I don't see anything about Wyden being required to get permission. Generally it's considered a good idea to try cooperation before taking unilateral action.
Absorb and adsorb are two different things, they are not interchangable (however they are similar). If something absorbs water, it means it draws water into it, while if it adsorbs water, it means it holds the water to its surface. Either phenomena would result in the material picking up the water, so the end result is more or less the same. Unless you're sure you mean adsorb, just use absorb to refer to one object taking in another.
That said, if adsorb really is the technically appropriate term here, I would be interested in learning more.
If Americans were concerned about watching interest rates the first thing they'd all do is pay off all debt as fast as possible. Considering that most households have debt (mortgage, car, credit cards), and yet they are still spending more than they need to, I'm pretty sure that the economics of how to best save money doesn't enter the equation.
With point 2, I think the parent is talking about zero-tolerance rules for the students, i.e. the victim getting suspended for (reasonably) fighting back.
All the proposed "solutions" to AGW basically boil down to "You 1st-world Western Capitalist nations are to blame for all the pollution, give us your wealth and cripple your industries and economies!"
Nice straw-man you built there. Did you have adult help?
+5 Insightful for a conspiracy theory that doesn't even make sense? Seriously?
I guess when a judge is biased in a way we don't like (i.e. the Pirate Bay trial) he's terrible and should be removed from the case, but when he's biased in a favorable way he's the best one for the case? Also, if this judge is so awesome, why can he be bribed? If he can be bribed, why doesn't the US just have him rule in their favor, rather than make him step down so another judge can be bribed for the ruling?
The simple answer is he's as good of a judge as we hoped, but as any good judge would do, he recognizes his bias. Maybe he has enough faith in the other judges that he feels that the case would go better with someone else, as opposed to him staying on the case and giving the US a strong case for a successful appeal.
Yeah I went back to 2k3 briefly and couldn't find stuff, so I returned to the ribbon. You have no idea how cumbersome the dropdown menus are until you've been away from them for a while.
Well, the artists had a choice who to side with:
-The labels, who make millions off the artists, and if they're feeling generous they'll pay the artist a pittance while still acting like the artist owes them. They have no interest in improving things.
-Dotcom, who makes millions off the artists just because he can. He is interested in improving things for the artists.
With a choice between a soul-sucking demon and a mere leech, it's kinda easy to make the leech look good. Sure, if Dotcom had the 90% for the artists service going I admit his income from that would be well-deserved, but the millions he has made up to now isn't*.
*Talking about karma/morality/whatever, regardless of legality.
It's much harder to do investigative reporting on private companies, as you basically need a whistleblower on the inside in order to get hard facts*. The papers do have "What's your problem" columns where the newspaper steps in to help a consumer being held at the mercy of a company. Of course, if you want an expose on advertisers, that would require funding newspapers entirely on subscriptions in order to remove any appearance of bias.
Also, your Party A/Party B comment shows you don't pay attention. When the newspapers dig up enough dirt on a politician, they become a pariah, and other politicians will want nothing to do with them. Your comment is like saying that because athletes get away with some calls when the ref isn't looking that sports are better off without referees. No, the newspapers aren't going to straighten out politics, but they force politicians to maintain some level of honesty. There have been cases where newspaper investigations have triggered criminal investigations. I agree we're never going to get a clean government, but it's thanks to idiots like you that it is possible to get disasters with names like "Blagojevich" in office. They are not all the same, and they are not all crooks (especially the more local you get).
*Private companies can blow you off a lot easier if you start asking questions, and also will readily sue (retaining lawyers will strain the newspaper's budget). Digging up dirt on the government generally involves public documents and FOIA requests, which makes it easier to build a case and harder for the government to brush it aside.
It's just "Daily Herald". They're also based in Chicago but they focus on local news, so you get a different edition depending on which suburb/county you are in. They of course cover general nation and Chicago news, but they try not to be redundant with the Trib. I'm in DuPage county, and they've done a number of investigative reports on things around the county, stuff that the Tribune wouldn't be doing.
Two of the big Chicago papers- Chicago Tribune and Daily Herald- each make a point to do investigative reporting, finding information on mismanaged government funds, questionable hiring practices, and other political negligence or misconduct (which we have plenty of). We'll always have some form of news source covering events that are geared towards the media, like the presidential elections, sporting events and press releases, but it takes an established newspaper run by people willing to invest in time-consuming research to generate quality investigative reporting. With politicians who have more clout than an average citizen can handle, it takes a newspaper with a weight of its own to fight back. I realize newspapers are going to have to make significant changes to stay in business, and that many won't make it, but I am worried that in the process we may lose one of our best means of keeping the government in check.
If a religious person were to try and question the ability of an atheist to act morally, this would be my response:
"If you do the right thing only because God tells you to, then I claim I'm a better person then you, as I do the right thing without any selfish interest. If, on the other hand, you do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do, then I don't see how we are any different."
Alternatively, you could propose "However impossible, let's pretend I somehow proved to you that God does not exist, would you continue to do the right thing?"
They will of course say yes (except for the ones who will take offense at even pretending God doesn't exist).
"So you admit yourself that an atheist could be driven to do the right thing."
This is similar to sibling posts, but technically GMail could display ads based on your email without actually keeping track of the results. Sure, I expect Google does track some of this information- if those ads show up even after you've permanently deleted the relevent emails (or if they at least have the capability), then that certainly is the case.
While I agree brick-and-mortar grocery shopping isn't about to be supplanted by online equivalents, online grocery stores can't be dismissed completely. I have elderly neighbors that use such sites as driving, walking around the store, and lifting the grocieries is getting hard for them. Sure, you might limit purchases of frozen foods or produce, but that isn't that big of an issue if delivery is a big help for you. It is especially convenient if you have a standard list so you don't have to fumble with the interface every time. Heck, get your produce from a local farmer's market and you might be able to skip the grocery store all together.
That said, I have no interest in using such services, but they certainly do have a market.
then nobody could travel the week of July 4th because they are all terrorists hiding explosives in their rectum's. Break out the gloves and strip search that 11 year old in front of their parents!
[...]
this sensationalist security crap
Good thing I'm not going through airport security right now, I think my irony meter just exploded!
The difference between climate and weather is simply long term vs. short term trends. You can look at local, regional, or even global climate- the size of the area doesn't factor into the distinction between weather and climate. Along those lines, this paper looks at the climate for the region, not the weather.
I agree the Register article is extremely dishonest, but you need to get your terminology straight or people might dismiss your otherwise valid points.
There are people in government motivated to do the right thing, and some of them feel our "War on Terror" efforts equate to doing the right thing. There are other people in government motivated by greed above all else. These people will find a plausible cause (maybe something the "do the right thing" people want to do), and then corrupt it to their means. For the most part, it seems those driven by greed don't have enough power to do things on their own, but same goes for those that are just trying to do the right thing. The result is an endless series of seemingly well-intended actions that just happen to be good at lining someone's pocket.
Sure, this is oversimplification, but I feel it's closer to the truth than "it's all greed" or "it's all good will".
I always thrive to write grammatically correct English
"Strive" is likely the word you want (along the lines of "work toward", "put effort into"). "Thrive" means you live for it, it's what gives you a sense of purpose.
I only correct you on the assumption that you appreciate a chance to improve your english. I don't mean anything against you, it's a small mistake in an otherwise well-written post.
I have that problem too but I leave it on, because I recognize it as simply highlighting potential issues ("This may be right, just double check this please"). It is helpful in catching the occasional mistake, or if a lot of my sentences are flagged for subjective rules (such as passive voice), I'll consider fixing a few.
Along the same lines, poor writing muddles the message even if they manage to get the intended idea across. Once you start wondering whether the writer knows how to use words properly, you question whether they are saying what they intended to say.
Also not discussed by "advocates" is the fact that the CO2 we generate is at this point probably insignificant due to the developing world, and their increased output.
That is a problem. It's hard for us to tell some third world country "now that we got ours, the rules are changing"
My response to the "but it doesn't matter because China/India" argument is that China and India are just trying to catch up. The sooner we adapt more carbon-neutral technology, the sooner China and India can start catching up to that. Sure, coal is dirt cheap, but by the time we shut down all our coal plants the tech will be developed enough to gain the interest of developing countries, especially where they have enough of a middle class demanding cleaner technology (no one wants to live near a coal plant).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see anything about Wyden being required to get permission. Generally it's considered a good idea to try cooperation before taking unilateral action.
Absorb and adsorb are two different things, they are not interchangable (however they are similar). If something absorbs water, it means it draws water into it, while if it adsorbs water, it means it holds the water to its surface. Either phenomena would result in the material picking up the water, so the end result is more or less the same. Unless you're sure you mean adsorb, just use absorb to refer to one object taking in another.
That said, if adsorb really is the technically appropriate term here, I would be interested in learning more.
By the way, you might want to throw out your soap-scum-encrusted glasses and get a proper pair of sunglasses.
If Americans were concerned about watching interest rates the first thing they'd all do is pay off all debt as fast as possible. Considering that most households have debt (mortgage, car, credit cards), and yet they are still spending more than they need to, I'm pretty sure that the economics of how to best save money doesn't enter the equation.
Read the IPCC instead. It contains a lot of scary imagery too, but ultimately, you can find a simple cost/benefit analysis
So they got a bunch of weathermen and economists in a room to make a prediction. How could anyone think this would be a good idea?
*This is a joke.
With point 2, I think the parent is talking about zero-tolerance rules for the students, i.e. the victim getting suspended for (reasonably) fighting back.
All the proposed "solutions" to AGW basically boil down to "You 1st-world Western Capitalist nations are to blame for all the pollution, give us your wealth and cripple your industries and economies!"
Nice straw-man you built there. Did you have adult help?
+5 Insightful for a conspiracy theory that doesn't even make sense? Seriously?
I guess when a judge is biased in a way we don't like (i.e. the Pirate Bay trial) he's terrible and should be removed from the case, but when he's biased in a favorable way he's the best one for the case? Also, if this judge is so awesome, why can he be bribed? If he can be bribed, why doesn't the US just have him rule in their favor, rather than make him step down so another judge can be bribed for the ruling?
The simple answer is he's as good of a judge as we hoped, but as any good judge would do, he recognizes his bias. Maybe he has enough faith in the other judges that he feels that the case would go better with someone else, as opposed to him staying on the case and giving the US a strong case for a successful appeal.
Yeah I went back to 2k3 briefly and couldn't find stuff, so I returned to the ribbon. You have no idea how cumbersome the dropdown menus are until you've been away from them for a while.
Well, the artists had a choice who to side with:
-The labels, who make millions off the artists, and if they're feeling generous they'll pay the artist a pittance while still acting like the artist owes them. They have no interest in improving things.
-Dotcom, who makes millions off the artists just because he can. He is interested in improving things for the artists.
With a choice between a soul-sucking demon and a mere leech, it's kinda easy to make the leech look good. Sure, if Dotcom had the 90% for the artists service going I admit his income from that would be well-deserved, but the millions he has made up to now isn't*.
*Talking about karma/morality/whatever, regardless of legality.
It's much harder to do investigative reporting on private companies, as you basically need a whistleblower on the inside in order to get hard facts*. The papers do have "What's your problem" columns where the newspaper steps in to help a consumer being held at the mercy of a company. Of course, if you want an expose on advertisers, that would require funding newspapers entirely on subscriptions in order to remove any appearance of bias.
Also, your Party A/Party B comment shows you don't pay attention. When the newspapers dig up enough dirt on a politician, they become a pariah, and other politicians will want nothing to do with them. Your comment is like saying that because athletes get away with some calls when the ref isn't looking that sports are better off without referees. No, the newspapers aren't going to straighten out politics, but they force politicians to maintain some level of honesty. There have been cases where newspaper investigations have triggered criminal investigations. I agree we're never going to get a clean government, but it's thanks to idiots like you that it is possible to get disasters with names like "Blagojevich" in office. They are not all the same, and they are not all crooks (especially the more local you get).
*Private companies can blow you off a lot easier if you start asking questions, and also will readily sue (retaining lawyers will strain the newspaper's budget). Digging up dirt on the government generally involves public documents and FOIA requests, which makes it easier to build a case and harder for the government to brush it aside.
It's just "Daily Herald". They're also based in Chicago but they focus on local news, so you get a different edition depending on which suburb/county you are in. They of course cover general nation and Chicago news, but they try not to be redundant with the Trib. I'm in DuPage county, and they've done a number of investigative reports on things around the county, stuff that the Tribune wouldn't be doing.
Two of the big Chicago papers- Chicago Tribune and Daily Herald- each make a point to do investigative reporting, finding information on mismanaged government funds, questionable hiring practices, and other political negligence or misconduct (which we have plenty of). We'll always have some form of news source covering events that are geared towards the media, like the presidential elections, sporting events and press releases, but it takes an established newspaper run by people willing to invest in time-consuming research to generate quality investigative reporting. With politicians who have more clout than an average citizen can handle, it takes a newspaper with a weight of its own to fight back. I realize newspapers are going to have to make significant changes to stay in business, and that many won't make it, but I am worried that in the process we may lose one of our best means of keeping the government in check.
This may go unnoticed, but...
If a religious person were to try and question the ability of an atheist to act morally, this would be my response:
"If you do the right thing only because God tells you to, then I claim I'm a better person then you, as I do the right thing without any selfish interest. If, on the other hand, you do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do, then I don't see how we are any different."
Alternatively, you could propose "However impossible, let's pretend I somehow proved to you that God does not exist, would you continue to do the right thing?"
They will of course say yes (except for the ones who will take offense at even pretending God doesn't exist).
"So you admit yourself that an atheist could be driven to do the right thing."
This is similar to sibling posts, but technically GMail could display ads based on your email without actually keeping track of the results. Sure, I expect Google does track some of this information- if those ads show up even after you've permanently deleted the relevent emails (or if they at least have the capability), then that certainly is the case.
While I agree brick-and-mortar grocery shopping isn't about to be supplanted by online equivalents, online grocery stores can't be dismissed completely. I have elderly neighbors that use such sites as driving, walking around the store, and lifting the grocieries is getting hard for them. Sure, you might limit purchases of frozen foods or produce, but that isn't that big of an issue if delivery is a big help for you. It is especially convenient if you have a standard list so you don't have to fumble with the interface every time. Heck, get your produce from a local farmer's market and you might be able to skip the grocery store all together.
That said, I have no interest in using such services, but they certainly do have a market.
then nobody could travel the week of July 4th because they are all terrorists hiding explosives in their rectum's. Break out the gloves and strip search that 11 year old in front of their parents!
[...]
this sensationalist security crap
Good thing I'm not going through airport security right now, I think my irony meter just exploded!
The difference between climate and weather is simply long term vs. short term trends. You can look at local, regional, or even global climate- the size of the area doesn't factor into the distinction between weather and climate. Along those lines, this paper looks at the climate for the region, not the weather.
I agree the Register article is extremely dishonest, but you need to get your terminology straight or people might dismiss your otherwise valid points.
Eh wouldn't you get wear on the home row simply due to your fingers resting there? Maybe not more than the most frequently pressed keys though.
Like most governors, Florida's governor is a secretive, ignorant, corrupt waste of humanity.
As a resident of Illinois, I believe that would be the more accurate statment.
There are people in government motivated to do the right thing, and some of them feel our "War on Terror" efforts equate to doing the right thing. There are other people in government motivated by greed above all else. These people will find a plausible cause (maybe something the "do the right thing" people want to do), and then corrupt it to their means. For the most part, it seems those driven by greed don't have enough power to do things on their own, but same goes for those that are just trying to do the right thing. The result is an endless series of seemingly well-intended actions that just happen to be good at lining someone's pocket.
Sure, this is oversimplification, but I feel it's closer to the truth than "it's all greed" or "it's all good will".
I always thrive to write grammatically correct English
"Strive" is likely the word you want (along the lines of "work toward", "put effort into"). "Thrive" means you live for it, it's what gives you a sense of purpose.
I only correct you on the assumption that you appreciate a chance to improve your english. I don't mean anything against you, it's a small mistake in an otherwise well-written post.
I have that problem too but I leave it on, because I recognize it as simply highlighting potential issues ("This may be right, just double check this please"). It is helpful in catching the occasional mistake, or if a lot of my sentences are flagged for subjective rules (such as passive voice), I'll consider fixing a few.
Along the same lines, poor writing muddles the message even if they manage to get the intended idea across. Once you start wondering whether the writer knows how to use words properly, you question whether they are saying what they intended to say.
Also not discussed by "advocates" is the fact that the CO2 we generate is at this point probably insignificant due to the developing world, and their increased output. That is a problem. It's hard for us to tell some third world country "now that we got ours, the rules are changing"
My response to the "but it doesn't matter because China/India" argument is that China and India are just trying to catch up. The sooner we adapt more carbon-neutral technology, the sooner China and India can start catching up to that. Sure, coal is dirt cheap, but by the time we shut down all our coal plants the tech will be developed enough to gain the interest of developing countries, especially where they have enough of a middle class demanding cleaner technology (no one wants to live near a coal plant).