Slashdot Mirror

You are wrong.... mined diamonds is different.... they is a massively higher chance they are CURSED.

The bigger they are the more likely they are CURSED and more powerful the CURSED. cursed diamonds

Thatâ(TM)s because lots of people died mining diamonds and all the blood diamond stuff happening in Africa. Get them if you have a death wish.

Lab grown diamonds is far less dubious.... unless you grow those diamonds from your deceased loved oneâ(TM)s ashes or teeth or whatever.... in which case you are really asking for it.... but hey... they are your loved ones... so youâ(TM)ll be fine.... unless the lab have a mix up ;)

And also, German industry got a little help: https://www.adl.org/news/op-ed... https://www.washingtonpost.com... https://libcom.org/library/all... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-... http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar...

Just goes to show: a Jew will sell to both sides as long as there's money to be made.

this

Ahh, the ole Bush helped the Nazis kill jews bit.

Yes, that old bit, in which it is revealed that Prescott Bush could not possibly have not known what he was doing. In fact, a number of corporations willingly cooperated with the Nazis. Without their assistance, the axis could not have made war effectively. Naturally, every one of these corporations has tried to disclaim responsibility for what their German divisions were up to, but the ongoing relationships between such entities during the war make that difficult. The service contract for the concentration camp management machines was paid straight to IBM's American operations in Armonk, NY, for example.

It is a fact (simple or not) that American interests willfully and thus traitorously aided the axis for profit. And it is a fact that Prescott Bush was among them.

Depends on the game and the graphics settings. You could easily run a game with Lawnmower Man style graphics with a mid range card in 120FPS on each eye.
I think VR can be very interesting even without the super fancy hyper realistic graphics of the latest generaton games.

I think this could revolutionize combat in the same way that the scooter mounted cannon did. http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-...

or whatever the next fad diet to come along is

It is funny how for every fad diet there are tons of people who say it worked for them. That seems to be proof right there that whatever it is that works must be common to all of the diets. My guess is that simply being on a diet makes people more aware of what they are eating and that consciously or unconsciously causes them to eat less. Some people probably find it easier to do that with a specific type of diet, but the underlying mechanism is still the same.

More likely: it is proof that people are very bad judges of what's going on in their diets. After all, they gain weight without eating, and when starving themselves, they tend to attribute magical powers to the food they are eating as the reason they are losing weight.

It's hard to fool someone, but ever try to get them to stop fooling themselves? That's the kind of hard we are up against. Fad diets prey on human gullibility, and the fact that if you are told that an improbable X causes Y, you tend to believe it, even if it is improbable. Being told that a boring X causes Y is never held in belief with as much excitement.

And not all fad diets work. Even those that work tend to do so via starvation, which is not a long-term plan (and has worse effects than a healthy 2000 calorie diet) For some really bad fad diets.

The word is weltschmerz.

  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weltschmerz

Thanks to http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-german-words.php

It's actually a kind of ice breaker app. Indeed it is the opposite of stalking. It's more like fishing. It only becomes stalking when the fisher finds one in particular that it wants. I say "it" simply because I don't want to demonize men any more than necessary. (It's not like women never do scary things)

first of all, you couldn't get silver in a para-triathlon if they let you compete. just admit that to yourself. i'm in pretty good shape and i know i couldn't. second, this isn't a separate race. this is the ironman triathlon, and those in the para- category are expected to finish in the same cutoff times as able bodied competitors. that means this guy who got silver in the para- category beat the times of several able bodied competitors who didn't even rank high enough to mention. that would probably include both of us.

this other guy became a professional skateboarder despite having dwarfism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Acu%C3%B1a

this high school student born without arms was a formidable wrestling opponent: http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/12/22/article/photo_gallery_high_school_wrestler_with_no_arms_the_one_to_beat

these amputee archers are competing with non-amputees: http://blog.amsvans.com/53432-archers-with-disabilities-compete-against-able-bodied-athletes/

this other amputee (all limbs) wrestler fought for his right to compete in MMA against able bodied competitors: http://fatshapetofitshape.blogspot.com/2009/04/congenital-amputee-kyle-maynards-long.html

and this person fought for his right to compete in the Olympics (not Special Olympics or Paralympics) with prosthetic legs: http://thinklink.in/blade-runner-sprinter-with-no-legs-wins-right-to-compete-in-olympics/

fuck your genetics, and your excuses.

your assumptions aren't helping you much either: the winner of the 1986 NBA Slam Dunk Contest was Spud Webb, 5'7" tall. http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-shortest-nba-players.php

lawyered

If we'd just be content with the status quo, we'd still be using quite a lot of these ideas: http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

No, see, that's my entire point. We're not using newer scientific ideas just because they're new; we're using them because they're objectively, testably better. We're also still using a lot of very old scientific ideas (like, say, Pythagoras' theorem of the hypotenuse) because despite being old, they're still correct, and don't magically become incorrect just because of the passing of time.

If someone can point to objective metrics that show why a new data format is better than an old one - and also explain why these same metrics were not available to the people who invented the first format - then I'm happy to agree that we have a case of objective progress.

But if we're just replacing one no-fully-thought-out format with another one that's not any better thought out? That's not progress, that's churn, and it won't help.

If we'd just be content with the status quo, we'd still be using quite a lot of these ideas: http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

It's one thing to complain that it's a hassle to change into a newer format, it's quite another to complain about progress.

Besides, if you really think it's _that_easy_ to create a data format that stands the test of time, go ahead: Make your own.

Here is a good one.