Slashdot Mirror

Correct link here :P https://sites.google.com/site/...

Watch the game between the best teams in Germany, Bayern München - Borussia Dortmund live stream https://sites.google.com/site/...

"Average life expectancy has actually been going down recently, at least in the US."

That is very interesting. Can you cite a source for your statement.

Life expectancy in the USA is going up, however the USA's ranking in global life expectancy rankings is going down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
https://www.google.com/search?...

What is this Powershell terminal you speak of? If I google it, I find only

I'm not talking about the language itself, but the fact that to use Powershell I appear to have to use a single window that I can't set to the width of the screen, doesn't have tabs, has primitive cut and paste (seriously? No keyboard shortcuts and keyboard only highlighting line by line?). There's no history that can persist between sessions.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

And some third party terminals like
https://code.google.com/p/cone...

Here's a few dozen more (found by googling "er wait times billboard"):
https://www.google.com/search?...

One lesson - starting a comment with "LOL, you expect us to believe you saw" is pretty dickish in general. It looks especially dickish when you're wrong.

How many banks signed on to Google Wallet vs Apple Pay?

Zero. That's not how Google Wallet works.

I thought they already offered this?

A YouTube paid channel is a channel for which users pay a monthly or yearly subscription fee to watch its videos

I rarely reply to ACs, but since I actually based my statement on the very same Google search the AC recommended, I feel compelled to reply so everyone is clear on the definition.

Horseshit. Type "define:evangelical" into google and look at the full definition.

ok!

Google search for define: evangelical

1. of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion.

The first two hits below that are:
What is an Evangelical? which says

world-wide Protestant movement maintaining that the essence of the gospel consists in the doctrine of salvation by faith in Jesus

and What is an evangelical which says

The term "evangelical" comes from the Greek word euangelion, meaning "the good news" or the "gospel."

How is that different from my short definition of "people who believe in the gospels and follow Jesus?"

The rest just misquotes me and wanders into randomness so I won't bother replying to that part.

This guy allways frightened me.

The Wikipedia article on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill says, "The US Government estimated the total discharge at 4.9 million barrels ...." This article says, "The largest tankers trading today are comparable in size and can carry up to 2 million barrels of oil." So almost 5 million barrels were spilled in 2010, and the largest oil tanker can carry 2 million barrels.

The next time oil comes up uncontrolled from the sea floor, maybe this will work: Take an empty super-tanker, and cut a 100-foot hole in the top of it. Turn it upside-down, and lower it to the ocean floor. Lower it on top of the oil gusher, so that oil from the gusher will go into the tanker, displacing any air or water in the tanker. If the tanker fills with oil, pipe the surplus oil to another sunken tanker.

According to these images, the tops of tankers aren't completely flat. So the hole in the tanker won't be directly on the ocean floor. Since there will be a gap between the tanker and the ocean floor, there will be room under the tanker to move equipment to the gusher, to close it. While the oil company is closing the gusher, the tanker will collect the oil so that the oil doesn't pollute, and so that it isn't lost.

(If gold instead of oil were washed away, people would rightly complain that our national treasure was being wasted. National treasure is also wasted if oil is dispersed and lost.)

If BP likes another idea better, fine. Whatever idea they decide on, they should test and improve it now, so that they're ready for the next oil spill.

An iPad probably has a bit higher black-market value than a textbook on High School chemistry.

And cannot take the same amount of accidental water damage.

Or accidental falling damage.

And requires more infrastructure and support to maintain it.

Meanwhile, the poorest schools cannot afford the books that are written for the standardized tests that those students have to pass.
https://www.google.com/#q=underprivileged+schools+textbooks+standardized+testing
Choose the "Why Poor Schools Can't Win at Standardized Testing" link. They're blocking links from /. for some reason.

THAT'S THE JOKE.

I don't like the part that overwrites resolv.conf to use 127.0.0.1 as the nameserver if it thinks the network is down, but I'm not going to play shell script bug hunt with you. SystemD also has bugs. Almost all software has bugs. The software on Apollo 11 had bugs. And Debian's init scripts are, indeed, messy and imo overkill and inferior to the rc.d method used by Slackware and the BSDs.

I'll just leave you with this: https://plus.google.com/112984...

Yes, yes, "it's just an interface to journald!" So it's more like syslogd embedding a web server and QR encoder than init itself. Much better.

And ugly. And stupid (facial tats + staple face).

It depends on how you count the return. The US GDP is still going up. Perhaps it would be going up faster if we weren't jumping at our own shadows, but it doesn't appear to be bankrupting us.

We do a much better job at it ourselves. A graph of GDP shows only one visible hitch, the 2007 crisis. That had nothing to do with terrorism, unless you want to call the widespread fraud by the major investment banks "terrorism" (and I bet you could find some people to agree with you if you wanted to). It certainly wasn't Al Qaeda's fault; any hitch in the graph around September 2001 is lost in the noise.

What about systemd trying to do too much? Ie, someone earlier said it was great that systemd did ntp and dhcp, which seems ridiculous to me; if those services had problems then get better services, don't just wrap them up into systemd. Were those written as examples of systemd services to be emulated, or do the systemd devs really think it's their job to subsume services?

Interesting problem; if systemd had taken existing sNTP and DHCP clients, modified them so they fitted the systemd user case, the systemd developers would have been accused of "subsuming" other projects.

I think it is important to understand why systemd made a sNTPv4 and a DHCP client; in both cases it was user requests, and it was all about OS containers. Most sNTP and DHCP clients are made for stand alone systems, but the OS container density on a system is between 10 to 100 times that of a system running VM's.

That means a server, instead of booting 5 VM's will perhaps boot 250 OS containers. That is 250 instances of Fedora/CentOS/Debian that all wants a DHCP lease and syncing time at the same time.
Reducing the time for getting a DHCP lease means significant time savings. In this case systemd developers improved DHCP connections times by reducing the time spent in getting a lease by a factor of 1000. Very cool.

As it is now, you can now boot an entire Linux OS container from zero in 100ms, including getting a DHCP lease. That again means Linux OS containers on demand.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
https://plus.google.com/+TomGu...

As you can see the DHCP client and server is implemented as a library, meaning everybody can use their work for their own super fast DHCP implementation.

Of course, no one is forced to use systemd's versions of sNTP or DHCP. Their versions are made for speed, not for features.

Studies showing that, "women are motivated by different things to men [sic]," is not logically equivalent to your claim that, " physiological differences naturally make women less inclined in going into a STEM field." You are moving the goalposts.

Are you seriously too lazy to even see who made the original claim? I made no such claim.

Without even going to the peer reviewed analysis, let us look at the raw data.

That's not what you claimed - you claimed the existence of peer reviewed studies backing up your point, I asked for a citation. Instead of posting a single line citation you post a multi-paragraph explanation of why a citation isn't needed. You do more damage to your own argument than I could ever do.

Just FYI, before you make any more stupid claims to scientists about what we think, here is what peer-reviewed studies look like (and these are all in support of my argument that males and females have different motivations):

Significant difference in motivation between sexes,

Motivation difference in sex responsible for differing levels of performance,

Motivation primarily responsible for differences in performance in the sciences,

In fact, amongst scientists this is already well-known, you can find literally hundreds of peer-reviewed properly done and replicated studies that show that:
a) Women and men are mostly equally capable at all cognitive tasks, and
b) Women and men are almost always motivated by different things, and
c) Motivation is the primary indicator of performance in scientific fields.

Here, check for yourself

The problem, in my not so fucking humble scientist opinion, is that people like you don't have a clue about all the research that exists because:
a) You aren't scientists, you don't want to be scientists and it's too much work to think like one,
b) You have a different agenda to push, and common scientific knowledge like I posted above goes against what you feel should be correct, so you ignore it when you find it, just like you will ignore the above research (and the hundreds of papers that deal with this).

number of good papers and studies, so you can use the bibliography as a starting point.

Eric S. Roberts, Marina Kassianidou, and Lilly Irani. 2002. Encouraging women in computer science. SIGCSE Bull. 34, 2 (June 2002), 84-88.

That paper, which I've already read BTW, doesn't add to your argument in any way. In fact, quote the section that you *think* adds to your argument from that paper. There is not mention of artificial barriers, only strategies of increasing female representation - in fact, that's what the entire paper is about: how to increase female representation. Unluckily for

Studies showing that, "women are motivated by different things to men [sic]," is not logically equivalent to your claim that, " physiological differences naturally make women less inclined in going into a STEM field." You are moving the goalposts.

Are you seriously too lazy to even see who made the original claim? I made no such claim.

Without even going to the peer reviewed analysis, let us look at the raw data.

That's not what you claimed - you claimed the existence of peer reviewed studies backing up your point, I asked for a citation. Instead of posting a single line citation you post a multi-paragraph explanation of why a citation isn't needed. You do more damage to your own argument than I could ever do.

Just FYI, before you make any more stupid claims to scientists about what we think, here is what peer-reviewed studies look like (and these are all in support of my argument that males and females have different motivations):

Significant difference in motivation between sexes,

Motivation difference in sex responsible for differing levels of performance,

Motivation primarily responsible for differences in performance in the sciences,

In fact, amongst scientists this is already well-known, you can find literally hundreds of peer-reviewed properly done and replicated studies that show that:
a) Women and men are mostly equally capable at all cognitive tasks, and
b) Women and men are almost always motivated by different things, and
c) Motivation is the primary indicator of performance in scientific fields.

Here, check for yourself

The problem, in my not so fucking humble scientist opinion, is that people like you don't have a clue about all the research that exists because:
a) You aren't scientists, you don't want to be scientists and it's too much work to think like one,
b) You have a different agenda to push, and common scientific knowledge like I posted above goes against what you feel should be correct, so you ignore it when you find it, just like you will ignore the above research (and the hundreds of papers that deal with this).

number of good papers and studies, so you can use the bibliography as a starting point.

Eric S. Roberts, Marina Kassianidou, and Lilly Irani. 2002. Encouraging women in computer science. SIGCSE Bull. 34, 2 (June 2002), 84-88.

That paper, which I've already read BTW, doesn't add to your argument in any way. In fact, quote the section that you *think* adds to your argument from that paper. There is not mention of artificial barriers, only strategies of increasing female representation - in fact, that's what the entire paper is about: how to increase female representation. Unluckily for

Studies showing that, "women are motivated by different things to men [sic]," is not logically equivalent to your claim that, " physiological differences naturally make women less inclined in going into a STEM field." You are moving the goalposts.

Are you seriously too lazy to even see who made the original claim? I made no such claim.

Without even going to the peer reviewed analysis, let us look at the raw data.

That's not what you claimed - you claimed the existence of peer reviewed studies backing up your point, I asked for a citation. Instead of posting a single line citation you post a multi-paragraph explanation of why a citation isn't needed. You do more damage to your own argument than I could ever do.

Just FYI, before you make any more stupid claims to scientists about what we think, here is what peer-reviewed studies look like (and these are all in support of my argument that males and females have different motivations):

Significant difference in motivation between sexes,

Motivation difference in sex responsible for differing levels of performance,

Motivation primarily responsible for differences in performance in the sciences,

In fact, amongst scientists this is already well-known, you can find literally hundreds of peer-reviewed properly done and replicated studies that show that:
a) Women and men are mostly equally capable at all cognitive tasks, and
b) Women and men are almost always motivated by different things, and
c) Motivation is the primary indicator of performance in scientific fields.

Here, check for yourself

The problem, in my not so fucking humble scientist opinion, is that people like you don't have a clue about all the research that exists because:
a) You aren't scientists, you don't want to be scientists and it's too much work to think like one,
b) You have a different agenda to push, and common scientific knowledge like I posted above goes against what you feel should be correct, so you ignore it when you find it, just like you will ignore the above research (and the hundreds of papers that deal with this).

number of good papers and studies, so you can use the bibliography as a starting point.

Eric S. Roberts, Marina Kassianidou, and Lilly Irani. 2002. Encouraging women in computer science. SIGCSE Bull. 34, 2 (June 2002), 84-88.

That paper, which I've already read BTW, doesn't add to your argument in any way. In fact, quote the section that you *think* adds to your argument from that paper. There is not mention of artificial barriers, only strategies of increasing female representation - in fact, that's what the entire paper is about: how to increase female representation. Unluckily for

Studies showing that, "women are motivated by different things to men [sic]," is not logically equivalent to your claim that, " physiological differences naturally make women less inclined in going into a STEM field." You are moving the goalposts.

Are you seriously too lazy to even see who made the original claim? I made no such claim.

Without even going to the peer reviewed analysis, let us look at the raw data.

That's not what you claimed - you claimed the existence of peer reviewed studies backing up your point, I asked for a citation. Instead of posting a single line citation you post a multi-paragraph explanation of why a citation isn't needed. You do more damage to your own argument than I could ever do.

Just FYI, before you make any more stupid claims to scientists about what we think, here is what peer-reviewed studies look like (and these are all in support of my argument that males and females have different motivations):

Significant difference in motivation between sexes,

Motivation difference in sex responsible for differing levels of performance,

Motivation primarily responsible for differences in performance in the sciences,

In fact, amongst scientists this is already well-known, you can find literally hundreds of peer-reviewed properly done and replicated studies that show that:
a) Women and men are mostly equally capable at all cognitive tasks, and
b) Women and men are almost always motivated by different things, and
c) Motivation is the primary indicator of performance in scientific fields.

Here, check for yourself

The problem, in my not so fucking humble scientist opinion, is that people like you don't have a clue about all the research that exists because:
a) You aren't scientists, you don't want to be scientists and it's too much work to think like one,
b) You have a different agenda to push, and common scientific knowledge like I posted above goes against what you feel should be correct, so you ignore it when you find it, just like you will ignore the above research (and the hundreds of papers that deal with this).

number of good papers and studies, so you can use the bibliography as a starting point.

Eric S. Roberts, Marina Kassianidou, and Lilly Irani. 2002. Encouraging women in computer science. SIGCSE Bull. 34, 2 (June 2002), 84-88.

That paper, which I've already read BTW, doesn't add to your argument in any way. In fact, quote the section that you *think* adds to your argument from that paper. There is not mention of artificial barriers, only strategies of increasing female representation - in fact, that's what the entire paper is about: how to increase female representation. Unluckily for

At its release, the Mac was "designed as an information appliance" for which a hobbyist programming language was deemed unnecessary. To me, this ad - targeting teen girls - is consistent with that leave-the-programming-to-others philosophy. Your mileage may vary. :-)

The current administration isn't trying to bring democracy to Iraq. They're trying to.........actually I have no idea what they're trying to do.

It's okay, neither do they ;)

Really though, while this is said to be due to terrorism, oppression, genocide, and the like, we really know the reason: it's that IS's ideology involves extensie use of MS Paint and an arabic version of Comic Sans. One simply cannot allow that to flourish.

The deal is if you are (say) an Rh positive fetus in an Rh negative mom who was previously exposed to another fetus's D antigens (and D is often the culprit) you can get your blood cells nailed by mom's previously-formed anti-D antibodies. You get anemia, jaundice as well, and the potential various bad side effects therefrom (heart damage, brain damage, swelling all over[may not be safe for work]). Similar havoc ensues with anti-K. Preventive therapy with RhoGAM is available to prevent anti-D disease; it's a soup of anti-D antibodies that scavenge any fetal Rh-D positive blood cells that happen to find their way into mom's circulation. It's produced from pooled human blood plasma, though even most Jehovah's Witnesses (since a 1974 church opinion) and Jews (because there's an escape hatch in kashrut for saving human life) find it acceptable for treatment in order to prevent this fairly terrifying surprise G-d had in store for a few unlucky babies.

I saw this today before I heard about this feature when I searched for "side scroller games" https://www.google.com/search?...

Don't forget the bayonets. Yeah, US police departments have recieved thousands of byonets. I guess if a successor to Occupy Wallstreet breaks out, the police will be ready now?!!

https://www.google.com/search?...

There's tonnes of evidence to back him up. You know, unless you believe in magic every effect _does_ in fact have a cause...

See SNI and StartSSL

Surely you meant MUSLIMS? Afraid to tell the truth? Who needs the truth, when we can lie about reality, and allow thousands more people to be killed by muslims?

Yep.

You got the balls to look at the evil that is Islam? Here you go.

Jean Auel's work is literate smut. It's just a Stone Age bodice-ripper. Don't make me quote-mine for proof.

Calling it a 'bodice ripper' is obscene.

Earth's Children series comprises six books, ~1.8 million words altogether.

In Clan of the Cave Bear There is brutal sex without consent. It occurs within the context of a culture that does not require a woman's consent, which is how Auel chose to portray the Neanderthals --- yet it is clear that among the clan brutality is not tolerated. This is essential to the story... and a series of encounters between Jondalar and Ayla appearing throughout the books that are as sensual and vivid as one might expect of a young couple in love, sex done 'right'. The scenes are described in extravagant (if you hate sex you might prefer 'lurid') detail. Auel's writing style is strained a bit during these sex passages only in that there are some repeated words and phrases, the cutest of which is the use of the word nodule.

But the lovers are soon satiated and the story moves on, just as it does in real life. It does not detract in the slightest from the series. Do not expect a 'did this, said this' style where the characters' minds are opaque and clumsily presented. Auel is a masterful writer who jumps skillfully between expressed inner thought, dialogue, and the senses.

But her portrayal of Earth's primordial landscapes and the journey/adventure is the real treasure one will find in these books. An avid reader not only sees through the characters' eyes, even down to the minutiae of making camp, it becomes possible to place yourself there, so well is it described. I loved the way Tolkien describes Ithilien and always wanted to tarry awhile without a burdensome ring quest. For me, Earth's Children recaptured that feeling.

I do not hesitate to recommend these books to any child who is old enough to read them, even the unpleasant explicit content within 'Cave Bear'. We do not live in a perfect world where there is no need to learn of such things, and that book portrays brutish and bully behavior in its complete context of the character's jealousy and malice. Many might consider these to be 'adult' themes, but my position is that they are just themes that children are sure to encounter in their lives. There is no 'right time' to introduce kids to these things only a 'right way'. The author neither glorifies nor apologizes for them. Books like these help prepare children for life.

Sorry to bore you. Back to the sex. Here is a Google search for "Ayla's nodule for your enjoyment and titillation. Now get off my lawn.

Neanderthals are the same. The whole notion of "Neanderthals" being a separate thing is just a miscategorization of traits that modern humans have. Maybe they are rare, and have become less attractive over the millenia, but not any different than any other trait.

Look at Russian boxer Nikolai Valuev

The traits we collectively call "Neanderthal" are a distinction without a difference.

If you were complaining about the "Cro Magnon" concept you would be on solid ground. That turned out to be an imaginary construct. Neanderthals and Denisovans though definitely form a genetically defined group much more divergent from modern human populations than are found between the most divergent populations among modern humans (defined roughly by the San on one hand and everyone who is not African on the other). That said there is only 0.3% variation across the entire Neanderthal-Denisovan-Modern Human super-group. The Neanderthals and Denisovans were real separate breeding populations for hundreds of thousands of years, but still clearly part of one human species.

Yes, I had him in my feed for a while and removed him promptly. Not a fun person to have in your feed.
https://plus.google.com/+Felic...
is probably the most entertaining person they have on there.

Torvalds uses it occasionally.

Real Madrid Barcelona Live Stream

If anything tech heavy schools hurt more because of a magic blend of

A. the tech funds rush to the worse schools where it is the last thing they need

B. It likely caused more ADD like behavior

C Computers don't actually help you learn how to write or math or think better

Going into a job not knowing how to use MSword was not the problem. "Poor" people were not being left behind any faster then before. The debacle in some schools (for example see https://www.google.com/search?...) over reaching for tech instead of more teachers is a direct result of newspapers writing about the "Digital Divide" for over 16 years till the point the copy came to be believed.

We've got to stop with the Neanderthal nonsense...

Neanderthals are *not* the magical missing link, nor does proving/disproving the existence of God or the truth of the theory of Evolution...none of this is in play

This is about legacy academia and how century-old academia wars are burdening good research today.

Another example: Clovis Culture http://www.examiner.com/articl...

Clovis Culture theory has been the bane of anthropologists and archaeologists for decades...the only reason it was so entrenched is b/c of flaws in academia.

Neanderthals are the same. The whole notion of "Neanderthals" being a separate thing is just a miscategorization of traits that modern humans have. Maybe they are rare, and have become less attractive over the millenia, but not any different than any other trait.

Look at Russian boxer Nikolai Valuev

The traits we collectively call "Neanderthal" are a distinction without a difference.

It's a failure of science that some ideas are irrationally difficult to disprove. Usually it is because people are using the research wrongly to prove a non-science point.

Again...Neanderthals can be variations on modern humans and it **does not disprove evolution!!!**

What makes you think "Steve Goddard's" blog is "anti-science"?

Because he's got no scientific research background, and he spreads the standard anti-science agenda, for the standard George C Marshall Institute-funded culprits. If someone has a scientific point, and isn't a charlatan, they usually publish in the scholarly literature so that the scientific community can vet what they write. Going straight to the public with ideas that aren't in the literature is a sign of anti-science.

Goddard examines raw data records and compares against the "adjusted" data.

Then he's focussing on the USA data, because the global data's adjustment is about 0. The cause of the bias in the adjustments to the USA data is a general shift in the time of observation across the country. It's warmer and 2pm than it is at 10am. So you have to adjust if you want to compare temperatures at 10am with ones at 2pm.

Steve Goddard that NCDC was improperly "infilling" as much as 40% of its data in some cases from temperature stations that were offline or did not even exist

If he's doesn't understand all the adjustments, he should ask the NCDC about them, they're the experts. It is quite normal for a station to be removed for purposes of estimating the trend of a grid, if it shows signs of being anomalous. Such as a step change that didn't occur at surrounding stations, or a trend that is too different from that of surrounding stations.

Different temperature data sets have different policies on infilling where there is no data in the grid. GISTemp interpolates from the trend in adjacent grids, or the nearest grid that does have data. HadCRU calculates the temperature based on grids that they have data for. I don't know NCDC's policy, but "infilling" is one of the things that is done.

Not only that, NCDC publicly admitted that infilling was a problem, that they had known about it (for some unspecified time), and that they "intended to fix it" at some unspecified time in the future. Nobody knows how long they had known about it or when they intend to fix it.

They said the temperatures are "as intended", and there was no problem. They were intending to add a flag to the final data to show which temperature stations were interpolated because of anomalous trends or step changes.

Obviously, nobody needs to "fix" something that is working properly.

The presence or absence of a flag on the data to show its provenance does not mean it is not working properly.

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted.

Have they. Do you have a link to this admission?

Further, your sources are not all "independent", since most of them incestuously rely on the same questionable data sets.

There are two links. One to the CSIRO sea level rise data and one to the energy imbalance data. They don't rely on the same data, and they're not about the same thing.

So don't sit there and tell me what your vaunted sources say, until you address the data they are all using. There are KNOWN serious problems with it. Not just minor problems; big ones

That's not a big problem, nor a problem. Trends for stations are interpolated if the station's trend is clearly anomalous. This happens both up and down, and the net effect is almost exactly zero on the global trend.

Cherry picking one that has been adjusted up, and making a big song and dance ignores the fact that that is not representative of the adjustments, and frankly, that the adjustments are quite correct to make.

My "collection" consists of web links to official data, of c

The error that the other server returned was:
550-5.2.1 The user you are trying to contact is receiving mail at a rate that
550-5.2.1 prevents additional messages from being delivered. For more
550-5.2.1 information, please visit
550 5.2.1 http://support.google.com/mail... dy7si138331wib.0 - gsmtp

And at google's scale - impressive

Google should fix things that are borken before breaking new things.

And there are other patents filled by Magic Leap Inc - https://www.google.com/search?... My "rough" guess is that they are probably looking at a system which combines freeform optical waveguide prism/compensation lens with an image generated by virtual retinal display.

After I checked some of the job requirements posted on their website I was initially tempted to think that they are working on a VRD(virtual retinal display) variant. Then I found this - http://www.google.com/patents/...

You are intentionally being an idiot (I hope it's not natural). A "know-it-all" is not a manly thing, it's annoying. And dickish. And puts people off. Most know-it-alls don't in fact know it all.

Not a manly thing? They literally call that policy "Operation Eliminate the Macho Effect". And by the way, italics indicate sarcasm.

So am I the idiot, or are they? (I suspect the largest idiot is a third party.)

Stop pretending it's a gendered issue.

Mal.gif

There are two modes of thinking: focus and diffuse. To be creative, the brain needs to be in a relaxed state, i.e., to be able to form new pathways to new ideas. There are methods to induce diffuse thinking. One of them, as the article suggests, is to do mundane chores, such as clearing out old files.

In the Coursera course, Learning How to Learn by Barbara Oakley, there are anecdotes of how famous people (Thomas Edison, Salvador Dali) trigger their subconscious minds to do their biddings.

Nothing to argue about, see
item n. 7 or ask google.

If Lucchesi practice the other meaning too much is not really my business.

LOL. No. Written by Democrats and "Progressive" lobbyists, and voted for by Democrats. The Democrats own it lock, stock, and barrel.

I'll just leave this right here for you.

Perhaps you could use your obviously epic google skills to look up the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet. You know the one the article is actually talking about? The one that is shrinking and unstable and could cause sea levels to rise by 1.2 metres? I think that's worth at least keeping an eye on. Don't you?

Uh, right, except, that is a problem that people care about.

More than just surveys

Plan your next camping trip, manage event registrations, whip up a quick poll, collect email addresses for a newsletter, create a pop quiz, and much more.

The So Cal Linux Expo and Texas Linux Fest both use scalereg for attendee + staff registration. It can probably be customized to meet your needs without too much effort. (Note, I'm the primary scalereg author.)

Don't foget that time he threatened Bruce Perens because Perens "jeapordized the interests" of his "entire tribe". The guy is an embarassment to open source.

How indeed?

Army National Guard
Air National Guard

Army National Guard Vision 2010

A Full Spectrum Land Force
The Army National Guard is fully committed to implementing the joint operational concepts of dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and full-dimensional protection. With 34 percent of the Army's strength, more than half of the combat power, nearly 70 percent of field artillery, and more than a third of its combat support and combat service support capabilities, the Army National Guard is a full partner in rapid strategic mobility, tailor-to-task organizational flexibility, and, ultimately, a key component in a seamless joint force that can be committed cross-dimensionally along the entire spectrum of contingencies.

Army National Guard Combat Power

A visual representation of the Army National Guard's brigades. This represents the National Guard's Infantry and Heavy brigades but also includes Engineer, Field Artillery and Aviation brigades as well. .