Or could try degaussing. could do quite a few at a time, and only takes a few seconds.
We experimented with that at the shop. Your typical degaussing ring doesn't generally have the field strength to wipe 'em. Heck...in our test, after zero-writing 'em, and checking 'em after 5, 10, 30, and 60 seconds of D-ring exposure we didn't appear to lose a bit.
Note: dedicated hard drive degaussers can get really expensive, too... It's MUCH cheaper to stick with software methodology. Have a look here for details on both methods...
Again with the insults. I'm trying to have a discussion here. Are you, or are you simply proselytizing?
Love is an emotion, art is a creative endeavor, and beauty is typically something that stirs a sort of emotional reaction.
Really? An atheist friend of mine doesn't even believe love exists. He feels that it's nothing more than a bunch of biochemical reactions, and nothing more. He refuses to call it an emotion. I've known others that feel love is an actually tangible force.
As for art being a "creative endeavor"? Wee big vague there, and what one person calls "art" is definitely not what another would call this. More on this later....
IMHO, that definition of beauty could apply to ANYthing. My fiance loses it if she sees a big bug. Does that make it beautiful?
And once again, we have definitions that not everyone can agree are "true". Who's right? Is ANYone right in such a case?
Yes, it is hard to define many things especially since you cannot really describe one emotion or sensation in terms of another emotion or sensation.
I'll bet that people with synesthesia would be willing to argue that point...
A lot of philosophy is trying to pin down a good definition--and a lot of philosophy is also carefully defining what you mean so it is understand what exactly you are arguing for.
...and some will see the glass as half-full, while others see it as half-empty... comes down to human perception. Typically, there're no right answers in philosophy, either. Note that I don't see atheists picketing your local college philosophy department because there's no "one definition of philosophy".
Saying you believe in "God" tells me almost nothing because I don't know what "God" is supposed to be.
It almost seems that you're saying that if you can't define something, it doesn't or can't exist... and just as in the case of art, love, and beauty, each person you ask will have a different answer. Some might even say that God is what's supporting the underlying fabric of reality, i.e. that God is the "foundation" of our uni/metaverse.
When someone says "love", "beauty", or "art", however, I do have an idea of what they are talking about.
Do you? A lot of people have conflicting views on that. To some, Keith Boadwee is an artist. I bet a lot of people disagree there, especially his blowing paint out his rear. Would you call that art?
Notice that "love", "beauty", and "art" are heavily subjective things, while "god" is not--god is supposed to be some sort of objective entity.
Objective? Why must God be an objective entity in order to discuss It/Her/Him?
Thus "god" needs to be defined so a discussion can be had on it.
No more so than love, art, or beauty.
Maybe someone has an "internal" god of sorts but that's not what we're talking about and you'd be guilty of equivocation if you tried to bring such meanings into the discussion.
What would you consider an "internal" god? The "Thou art God" meme, the AA "higher power" god? Jus' curious.
BTW, I appreciate you taking your time to give us your viewpoint, and am looking forward to your response. We may not agree, but it's been refreshing mental exercise nonetheless!
This makes them a MILITARY TARGET, not a civilian target as the word "contractor" implies.
Does Iraqi law state that it's OK for civilians to kill "military targets" with impunity?
Of COURSE not. Once again, being "mercenaries" doesn't change the fact that killing them is illegal...
..and being "military targets" instead of "civilian targets", you'd have thought that the Geneva Convention would apply. As of the last time I read it, dragging prisoners through the streets and stringing them up is still a big no-no...
When you say you believe in something, you should be able to explain what it is you believe in, whether it be atoms, Pamela Anderson, komodo dragons, gravity, or dark matter; when people say they believe in "god", nobody really knows what "god" is supposed to be.
Which is why I asked you for the cut 'n' dry definitions of "love", "art", and "beauty". Might there be a reason why you're not able to give cut and dry definitions for these words, or in fact prove they exist at all?
We're blind, and on opposite sides of the elephant.
Look buddy, I don't really care how many people believe in your fantasy creations of vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless abstractions like "God" is often portrayed (I doubt you can even coherently define what "God" is).
Fine, come up with definitions for "love", "art", and "beauty" that EVERYONE can agree with and we'll talk. Spirituality has a different meaning for each of us, and I reserve the right to remind both theists and non-theists of this at any time. Just 'cause you don't agree with my take on it, or I with you, doesn't mean either of us needs to be insulting.
Any when they return to kill American soldiers, how many can die before it becomes not okay to grant constitutional rights to non-citizens.
Funny, the rest of us consider habeas corpus to be a basic human right.... and by your logic, those contractors that got killed and dragged through that Iraqi city got just what they deserved. After all, they weren't Iraqi citizens, so the law need not apply, right?
Sending a letter to judges to tell them what is going on in their own courtroom? When you are a party to neither case? Clearly because you have a bone to pick with one of the parties?
So you like your lawyers to do a half-ass job? His interest here is that the parties being sued were his clients, not strangers. He's doing his job. DO read TFA next time...
In your work as Director of IO for Combined Joint Task Force -76, what were your greatest challenges in Afghanistan? What technology threats other than IEDs were your greatest concern?
According to TFA, while they can make it from almost any plant, they're starting with sorghum:
"...sorghum, which isn't a typical U.S. crop, can produce six times the ethanol per acre of corn, turning on its head the argument that ethanol production consumes more energy than it produces. China, the third largest producer of ethanol after Brazil and the U.S., is switching entirely to sorghum for its ethanol production."
...but then the RIAA would start suing people for claiming to represent the RIAA and try to get awarded hundreds of thousands in damages for each case.
...and just how would the RIAA propose to determine that someone has made such a claim without the RIAA having access to the "infringing" server? Even with, there's no legal requirement to log visitors and their preferences in the US that I'm aware of...
Charlie does not know if Denise is a MediaSentry employee, and therefore may not make the file available to her.
...which could leave an interesting loophole...
If you require all music downloaders at your site, before downloading, to check a box that states "I hereby state that I am a MediaSentry/RIAA employee/contractor, and assume responsibility for affirming as such", could that get you off the hook?
Everyone knows this won't pass. Everyone knows that this will get tabled at the first opportunity.
They better not... their own rulebook says about the like:
A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business
(III, 2045-2048, 2051, 2398; VI, 468, 469; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, p. 8814; ept. 23, 1998, pp. 21560-62; see Deschler, ch. 14, 8). It may not even be superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege II, 2581). It does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III, 2408), previous action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053).
Unless they've got a darn good reason not to move along with this, they've got to deal with it...before anything else, it seems, but I'm not lawyer-shaped.
I'm just glad someone, anyone more like, finally pointed out the emperor has no clothes...and hasn't for a while...
I'm so tired of people who happen to not need a motor vehicle making fun of those of us who NEED a vehicle larger than a subcompact.
Unless your life processes will cease when your SUV is sold, "need" might not be the most accurate term...
Many of the single-kid soccer moms come up with all sorts of reasons why they "need" an SUV too. I don't buy most of them.
It's a "Sports Utility Vehicle". These soccer moms don't go mudding, caving, or offroading typically, so we can eliminate "Sports" from the title. Most of these soccer moms also don't haul lumber, concrete, travel trailers, or other vehicles. So much for the "Utility" part. What're we left with? A "vehicle" that eats gas like Sally Struthers at an all-you-can-eat buffet, endangers other people due to sheer mass and clueless drivers, can't perform like the vehicle it was ORIGINALLY modeled after, and has a price equal to a large home down-payment.
If you can't see the comedy potential there, might want to look again...
It depends... if that person is going to be handling a company credit card or something, or otherwise have some autonomy with company funds, I can see a credit check being reasonable.
Your credit has NO bearing on your moral structure. My score's shot due to a divorce, but while the opportunities to steal may've presented themselves, one fact remains: It's not MY money. I have the keys and alarm codes to many of our clients. Never was a problem, even during a homeless stint. Criminal background checks would be more appropriate here, IMHO, rather than trying to glean one's moral fortitude from their spending histories...
I said that violence begets violence. That was my only point.
I'll have to respectfully disagree. Sure, violence can beget violence... if you let it. Just leads to a vicious circle... almost like asking the proverbial blonde to pee in the corner of a round room. Consider, there are a lot of hard-core pacifists out there that won't even defend themselves. I don't feel that they're wrong in feeling such, even if we might disagree? I'm not the only one to see this; this guy, and this guy, and this guy are three easy examples of another way of looking at violence.
I say that fear, intolerance, extremism, and short-sighted bigotry are far more the excuse for/root cause of the continuing violence... Take your pick.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're in THIS situation...
...and thanks for the mammaries! ;)
...because all those that contracted HIV from a bunk blood transfusion had a behavioral problem. Same with rape victims too, huh?
HIV is not necessarily a behavioral problem.
C'mon, this is a /. user we're talking about; y'gotta translate that to "I did her homework while she went on a date with her boyfriend..." ;)
Just like those at Steorn
Here fantastic claims abound
Just a money grab.
We experimented with that at the shop. Your typical degaussing ring doesn't generally have the field strength to wipe 'em. Heck...in our test, after zero-writing 'em, and checking 'em after 5, 10, 30, and 60 seconds of D-ring exposure we didn't appear to lose a bit.
Note: dedicated hard drive degaussers can get really expensive, too... It's MUCH cheaper to stick with software methodology. Have a look here for details on both methods...
Again with the insults. I'm trying to have a discussion here. Are you, or are you simply proselytizing?
Love is an emotion, art is a creative endeavor, and beauty is typically something that stirs a sort of emotional reaction.Really? An atheist friend of mine doesn't even believe love exists. He feels that it's nothing more than a bunch of biochemical reactions, and nothing more. He refuses to call it an emotion. I've known others that feel love is an actually tangible force.
As for art being a "creative endeavor"? Wee big vague there, and what one person calls "art" is definitely not what another would call this. More on this later....
IMHO, that definition of beauty could apply to ANYthing. My fiance loses it if she sees a big bug. Does that make it beautiful?
And once again, we have definitions that not everyone can agree are "true". Who's right? Is ANYone right in such a case?
Yes, it is hard to define many things especially since you cannot really describe one emotion or sensation in terms of another emotion or sensation.I'll bet that people with synesthesia would be willing to argue that point...
A lot of philosophy is trying to pin down a good definition--and a lot of philosophy is also carefully defining what you mean so it is understand what exactly you are arguing for....and some will see the glass as half-full, while others see it as half-empty... comes down to human perception. Typically, there're no right answers in philosophy, either. Note that I don't see atheists picketing your local college philosophy department because there's no "one definition of philosophy".
Saying you believe in "God" tells me almost nothing because I don't know what "God" is supposed to be.It almost seems that you're saying that if you can't define something, it doesn't or can't exist... and just as in the case of art, love, and beauty, each person you ask will have a different answer. Some might even say that God is what's supporting the underlying fabric of reality, i.e. that God is the "foundation" of our uni/metaverse.
When someone says "love", "beauty", or "art", however, I do have an idea of what they are talking about.Do you? A lot of people have conflicting views on that. To some, Keith Boadwee is an artist. I bet a lot of people disagree there, especially his blowing paint out his rear. Would you call that art?
Notice that "love", "beauty", and "art" are heavily subjective things, while "god" is not--god is supposed to be some sort of objective entity.Objective? Why must God be an objective entity in order to discuss It/Her/Him?
Thus "god" needs to be defined so a discussion can be had on it.No more so than love, art, or beauty.
Maybe someone has an "internal" god of sorts but that's not what we're talking about and you'd be guilty of equivocation if you tried to bring such meanings into the discussion.What would you consider an "internal" god? The "Thou art God" meme, the AA "higher power" god? Jus' curious.
BTW, I appreciate you taking your time to give us your viewpoint, and am looking forward to your response. We may not agree, but it's been refreshing mental exercise nonetheless!
Does Iraqi law state that it's OK for civilians to kill "military targets" with impunity?
Of COURSE not. Once again, being "mercenaries" doesn't change the fact that killing them is illegal...
..and being "military targets" instead of "civilian targets", you'd have thought that the Geneva Convention would apply. As of the last time I read it, dragging prisoners through the streets and stringing them up is still a big no-no...
Which is why I asked you for the cut 'n' dry definitions of "love", "art", and "beauty". Might there be a reason why you're not able to give cut and dry definitions for these words, or in fact prove they exist at all?
We're blind, and on opposite sides of the elephant.
Fine, come up with definitions for "love", "art", and "beauty" that EVERYONE can agree with and we'll talk. Spirituality has a different meaning for each of us, and I reserve the right to remind both theists and non-theists of this at any time. Just 'cause you don't agree with my take on it, or I with you, doesn't mean either of us needs to be insulting.
Funny, the rest of us consider habeas corpus to be a basic human right.... and by your logic, those contractors that got killed and dragged through that Iraqi city got just what they deserved. After all, they weren't Iraqi citizens, so the law need not apply, right?
So you like your lawyers to do a half-ass job? His interest here is that the parties being sued were his clients, not strangers. He's doing his job. DO read TFA next time...
Hey, maybe you civvies don't realize it, but his answer to my questions will tell you more about how he does business than you think it might...
In your work as Director of IO for Combined Joint Task Force -76, what were your greatest challenges in Afghanistan? What technology threats other than IEDs were your greatest concern?
According to TFA, while they can make it from almost any plant, they're starting with sorghum:
"...sorghum, which isn't a typical U.S. crop, can produce six times the ethanol per acre of corn, turning on its head the argument that ethanol production consumes more energy than it produces. China, the third largest producer of ethanol after Brazil and the U.S., is switching entirely to sorghum for its ethanol production."
...but then the RIAA would start suing people for claiming to represent the RIAA and try to get awarded hundreds of thousands in damages for each case....and just how would the RIAA propose to determine that someone has made such a claim without the RIAA having access to the "infringing" server? Even with, there's no legal requirement to log visitors and their preferences in the US that I'm aware of...
Considering what the RIAA has been getting away with saying in and out of court...
Why not?
...which could leave an interesting loophole...
If you require all music downloaders at your site, before downloading, to check a box that states "I hereby state that I am a MediaSentry/RIAA employee/contractor, and assume responsibility for affirming as such", could that get you off the hook?
They better not... their own rulebook says about the like:
A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business (III, 2045-2048, 2051, 2398; VI, 468, 469; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, p. 8814; ept. 23, 1998, pp. 21560-62; see Deschler, ch. 14, 8). It may not even be superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege II, 2581). It does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III, 2408), previous action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053).Unless they've got a darn good reason not to move along with this, they've got to deal with it...before anything else, it seems, but I'm not lawyer-shaped.
I'm just glad someone, anyone more like, finally pointed out the emperor has no clothes...and hasn't for a while...
Painful?
Maybe it's just me, but I can't hear/see that word without an obligatory trip back to this video...
Unless your life processes will cease when your SUV is sold, "need" might not be the most accurate term...
Many of the single-kid soccer moms come up with all sorts of reasons why they "need" an SUV too. I don't buy most of them.
It's a "Sports Utility Vehicle". These soccer moms don't go mudding, caving, or offroading typically, so we can eliminate "Sports" from the title. Most of these soccer moms also don't haul lumber, concrete, travel trailers, or other vehicles. So much for the "Utility" part. What're we left with? A "vehicle" that eats gas like Sally Struthers at an all-you-can-eat buffet, endangers other people due to sheer mass and clueless drivers, can't perform like the vehicle it was ORIGINALLY modeled after, and has a price equal to a large home down-payment.
If you can't see the comedy potential there, might want to look again...
Sure! How 'bout:
It's like trying to break a car window by shooting spitballs at it....
*She* got the divorce. *I* got the bill. Falling for/trusting a liar doesn't mean I'm untrustworthy.
Your credit has NO bearing on your moral structure. My score's shot due to a divorce, but while the opportunities to steal may've presented themselves, one fact remains: It's not MY money. I have the keys and alarm codes to many of our clients. Never was a problem, even during a homeless stint. Criminal background checks would be more appropriate here, IMHO, rather than trying to glean one's moral fortitude from their spending histories...
I'll have to respectfully disagree. Sure, violence can beget violence... if you let it. Just leads to a vicious circle... almost like asking the proverbial blonde to pee in the corner of a round room. Consider, there are a lot of hard-core pacifists out there that won't even defend themselves. I don't feel that they're wrong in feeling such, even if we might disagree? I'm not the only one to see this; this guy, and this guy, and this guy are three easy examples of another way of looking at violence.
I say that fear, intolerance, extremism, and short-sighted bigotry are far more the excuse for/root cause of the continuing violence... Take your pick.