even responsibilities if you will.

or response to stimuli?

Taken in its most elemental form, this phrase just means reactions to actions applied to an object. These particular words have acquired the connotations such that they only apply to "life as we know it" - the Nucleic Acid based life. Since fire is most decidedly not "life as we know it", of course it does not apply to fire. But this is not because fire is not life, it is because fire is not "life as we know it".

Anything reacts to actions applied to it. Apply 1 newton force on a ball(stimuli), it will apply the 1 newton force back on you(response). Sit in a big fire(stimuli), it will burn you(response).

you don't think I know what I mean?

LIttle do you know, he moved from Barrow, Alaska.

I've been there in the dead of winter, and I'll tell you 4 things you need to know if you want to go:

1. Stay at the King Eider Inn. Nice place, stand-up owners, highly recommended. It's only bed and breakfast sized, but much nicer then you'd expect in what is otherwise pretty much a slum town.
2. Under no circumstances eat at Pepe's.
3. Try throwing a full cup of boiling water in the air. It freezes almost instantly at -40 degrees or lower. -40C == -40F BTW. It was -50ish when I was there, which is apparently close to record lows.
4. Leave before you lose your mind.

On top of which -- and not cited by snopes -- many sources claim that the Romans didn't actually have war chariots in the years that most of those old roads were built. They did have chariots, but the chariots were uncommon and were ceremonial and racing vehicles. The claim is that the Romans found that chariots were difficult to manage in combat and about as likely to exit the field through the friendly forces as they were to engage the enemy.

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

The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans. Not quite. Read on McDuff. And look, even more refutation. Are we done with this canard yet?

Yes quite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently measured to be 0.038%. A staggering 0.28% of that is directly attributable to human beings. I can keep this up as long and probably longer than you can...

The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.

Not quite. Read on McDuff. And look, even more refutation.

Are we done with this canard yet?

Anybody every notice how similar the words orogenesis and erogenous are?

Plus, you have: Thrusting, dikes, cleavage

Geologists are perverts.

Anybody every notice how similar the words orogenesis and erogenous are?

Plus, you have: Thrusting, dikes, cleavage

Geologists are perverts.

You keep repeating this claim, but aside from having a larger screen real estate (which is hardware rather than software anyway), can you tell us just exactly what you can do with the iPad that you can't do on an iPod that justifies the claim "order of magnitude more capable"?

Like I said elsewhere, take a look at the iWork-demo. Would ANY of that work on an iPhone? Seriously? How would you make it work? Are you going to claim that iWork running on the iPad would be only marginally better than iWork running on an iPhone?

As far as I can see, there's very little difference beyond the hardware. WikiAnswers claims the difference is that you can "browse the web and read ebooks" - I haven't used an iPod but I assumed you could already do those things

Sure, and iPhone is pretty good at both of them. But I think that it's safe to say that iPad will be better at those tasks. OR do you also think that browsing the web on an iPhone is nothing special, since you could browse the web on a Windows Mobile phone long before iPhone was released?

my GF can certainly do both on her iPhone and I read that the iPad uses the same OS and will likely run all the same apps.

There will be specific iPad-apps (like iWork). iPad will run all iPhone-software, but iPhone will not run iPad-software. And that's just logical, since iPad-software will be designed for the bigger screen, and they would not work on the iPhone.

You may be right here, I can't say having not used one but I can say two things. Firstly there are as many people singing the praises of the iPad as there are people complaining, and the vast majority of both sections haven't had a chance to use one

But the people who have used it, seem to be very impressed by it.

iPod touch is very succesfull product, and iPad is order of magnitude more capable than the touch is.

The mistake people are doing is staring at the hardware-specs, and proclaiming the iPad as "nothing but oversized iPod touch", when the key thing is the software. You can do things on the Ipad that would simply not be possible on the iPod touch.

You keep repeating this claim, but aside from having a larger screen real estate (which is hardware rather than software anyway), can you tell us just exactly what you can do with the iPad that you can't do on an iPod that justifies the claim "order of magnitude more capable"? As far as I can see, there's very little difference beyond the hardware. WikiAnswers claims the difference is that you can "browse the web and read ebooks" - I haven't used an iPod but I assumed you could already do those things, my GF can certainly do both on her iPhone and I read that the iPad uses the same OS and will likely run all the same apps.

It's also a massive strawman to say the iPod was successful and to extrapolate from that that because the iPad is a more "capable" version of the iPod that it will also be successful. Their key purpose is largely different. The iPod is a portable music player primarily and is priced much cheaper than the iPad. Making a bigger, more expensive version of it doesn't guarantee success as you lose all of the advantages of the small form factor, nobody's going to be at the gymn jogging with their iPad, or carrying it on the bus. That doesn't mean it won't be successful within its own market, I just think that market will be a very niche one, you can't even begin to compare it to the iPod in terms of potential customers.

It's no surprise that the people who complain about the iPad are people who haven't used one. The ones that have used one, seem to have an opposite opinion. And that's because you can complain about the specs even if you just saw them listed on a piece of paper, but in order to have an opinion regarding the software and actual use of the device, you have to actually USE the device, as opposed to stare at a bunch of specs in a website.

You may be right here, I can't say having not used one but I can say two things. Firstly there are as many people singing the praises of the iPad as there are people complaining, and the vast majority of both sections haven't had a chance to use one, the way you word it you make it sound like everyone's a non-believer until the second they put their hands on the device and go through a conversion of faith. Secondly, call me cynical but I'll wait until there are more of these in the wild before I listen to opinion - I have no way of knowing if the devices have been sent to reviewers more likely to give favourable reviews, or if other incentives have been offered to ensure favourable reviews, and for that reason I'll wait until I see the opinions of real end-users rather than trusting to these very early overviews (and the fact is, nobody's yet had a chance to spend any time living with the device, it's only after using it for a few weeks that you'll get a real view of what it's like).

If it's a lot more than an oversized iPod Touch, then it's also a lot less, because you lose functionality as well as gain by the form factor switch.

and what lobbyists are you talking about? that's funny

these are the facts (not propaganda):

if you have an obscure artist, and they are not reexposed to a mass audience, they make no money. fact

if an independent artist reexposes the obscure artist, money can be made via ancillary means off that obscure artist again. fact

however, current law means the independent artist cannot reexpose the obscure artist, because they can't afford the rights... to something no one wants... until they get reexposed. fact, fact, fact. something smell weird to you?

http://www.answers.com/topic/annette-hanshaw

Collections of Hanshaw's recording were released on Audio CD in 1999 by Sensation Records. Another revival of interest occurred in 2008 with the indie animated feature Sita Sings the Blues, which retold the Indian epic poem the Ramayana from Sita's perspective by setting scenes from it to performances by Hanshaw.[4]

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/03/17/f-sita-sings-the-blues.html

"I thought about it a good long time before I did it," Paley said in an email to CBC news. "The decision was motivated by both stick and carrot. Stick: the conventional distribution system isn't working any more; independent filmmakers make virtually no money via commercial distributors anyway; copyright today functions as censorship. Carrot: letting people share the film gives it the widest possible exposure and outsources the otherwise expensive and laborious work of distribution, archiving and promotion to the audience; freedom feels great."

Not that she wouldn't mind a donation. The Questioncopyright.org website has made it easy for fans to donate to help Paley with her bills. Because, behind Sita 's story of supernatural struggle lies a titanic clash over copyright.

Much of the soundtrack to Sita is provided by the music of Annette Hanshaw, the 1920s singer who popularized Am I Blue?. The copyright on her recordings was never renewed, but in the U.S. at least, elements of the work remain protected. The rights holders initially wanted a lot of cash before Paley could release her film. Eventually, they came to an agreement: if she paid $50,000 for the rights, she could release as many as 5,000 copies of Sita on DVD. Promotional copies would be exempt.

And that's why Sita is free. It's a promotion.

Some have suggested that Paley should have negotiated the rights before finishing the film. She feels now that the technology has finally arrived to allow a person to make a feature-length film of their own, the copyright laws often prevent independent filmmakers from having their films released.

"I would do nothing differently," said Paley "It costs money even to talk to the copyright holders; when we tried approaching them directly, they gave us the runaround. So, I had to pay a rights clearance house (and a lawyer before that). I didn't have that money back when I started, any more than I have it now. And licensors offer no special discounts for contacting them early. The only 'deals' they make are because someone knows someone who knows someone. That's how the middlemen stay in business. I had other things to do, like actually make the film, and I had no money. I'm glad I focused on making the film."

here's some more "propaganda" for you:

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18202

Capone: The songs selections here are inspired at times. I really liked the Gordon Lightfoot song "Beautiful."

V.G.: Thank you. The amount of time I spent choosing the music of the film would be unbelievable to you. The funny thing is, when it's not right, you spend all your time playing songs for people saying, "What do you think of this one? How about this one? How about this one

That's all nice and well, but it's over-simplifying the problem.

Laminated glass is actually two layers of tempered glass; one on the inside and another on the outside. The laminate (plastic sheet) is sandwiched between the glass layers. You can brush-up on it here.

A crack doesn't normally form on its own with such glass, except in extreme heat/cold situations. The most common cause of cracks in tempered-glass laminates is “punctures” from high-speed flying debris. The puncture occurs as the debris breaks the outer glass layer. Even if the laminate isn't punctured, the inner glass may crack from the impact.

A crack will form over a span of time—sometimes days, sometimes months—due to a combination of environmental extremes and torsion strain. These cracks form in both panes of glass simultaneously, since a crack in one half leads to a structural vulnerability in the other half. The crack will eventually “race” paths across the windshield until it finds an edge. Such cracks are not inherently dangerous, but the windshield is no longer as strong as it should be.

So, there's two problems with this proposed spray-on “fix”: (1) The fluid may not actually penetrate into the crack, and even if it does, the laminate prevents it from filling to the other side; and (2) the dust, particles and residues would become permanently trapped in the shallow layer, only to reflect more light and make the windshield worse than before. (like dust/smears you can't wipe off)

Best solution; just take your windshield to an on-the-spot crack repair. They use a pressurized applicator that injects fluid at the original “puncture”. It's cheap, it saves you from replacing the windshield in a year, and many comprehensive insurance policies actually cover it.

As for the “liquid glass”, the purposes listed in TFA sound utterly sensible; a surface treatment that's easy to disinfect, durable and practically germ-proof. I can't wait to have my counter-tops done!

Manufacturing costs are a lot lower.

True, but production time is much longer--in the range of 340 to 342 day per mule

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

Can't you?

Maybe there's more to this story, but it'll end up being something rather mundane.

I worked for a time at a chip fab in Allentown PA and they were slavish about the use of only sand to lay down over icy walkways in the winter. The least amount of urea or sand was said to 'poison' the chips despite the mammoth water filtration system in the basement.

The contamination they're worried about is not from process water, I would wager.

One day you might handle lots of distraction at the level of a fighter pilot, but the next day have the flu or you're hung over.
Whatever happened to equality in the eyes of the law, justice is blind and other such misguided populist notions?

In 1999 the USAF had 4,200 fighter pilots. Military Fighter Pilot.

In 2006 the US had 203 million licensed drivers. Licensed Drivers by Age and Gender, 2006

The essence of impairment is that you don't know how badly you are impaired. That is why it is reasonable to adopt a rule that offers a good margin of safety for everyone on the road.

Rule G (1915)

"Many residential homes in the US have 100 amp service.

Most have 200. 400 is usually available at extra cost.*"

*citation need

Got it right here, says you're wrong

New construction homes get 200 amp, but even as recent as 2006 builders were providing 100 amp and 200 amp as an upgrade. This electrician in Wisconsin recommends 100 amps for house under 2,000 sq/ft. I don't exactly know date when 200 amp became the standard for new construction but it's clear 100 amp is the norm for your average pre-owned home. 400 amp service for a residence basically doesn't exist unless you have extreme circumstances, like you were dumb enough to buy a 15kW tankless electric water heater (idiot should have bought gas) that's sucking down 130 amps when in use.

    There's really nothing to keep an employer from being vindictive. Sure, go back to court and say They aren't playing nice with me." If a company really felt they had to keep you, they may just do something like open a site in the Antarctic, with just one machine and one employee, and you would be in charge of the site.

    It's not like that ever happens though.

    Hey, it'd be a high seniority position. Site manager is much more important that code monkey, right? :) Of course, it's a long walk home after they notify you that they've decided to terminate services there. "Promotions" aren't always what they seem.

    I was reading about someone who did win the case against their employer. They were given a very nice office, a big title, and a secretary. They had absolutely no responsibilities, and no work to do. He was being paid to warm his chair from 9am to 5pm. He did that for a decade, and admitted that he was bored out of his skull. They didn't like him working there, but didn't want to end up in court again if they tried to terminate him again. Because the level of distrust was there, they couldn't assign him any work.

The word you're looking for is kakistocracy. http://www.answers.com/topic/kakistocracy

For the period January 1990 to February 28, 2002 the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recorded 1,055 incidents of bombs being placed in school premises.

And apparently, there are 125,000 schools in the US

.

So, assuming an even spread (no two "bombs" in the same school), a school has a 0.84% (less than 1 in 100) chance of being involved in a single incident over the last 12 years. Now, IIRC, US schools run on the four-year system (grades 1-4 in one school, 5-8 in another, 9-12 in the third, right?), which means that over 12 years, that's three generations of kids going through the doors - two-thirds of the student population over the time listed, even if their school was "hit", weren't a student there when it happened anyway.

If my 8am math is working right, that gives your school a 0.281% chance of being involved in a "bomb incident" during your child's four year stay. And that's before you start removing the incidences where the bomb is an alarm clock with a few wires sticking out (the "I didn't do my homework" bomb) rather than an actual explosive of any kind.

Completely agree.
Since the 80's, americans have lost the last of the respect they had for scientists previously (since perhaps the 40's?)

Meanwhile, they increasingly pay smart, non-science positions increasingly disproportionate amounts of money.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_salaries_in_the_1950s

In the 50's, average pay was $3000.
Scientists who were "middle class" (or perhaps higher, earned as much as $10,000).

So far so good, since $46k is the average today and scientists earn about $138k... oh wait, actually their pay is more like $70-80k but senior ones can make $110k.. past their we are talking about the top edge of the bell curve these days.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/06/25/305448/index.htm
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/workshops/AppliedEcon/archive/pdf/FrydmanSecondPaper.pdf

CEO's received, in adjusted for inflation year 2000 dollars, $500,000 annual salaries in the 1950's.
So they earned about 150x the average national salary. A princely sum. But nothing near the 6,000x the average national wage today.

Here's the problem...
A person who wants to go to a ski resort or to a nice beach can save up enough money to compete with a 1950's CEO salary.
There is no hope of competing with the current ultra rich. You could save your entire lifetime and they could out bid you with an hour's wages.

---
So meanwhile back to scientists... they produce the work-- but management has highjacked their compensation. If CEO's were earning a million a year today, then scientists could be earning the $150k average that would justify the expense and effort that goes into acquiring a degree in science.

Meanwhile, the US remains the world's biggest polluter ...

China is the number 1 polluter (and the gap is widening, not shrinking). http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_top_10_polluting_countries_in_the_world

... quality of life in a healthy economy depends on being able to produce useful products and provide useful services. You don't get points in the long run if all you do is "manage" things and provide "financial services" and other secondary details.

Hmmm. Methinks you exagerrate a bit. Here is a list off the top of my head:

World class: Passenger jets, Large construction equipment, Medical devices (CT, MRI, Ultrasound, Lab automation), Pharmaceuticals, Weapon systems (military jets, missiles, missile defense systems), Satellites, Semiconductors, Networking gear

Competitive: Automobiles, Computers, Cell phones, furniture

Sure, there are things no longer made in the US that were in the past such as consumer electronics (TVs, stereos, DVD players), but the list is actually fairly short, and mostly populated by lower cost (lower value added) products.

Oh, and your dismissive attitude regarding the US military reminds me of a favorite movie quote (some parts redacted; [] inserted by me for readability):

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? ...[We] have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. ... you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what [we] know. ... And that [our] existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. [We] know deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you don't want [us] on that wall, you need [us] on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. [We] have neither the time nor the inclination to explain [ourselves] to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom [we] provide, then question the manner in which [we] provide it. [We] prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, [we] suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, [we] don't give a damn what you think ...

from A Few Good Men [1992]

P.S:

Here's a selection of Bible quotes advocating the killing of non-Christians, or those who are perceived to violate Christian tenets.

And some articles about contemporary Christians advocating the deaths of non-believers and sinners, sometimes taking efforts to cause those deaths.

Non of these have signed an extradition treaty with the USA. Granted if you are enough of a ass-hat they will simple come get you or send someone to put a bullet in your head. See the countries we have decimated "looking" for Bin Laden. P.S: that took 3 seconds on google to get this list. did you even try?

Bhutan
Botswana
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Chad
China
Comoros
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Guinea

Many more, slashdot filters are crappy and cant tell a list from ascii porn. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_countries_have_no_extradition_treaties_with_the_United_States

I guess it depends which medical school you studied at, and which text books you read.

However Google returns 65,300 hits for lub dup, and 11,200,000 hits for lub dub. So if google is any indication, I am "right" and you are "wrong"...

    Christianity comes from Judaism.

    Read More and more and more.

    Pretty much if they use the Old and/or New Testament bibles, they fall into the category "judeo-christian".

    If you're wishing me a Merry Christmas, you should already be familiar with this.

Bequeath

> In other news, a ton of bricks actually does weigh more than a ton of feathers.

Nope, it is a pound of feathers *really* weights more than a pound of gold.

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

apparently you haven't seen the video of a bart police officer shooting in the back a man who was being held face down on the ground by other officers

In 1999 1.5 million vehicles crossed the Blue Water Bridge at Port Huron Michigan. Blue Water Bridge Canada

The US has a population of 300 million people and employs about 700,000 police officers. Q: How many police officers are employed in the United States

It is easy to find an incident but it is much harder to prove a pattern.

We're both wrong: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Body_part_with_most_nerve_endings

Another word not in there is "poop", synonymous with poo, bot unlisted as another word for faeces.

Compare Google Dictionary's result: http://www.google.co.uk/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=poop

which merely lists poop deck, with Answes.com's: http://www.answers.com/topic/poop

which is comprehensive and exactly what you'd expect from a dictionary.

I'd say Google fails pretty badly on this (relatively childish) example and isn't up to the job (or should that be jobbie).

Do this mean I'm not going to get answer to this question on answers.com: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_when_its_time_to_poop

if you divide the population of the planet into families of 4, and gave each family a house with a yard (suburbanite america style) that we would all fit into a city the size of Texas

That statistic is absurd. The planet will run short of food, water, and clean air - not to mention unspoiled wildlands - far before we physically run out of places to stack bodies. For every single one of us in the US there is an average of 7.5 acres of farmland somewhere. That's just farmland, not grazing land, not aquifer/reservoir, not trees to make wood and paper and oxygen, not mines for ore, not landfill for the trash. What is the big drive to pack as many apes on the planet as possible? I don't get it.

An online survey isn't science, (If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane)

What "important" things could one even do if these results WERE valid? Pass legislation reguarding education and literacy? From what I can see, using flawed studies is pretty much par for the course in how we set some of our policies.

That whole "prayer in school" thing for example. Things like this are apperantly convincing to some people.

The logical fallacy is only because the quote has gotten distorted severely over the years. The original saying, translated to English from Old French, reads "Bad workers will never find a good tool." This version makes much more sense.

Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/a-bad-workman-blames-his-tools.

A 767 most certainly is intercontinental. 5,200 nautical miles as a minimum range according to wikipedia, which will get you from San Francisco to Japan. Go to the higher ranges, and you easily cross between continents. New York to Paris is only 3,600 some miles.

Can't we get someone who's first language is English to proof-read these things?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/definitively

http://www.answers.com/definitely
http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/06/16/the-most-misspelled-word-definitely/

to make it illegal for a company to screw with my console

In fact, it is you that are screwing with that company's console first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
It's a long article, but it gives you some background to why this is just a popular proverb, and not real law:
http://www.answers.com/topic/possession-is-nine-points-of-the-law

You can find the reference to the employee handbook in the comments wrt his latest brain fart.

Also, the word "pussy" is not obscene (no, the poster didn't use the "c" word). The general consensus is that Kurt Greenbaum is a pussy for over-reacting.

There's a difference between vulgar and obscene. As an editor with "27 years of experience", Greenbaum should know this. Then again, what do you expect from someone who is "director of social media" and but doesn't know how to set up a simple filter in Wordpress.

He hoaxed everyone by claiming that the word wos obscene - it's not - and arm-waving about "it's from a school! OMG Children!!!"

And now the truth is out, the story is all over the place, and the net is striking back http://kurtgreenbaum.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/kgreenbaum/2852790661/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/kgreenbaum/4029911338/ - and of course the news media are also covering the story.

For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"

"for all intents and purposes" is what you're looking for there.

To whom are you speaking? ;-)

http://www.answers.com/spartan 2b...

If you are speaking Latin, the plural of campus is campi. If you are speaking English, it's campuses.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campus
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Plural_of_campus
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campi
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-151248.html
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/campus

Both are valid. Campuses is standard, campi is not.

*shrugs*

According to this (I didn't verify any facts) - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_of_the_Earths_surface_is_inhabited_by_humans

About 1% of the surface is inhabited. So, an impact should directly affect people about once every 500 years. Maybe it's the next time?

That 1% is a shit answer. The link you provided states that 90% of the population occupies 3% of the land. That says nothing about how much of the remaining 97% of the land is occupied by the remaining 10% of the population.

For example, a very large farm would have a population density that would put it square into that nebulous 97%, but I would consider that farm to be part of the human habitat in that it is used to cultivate food to support the 90% of us who live in densely-populated areas.

According to this (I didn't verify any facts) - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_of_the_Earths_surface_is_inhabited_by_humans

About 1% of the surface is inhabited. So, an impact should directly affect people about once every 500 years. Maybe it's the next time?

The winning excavator from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts lifted 500 kilograms within the allotted time.

[The article lists all weights in kilograms]

That's not necessarily true... If a tree happens to fall down on top of your car, then that is a random event!

Regardless, yes the majority of the times someone is at fault. The only serious accident I have been in involved an 85 year old lady T-boning my car at an intersection because she ran a red light. It was her fault, but it was still an accident.

http://www.answers.com/accident

By the definition of an accident, I don't believe most people drive with the intent of hitting someone else and potentially ruining the rest of their life.

People are going to use that phrase wrong and no amount of education will help this.

People are going to use that word incorrectly and no amount of education will help this.

http://www.answers.com/wrong

adj 4 Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.
adj 5 Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the wrong way to shuck clams.

adv 1 In a wrong manner; mistakenly or erroneously.

It seems to me he used it correctly.

No. But you do torture people in Guatanamo.

Did I say we were saints today compared to in the past? No. My point was that we're not becoming more IMMORAL, in fact I think we're becoming more MORAL as a society for the aforementioned reasons and more.

Torture still does go on, but there's far more opposition to it than in the past. During the spanish inquisition, there were no protests. Today, we do tell our government we want them to stop the torture.

While all torture is inhumane, the state-sponsored torture that goes on at Guantanamo is, er, not quite as primitive at least as the state-sponsored torture that went on through history. We're not using iron maidens or hot pokers, we're using water. Not to trivialize it, torture in any form is immoral, but if I had to choose, I'd prefer the torture that is going on currently over more traditional methods.

But you do kill people in Iraq.

Our government kills people in Iraq. A lot of us were opposed to the Iraq war. There is a much higher percentage of the populace that openly opposed the Iraq war than most other pointless wars. Again going back to the crusades, polling data wasn't available, but its safe to assume there was a lot less controversey about it on the part of the public. To me, that indicates we've become more moral and more opposed to violence, not less.

Wars in the past was fairly small scale compared to industrialized death and destruction.

No. 620,000 people died in the american civil war, over 60 million people died in world war 2.

Iraq war casualties estimates vary widely, most sources seem to be saying below 200,000, one says 600,000, and one is up to a million. I haven't done more than glance at that page, but you can't tell me that WWII is small compared to this.

I suppose you might count WWII as a modern war, which would be fair. But the people who believe the world is in moral decline say it started around the '60s, not before WWII. Again, if we are becoming more immoral as they say, at least we're less violent.

The resulting material contained clusters of nickel atoms no bigger than 10 square nanometers -- a pinhead has a diameter of 1 million nanometers

We are so close to answering the ancient question — how many angels would fit on a pinhead? The prevailing opinion is, angels are ethereal beings, and thus infinite number of them would fit anywhere. But information is not tangible either (some even refuse to accept, that it can be owned), and yet obvious — if ever shrinking — limits exist to information concentration...

According the the National Bureau of Economic Research (the official arbiter of recessions) the current recession began in December 2007.

Reference (Sorry, I'd look for the reference on NBER's site but I'm at work and can't stay on /. THAT long!)