For several decades, the word "Commonwealth" has referred to the 54 nation alliance of former british colonies, much like the word "America" refers to the US. Die hard Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia still consider the Queen of England to be their leader (a dubious sense of judgement, but oh well).
The other commonwealth is the CIS - Commonwealth of Independent States, a horrible name chosen for the group of nations which were once part of the USSR. Not sure if the CIS still exists in theory, or if they even care.
And now comes Massachusetts, kinda late to the party of entities vying for the moniker "commonwealth", but then it has the advantage of a ghastly URL...
I'd say they're too late to form a name brand at this point, but then, they are too clueless to care.
This hidden subsection - www.idsoftware.com/pr0n - at idsoftware is probably the funniest umm...hidden subsection of any major web site. AFAIK, it wasn't pimped by id either, but in the spirit of things, it started circulating among die hard quake players.
Warning - R rated, but NOT advisable for office viewing. OTOH, nothing too....well, just see it for yourself.:)
I'm not sure how the google.com/linux is different from a regular search on just google.com.
What are the best places to look for linux info? I personally do
1) deja.com first, extremely useful for hardware and troubleshooting reports
2) altavista, with a +whole +bunch of +pluses to make sure the word is included.
3) Google - the trouble with google is that it gives the same site 20 times in a row on the first 2 pages, whereas altavista has better distribution, but lower relevance.
4) redhat.com's mailing list archives - I used to try here a while ago, but I guess my iterative mechanisms have changed habits.
5) The linuxgazette.com search engine. Actually this is one I would rate 2 or 3, but I don't want to change the numbers after all this typing, esp. since I'm getting used to the aftereffects of the hair dryer thawing....
Hmmm...are these pretty typical of the/. crowd? Or did I miss a kickass search site?
I would say more like big hairy gorrilas with huge tusks. But you're entitled to your opinion.
These things combine to give introduced species an edge in their new, predator-free environments. They're not likely to be a problem in the case of wooly mammoths.
Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. Or in this case - don't count your mammoths before they are thawed. I'm afraid you do not understand the gentle grace and awesome power of my species. True, not much to look at, and kinda ugly from certain angles. But when mammoths are enraged, we are extremely difficult to stop. Jurassic Park wouldn't hold a candle to a bunch of mammoths.
Cloned wooly mammoths would probably not be released into the wild right away, but kept in zoos, or penned up on research farms for study.
That's what you think. Frankly, this would be both gruesome and terribly cruel, but that's just my perspective.
Given their slow rate of reproduction, it'd be a very long time before there were enough of them to have much of an impact on their environment.
Oy, it's possible to add rabbit genes, and then just sit back and watch the fun. Run, mammoth, run!
Mammoths had large brains and, like elephants, are likely to have been relatively intelligent.
Thank you, kind sir.
Indeed, I find these laudable words about my rich culture quite comforting, in comparison with the harsh words and ridicule heaped out, almost as if the wooly mammoth is a freak show for the entertainment of bored cubicle geeks.
The question is, how would we teach an animal these skills if we have no living examples of how they act in the wild?
Good question. The answer is - TV. I've found it to be a great source of information, and the stuff I see on Jerry Springer is quite admirable in terms of advanced human techniques at banging into things and trampling around.
And evolution itself is a dogma at least as strong as that in any religion.
That "dogma" is called science. It consists of taking quantitative observations and coming up with a theory to explain them all consistently. Examples of such theories are Newton's theory of gravity, einstein's e=mc^2, Galileo's theories of planetary bodies, etc. The important thing is that the theory has to be *quantitative* AND consistently explain the observation.
Now, if you call that a dogma, then you're mistaken, for no scientific theory is held on faith. Indeed, many theories are discarded when a better one is discovered which more accurately predicts the universe.
OTOH, religion is based on faith, and it's not quantitative. That itself makes it totally useless for explaining anything, other than as a means of reassuring your own faith. For example - creationists don't have a consistent, quantitatively established theory. When astrophysics shows us cleary that the Universe is older than 6,000 years, creationists quickly point out that a "year" could be millions of years in the lords viewpoint.
Just read any of the creationist arguments for "where all the flood water went" for an amusing exercise in bad math.
Ultimately, you can't compare creationism with any scientific theory because the former is vague and doesn't have to explain anything consistently, while the latter is the opposite.
Here, let's try this - I hereby propose that the entire universe consists of turtles sitting on other turtles in a recursive array. Now prove me wrong. I can easily come up with vague justifications to brush away any flaw you point out in this theory (why can't we see the turtles? they emit a different wavelength of radiation beyond the visible spectrum).
See what I mean? You can always start off with a theory, ANY theory, and explain it vaguely.
Try doing it quantitatively, gimme some URLs (not the comically math-deficient ones with incorrect multiplication), let's see some evidence.
In fact, the only people I know who have done honest, well-balanced reviews of the evidence on both sides happen to be creationists, since, unfortunately, evolutionists tend to dismiss creation as impossible before bothering to look at the facts that support that position.
Yeah, they also dismiss Islamic scholars , scientologists, rabbis, hari krishnas, and other assorted wise men. We're talking about evidence here, not some airy nebulous theory for the political balancing and appeasing of everyone's sense of importance.
Don't worry, scientists aren't ignoring you. If you come up with a valid provable theory which stands up to scrutiny, nobody will dismiss it. The problem is that every wacko thinks he has it right and the "scientists are unfairly ignoring my brilliant theory!"
Slashdot Mirror
For several decades, the word "Commonwealth" has referred to the 54 nation alliance of former british colonies, much like the word "America" refers to the US. Die hard Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia still consider the Queen of England to be their leader (a dubious sense of judgement, but oh well).
The other commonwealth is the CIS - Commonwealth of Independent States, a horrible name chosen for the group of nations which were once part of the USSR. Not sure if the CIS still exists in theory, or if they even care.
And now comes Massachusetts, kinda late to the party of entities vying for the moniker "commonwealth", but then it has the advantage of a ghastly URL...
I'd say they're too late to form a name brand at this point, but then, they are too clueless to care.
Wooly Mammoth.
This hidden subsection - www.idsoftware.com/pr0n - at idsoftware is probably the funniest umm...hidden subsection of any major web site. AFAIK, it wasn't pimped by id either, but in the spirit of things, it started circulating among die hard quake players.
:)
Warning - R rated, but NOT advisable for office viewing. OTOH, nothing too....well, just see it for yourself.
Wooly Mammoth.
I'm not sure how the google.com/linux is different from a regular search on just google.com.
/. crowd? Or did I miss a kickass search site?
What are the best places to look for linux info? I personally do
1) deja.com first, extremely useful for hardware and troubleshooting reports
2) altavista, with a +whole +bunch of +pluses to make sure the word is included.
3) Google - the trouble with google is that it gives the same site 20 times in a row on the first 2 pages, whereas altavista has better distribution, but lower relevance.
4) redhat.com's mailing list archives - I used to try here a while ago, but I guess my iterative mechanisms have changed habits.
5) The linuxgazette.com search engine. Actually this is one I would rate 2 or 3, but I don't want to change the numbers after all this typing, esp. since I'm getting used to the aftereffects of the hair dryer thawing....
Hmmm...are these pretty typical of the
The Wooly Mammoth.
Mammoths are much like present-day elephants
I would say more like big hairy gorrilas with huge tusks. But you're entitled to your opinion.
These things combine to give introduced species an edge in their new, predator-free environments. They're not likely to be a problem in the case of wooly mammoths.
Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. Or in this case - don't count your mammoths before they are thawed. I'm afraid you do not understand the gentle grace and awesome power of my species. True, not much to look at, and kinda ugly from certain angles. But when mammoths are enraged, we are extremely difficult to stop. Jurassic Park wouldn't hold a candle to a bunch of mammoths.
Cloned wooly mammoths would probably not be released into the wild right away, but kept in zoos, or penned up on research farms for study.
That's what you think. Frankly, this would be both gruesome and terribly cruel, but that's just my perspective.
Given their slow rate of reproduction, it'd be a very long time before there were enough of them to have much of an impact on their environment.
Oy, it's possible to add rabbit genes, and then just sit back and watch the fun. Run, mammoth, run!
Wooly Mammoth.
Mammoths had large brains and, like elephants, are likely to have been relatively intelligent.
Thank you, kind sir.
Indeed, I find these laudable words about my rich culture quite comforting, in comparison with the harsh words and ridicule heaped out, almost as if the wooly mammoth is a freak show for the entertainment of bored cubicle geeks.
The question is, how would we teach an animal these skills if we have no living examples of how they act in the wild?
Good question. The answer is - TV. I've found it to be a great source of information, and the stuff I see on Jerry Springer is quite admirable in terms of advanced human techniques at banging into things and trampling around.
The Wooly Mammoth.
And evolution itself is a dogma at least as strong as that in any religion.
That "dogma" is called science. It consists of taking quantitative observations and coming up with a theory to explain them all consistently. Examples of such theories are Newton's theory of gravity, einstein's e=mc^2, Galileo's theories of planetary bodies, etc. The important thing is that the theory has to be *quantitative* AND consistently explain the observation.
Now, if you call that a dogma, then you're mistaken, for no scientific theory is held on faith. Indeed, many theories are discarded when a better one is discovered which more accurately predicts the universe.
OTOH, religion is based on faith, and it's not quantitative. That itself makes it totally useless for explaining anything, other than as a means of reassuring your own faith. For example - creationists don't have a consistent, quantitatively established theory. When astrophysics shows us cleary that the Universe is older than 6,000 years, creationists quickly point out that a "year" could be millions of years in the lords viewpoint.
Just read any of the creationist arguments for "where all the flood water went" for an amusing exercise in bad math.
Ultimately, you can't compare creationism with any scientific theory because the former is vague and doesn't have to explain anything consistently, while the latter is the opposite.
Here, let's try this - I hereby propose that the entire universe consists of turtles sitting on other turtles in a recursive array. Now prove me wrong. I can easily come up with vague justifications to brush away any flaw you point out in this theory (why can't we see the turtles? they emit a different wavelength of radiation beyond the visible spectrum).
See what I mean? You can always start off with a theory, ANY theory, and explain it vaguely.
Try doing it quantitatively, gimme some URLs (not the comically math-deficient ones with incorrect multiplication), let's see some evidence.
In fact, the only people I know who have done honest, well-balanced reviews of the evidence on both sides happen to be creationists, since,
unfortunately, evolutionists tend to dismiss creation as impossible before bothering to look at the facts that support that position.
Yeah, they also dismiss Islamic scholars , scientologists, rabbis, hari krishnas, and other assorted wise men. We're talking about evidence here, not some airy nebulous theory for the political balancing and appeasing of everyone's sense of importance.
Don't worry, scientists aren't ignoring you. If you come up with a valid provable theory which stands up to scrutiny, nobody will dismiss it. The problem is that every wacko thinks he has it right and the "scientists are unfairly ignoring my brilliant theory!"
w/m
Well, I must admit I do enjoy a good trampling. *blush*
We already have enough problems with cows and at least they aren't large enough to trample or eat people.
:(
Gimme a break. I don't go around fucking eating people. WTF?
And I resent that comparison with a cow. I've never seen a "new-age cow", nor would I care to. But what I do want is a little respect.
w/m