"...you can do it by gradually perturbing the orbit through the influence of a second planet" claims the article.
Even if I had a second planet, I could probably figure out waaay more productive things to do with it than piss off the orbit of my first planet. That kind of puerile use of a natural resource on such a massive scale would probably only serve to perpetuate the vicious cycle of interplanetary-domestic-violence that has ruined so many healthy, loving solar systems. On behalf of Solar Family Therapists everywhere I'm ashamed that this Prof. Hellier condones such a flagrant misuse of such a precious resource.
3) Create a hidden volume (within the first encrypted volume) (password=secret)
4) Put your real secret stuff in here.
ATTENTION Fellow Slashdotters: Do NOT listen to this terrible advice!! Never use a password that can be found in a dictionary! To truly foil cracking attempts you MUST add a number or symbol after the word. Something like hunter2 would be MUCH more secure!
Dobes are near the bottom of the intelligence scale (to the point that many just "turn off" when not actively obeying some command), but they are among the most observant, condition very easily, and are very imitative (even if no brain cells are involved). Seeing you open a door once or twice can be sufficient -- monkey see, monkey do.
It has become apparent from your last two posts in this thread that whatever "40 years experience" as a professional dog trainer means for you, it has not prevented you from developing a biased about your favorite breed.
Perhaps it is just that your definition of intelligence for dog breeds restricted to what you prefer to train them for (e.g. bird-hunting). I admit that I only have 2 years of full-time professional dog training experience, but in that time I worked with/trained dogs for basic obedience, competitive obedience, agility training, Schutzhund training for local police, sheriff's department, and federal agencies (including narcotics and bomb detection), bird-hunting, bear-hunting, search-and-rescue, and disabled-assistance (including seeing-eye). As far as specific breeds went across all forms of training, I always saw the greatest success (not just for myself, but for all the other trainers at the company I worked for) with German Shepherds, Belgian Malinois, Labradors, Golden Retrievers, Dobermanns, and Australian Shepherds, in that order (although this list would change if I were to restrict according to a specific training - i.e. Goldens would rank higher for disabled assistance, Dobies on Schutzhund, etc). However, although there might be a tendency towards a general "intelligence" for a breed, it is important to note that the variance within individual dogs was great, and could easily more than make up for a tendency within the breed. Which is why we had a decent proportion of mixed breeds (aka mutts) who happened to be the brighter mutts around.
I grant that I've only worked with a couple Chessies (SoCal not being such a friendly place for the breed), but I am also aware of a natural tendency within dog trainers who have a favorite breed (especially if the trainer starts breeding that breed) to sing the praises of "their" breed, and disparage most other breeds, whenever a discussion of "breed intelligence" comes up.
Except that, because of the 1984 debacle, Amazon's trustworthiness, only in regards to the Kindle, was less respected in many peoples' minds for a brief period of time, until they realized that this was a one time SNAFU and that the rest of the services/products provided by Amazon have not changed in quality, and that Amazon still remains one of the most trustworthy website based companies in the world.. I'm definitely waiting to see what Amazon does. If they do hand it over, deleting all of the personal data in my account may be worth considering.
FTFY. Please correct me if I'm wrong and you have evidence of this "slow erosion" of their trustworthiness.
Hear, hear!! Have your brother try a couple different models of ecigarette to find the one he likes. My favorite model is the one with the disposable atomizer, as it delivers a thick/substantial cloud of vapor. They're sold in the U.S. at vapor4life.com or you can get them cheaper, directly from the chinese manufacturer at cigdealer.com. $31, shipped, for the starter kit. $6 for 5 cartridges that each hold about 1/2 packs worth of nicotine, but can be refilled many times using liquid refills from a supplier like Johnson Creek or Wet Your Stick. In the end, though, different smokers like different models of eCigarette, and different recipes of 'juice', so a little experimentation (although it can be kinda pricey for the starter kits) is worth it to find the model/supplier he likes.
DISCLAIMER: I do not work for, and have no relationship (besides a customer) with any of the above businesses. I am very enthusiastic about this though because of how enjoyable, and cheap, it was for me to cut the tobacco out of my nicotine habit.
Technology, though, is a hell of a thing. These days, I use a cigarette-sized atomizer. It delivers nicotine, water vapor, propelyne glycol, and optional flavoring on inhales. Nothing else--no burning, no other carcinogens. Charges by USB, one cartridge has 16mg nicotine and lasts 150 puffs, so it's trivial to determine dosage. I still call it "smoking" though it's not Sure, start up cost is high, but my health prefers as few carcinogens as possible. Also, it's less obnoxious to people around me. Anyone in the same boat should seriously look at them--handles the fixation as well as delivering nicotine.
Cheers to that! I switched to my eCigarette 4 months ago, and it's fantastic! Haven't wanted/needed a tobacco cigarette since then! Much cheaper per day (buying liquid to refills), tastes better, no lingering odor, no known carcinogens... I'm glad to see a fellow geek ex-smoker (although you obviously had a much better reason to start smoking than I did).
I don't have any association with these guys (besides buying my, and my friends, kits from them) but cigdealer.com is a chinese manufacturer that sells my favorite model (with the disposable atomizer) for $31(USD) after shipping. I get my cartridge/atomizers from them as well (at $1.25/ea), but their flavors are mostly crap, so I try other places for my 'juice'. I used to buy from Johnson Creek, but they changed their recipes, and their flavors just aren't as good anymore. I tried a batch of flavors from Wet Your Stick, but they were hit-and-miss. But all the juice suppliers are priced at 1/8 to 1/3 the price of cigarettes (when you calculate how long the juice lasts).
Where do you go for your refill juice? Or do you just buy the prefilled cartridges?
...While I'm sure that in a clinical setting, the route of administration would be pills, patch, gum, or nasal spray...
Don't forget eCigarettes/inhalers! They're currently 1/5 the cost of cigarettes (for an equivalent amount of 'smoking' time and nicotine), and just as safe/not-that-harmful as any of the other 'nicotine-replacement therapies' you mentioned. After 11 years of a pack a day habit, I switched to an eCigarette 4 months ago, and haven't wanted a tobacco cigarette since. Makes sense because I'm not, and never was, addicted to the tobacco... just the nicotine, which I still get.
B) it creates a bunch of other problems. E.g., that it's a vasoconstrictor (which is actually the root of more smoking-related health problems than the smoke in the lungs)
[Citation Needed]
And not that it's a vasoconstrictor, but that it is the vasoconstriction that is the root of more smoking-related health problems than the smoke in the lungs - which is where the carcinogens go to hang out and talk about starting themselves a lung cancer. I've read a lot of the studies of smoking and nicotine related health risks (smoked a pack a day for 11 years), and from everything I've read, nicotine-replacement therapies (patch, gum, inhalers) remove the FAR majority of health risks, even when their not used to quit the addiction, but just to change the delivery system for the nicotine. I am always interested in gathering more information, though, to compare and contrast with what I have already gathered.
Thank you for any references you can provide in this matter.
Sounds kind of like global warming, where the people screaming most loudly about scientific consensus are also the ones that stand to benefit the most greatly financially.
Or the ones who scream that there isn't are almost always getting the funding for their research from oil companies.
Or the ones who scream that there is and that there isn't scientific consensus, always getting their funding from the Society for the Advancement of Silly Self-contradiction.
I apologize for my apparently callous reply to your statement about using the word 'source' as a verb. I was not aware, at the time that I replied, that you had suffered so much abuse at the hands of words that had gained new meaning within the last hundred years. I now see that my understanding of language as a collection of conventions that can be expanded upon by people (even people with MBAs or marketers) is wholly anathema to your understanding of the sancrosanct character of the vocabulary you grew up with. I sincerely hope that this apology eases any anguish that I, or any silica trapped in your cervix, may have caused you.
Before I get off your lawn, let me leave you with theselinks. I've heard tell that languages, being intrinsically conventional, are allowed to develop new meanings for words, and sometimes even entirely new words. Of course, maybe languages weren't like that, in your day, so I can understand your anger-at-what-is-different/fear-of-the-unknown.
War should be fought by people so that they can understand its terrible cost and will work to oppose and end it.
Uh... if people aren't dying fighting wars wouldn't that mean that the cost isn't nearly as terrible? Eventually can't it just be reduced to robots killing other robots, seizing control of robot-run factories and robot-run resource-gathering operations (mines, lumber, farming, docks, etc). Then have the robot police/judges be programmed according to the whims/laws of the winning nation/dictator? Seems like a likely scenario given another 100 years or so... then the only lives lost will be in "insurrection" or "freedom fighters", that is, humans who try to take on the robots themselves. Maybe also a small, poor nation, or two, who can't afford an effectively completely robotic army.
Maybe we should go with the following working-definition:
Intelligence is that which inclines certain folks who have it to spend an inordinate amount of their time debating whether or not it (intelligence) could or should be defined, while folks who don't have it are busy breeding.
There's just so many jokes to make here I don't even know where to start. I guess I'll go with the non-obvious...
Unfortunately there's only one joke for me to make here. It starts with the World Health Organization, and ends with Orchard Supply Hardware. It's kinda short, but if you get it, it's actually pretty damn funny.
Actually, quite a few products are made by well paid people in western countries, precisely because they have unions.
Citation needed.
I scrolled down to the responses just in the hopes that someone posted exactly this. Well done, sir. An honest request that had me taxing my memory for an answer. Perhaps the GP can provide us with at least a couple examples from the dozens (hundreds?) of big unions.
I have no problem with you taking risks that effect just you. But as far as I'm concerned, if you make my next drive unsafe, then you're behavior must be modified, either willingly or be force.
I love this quasi-libertarian stance. Here's a response in the form of a series of (hopefully) rhetorical questions:
If a study is performed showing that risk is reduced (and consequently there would be less fatalities) if people turned on their turn signals 10 seconds before every lane change, would you support a law to require this?
Should driving while not at your peak alertness (e.g. slightly drowsy, having a bad day, thinking about anything other than driving, etc) be illegal due to the increased risk to those around you?
How about driving a vehicle more likely to smash the shit out of anything it collides with (anything circa 1940/1950)?
Lowering the speed limit everywhere by 10-20 MPH? How about just take all speed limits down to 20 MPH, just to be safe?
Do you see my point? That oft touted quote about exchanging liberty for security isn't just applicable to the War on Terror...
Things like abnormal growths and the like are associated with being unhealthy.
You say that, but I'm pretty sure the majority of your audience experienced love-at-first-sight with a certain "special" lady from the movie Total Recall.
Slashdot Mirror
"...you can do it by gradually perturbing the orbit through the influence of a second planet" claims the article.
Even if I had a second planet, I could probably figure out waaay more productive things to do with it than piss off the orbit of my first planet. That kind of puerile use of a natural resource on such a massive scale would probably only serve to perpetuate the vicious cycle of interplanetary-domestic-violence that has ruined so many healthy, loving solar systems. On behalf of Solar Family Therapists everywhere I'm ashamed that this Prof. Hellier condones such a flagrant misuse of such a precious resource.
3) Create a hidden volume (within the first encrypted volume) (password=secret) 4) Put your real secret stuff in here.
ATTENTION Fellow Slashdotters: Do NOT listen to this terrible advice!! Never use a password that can be found in a dictionary! To truly foil cracking attempts you MUST add a number or symbol after the word. Something like hunter2 would be MUCH more secure!
That seems to have gone right over your head.
The irony here is palpable.
Palpable?! Bah! Let me know when it's pulp-able, so I can start making smoothies from it.
Dobes are near the bottom of the intelligence scale (to the point that many just "turn off" when not actively obeying some command), but they are among the most observant, condition very easily, and are very imitative (even if no brain cells are involved). Seeing you open a door once or twice can be sufficient -- monkey see, monkey do.
It has become apparent from your last two posts in this thread that whatever "40 years experience" as a professional dog trainer means for you, it has not prevented you from developing a biased about your favorite breed.
Perhaps it is just that your definition of intelligence for dog breeds restricted to what you prefer to train them for (e.g. bird-hunting). I admit that I only have 2 years of full-time professional dog training experience, but in that time I worked with/trained dogs for basic obedience, competitive obedience, agility training, Schutzhund training for local police, sheriff's department, and federal agencies (including narcotics and bomb detection), bird-hunting, bear-hunting, search-and-rescue, and disabled-assistance (including seeing-eye). As far as specific breeds went across all forms of training, I always saw the greatest success (not just for myself, but for all the other trainers at the company I worked for) with German Shepherds, Belgian Malinois, Labradors, Golden Retrievers, Dobermanns, and Australian Shepherds, in that order (although this list would change if I were to restrict according to a specific training - i.e. Goldens would rank higher for disabled assistance, Dobies on Schutzhund, etc). However, although there might be a tendency towards a general "intelligence" for a breed, it is important to note that the variance within individual dogs was great, and could easily more than make up for a tendency within the breed. Which is why we had a decent proportion of mixed breeds (aka mutts) who happened to be the brighter mutts around.
I grant that I've only worked with a couple Chessies (SoCal not being such a friendly place for the breed), but I am also aware of a natural tendency within dog trainers who have a favorite breed (especially if the trainer starts breeding that breed) to sing the praises of "their" breed, and disparage most other breeds, whenever a discussion of "breed intelligence" comes up.
Except that, because of the 1984 debacle, Amazon's trustworthiness, only in regards to the Kindle, was less respected in many peoples' minds for a brief period of time, until they realized that this was a one time SNAFU and that the rest of the services/products provided by Amazon have not changed in quality, and that Amazon still remains one of the most trustworthy website based companies in the world.. I'm definitely waiting to see what Amazon does. If they do hand it over, deleting all of the personal data in my account may be worth considering.
FTFY. Please correct me if I'm wrong and you have evidence of this "slow erosion" of their trustworthiness.
Hear, hear!! Have your brother try a couple different models of ecigarette to find the one he likes. My favorite model is the one with the disposable atomizer, as it delivers a thick/substantial cloud of vapor. They're sold in the U.S. at vapor4life.com or you can get them cheaper, directly from the chinese manufacturer at cigdealer.com. $31, shipped, for the starter kit. $6 for 5 cartridges that each hold about 1/2 packs worth of nicotine, but can be refilled many times using liquid refills from a supplier like Johnson Creek or Wet Your Stick. In the end, though, different smokers like different models of eCigarette, and different recipes of 'juice', so a little experimentation (although it can be kinda pricey for the starter kits) is worth it to find the model/supplier he likes.
DISCLAIMER: I do not work for, and have no relationship (besides a customer) with any of the above businesses. I am very enthusiastic about this though because of how enjoyable, and cheap, it was for me to cut the tobacco out of my nicotine habit.
Technology, though, is a hell of a thing. These days, I use a cigarette-sized atomizer. It delivers nicotine, water vapor, propelyne glycol, and optional flavoring on inhales. Nothing else--no burning, no other carcinogens. Charges by USB, one cartridge has 16mg nicotine and lasts 150 puffs, so it's trivial to determine dosage. I still call it "smoking" though it's not Sure, start up cost is high, but my health prefers as few carcinogens as possible. Also, it's less obnoxious to people around me. Anyone in the same boat should seriously look at them--handles the fixation as well as delivering nicotine.
Cheers to that! I switched to my eCigarette 4 months ago, and it's fantastic! Haven't wanted/needed a tobacco cigarette since then! Much cheaper per day (buying liquid to refills), tastes better, no lingering odor, no known carcinogens... I'm glad to see a fellow geek ex-smoker (although you obviously had a much better reason to start smoking than I did).
I don't have any association with these guys (besides buying my, and my friends, kits from them) but cigdealer.com is a chinese manufacturer that sells my favorite model (with the disposable atomizer) for $31(USD) after shipping. I get my cartridge/atomizers from them as well (at $1.25/ea), but their flavors are mostly crap, so I try other places for my 'juice'. I used to buy from Johnson Creek, but they changed their recipes, and their flavors just aren't as good anymore. I tried a batch of flavors from Wet Your Stick, but they were hit-and-miss. But all the juice suppliers are priced at 1/8 to 1/3 the price of cigarettes (when you calculate how long the juice lasts).
Where do you go for your refill juice? Or do you just buy the prefilled cartridges?
...While I'm sure that in a clinical setting, the route of administration would be pills, patch, gum, or nasal spray...
Don't forget eCigarettes/inhalers! They're currently 1/5 the cost of cigarettes (for an equivalent amount of 'smoking' time and nicotine), and just as safe/not-that-harmful as any of the other 'nicotine-replacement therapies' you mentioned. After 11 years of a pack a day habit, I switched to an eCigarette 4 months ago, and haven't wanted a tobacco cigarette since. Makes sense because I'm not, and never was, addicted to the tobacco... just the nicotine, which I still get.
B) it creates a bunch of other problems. E.g., that it's a vasoconstrictor (which is actually the root of more smoking-related health problems than the smoke in the lungs)
[Citation Needed]
And not that it's a vasoconstrictor, but that it is the vasoconstriction that is the root of more smoking-related health problems than the smoke in the lungs - which is where the carcinogens go to hang out and talk about starting themselves a lung cancer. I've read a lot of the studies of smoking and nicotine related health risks (smoked a pack a day for 11 years), and from everything I've read, nicotine-replacement therapies (patch, gum, inhalers) remove the FAR majority of health risks, even when their not used to quit the addiction, but just to change the delivery system for the nicotine. I am always interested in gathering more information, though, to compare and contrast with what I have already gathered.
Thank you for any references you can provide in this matter.
Would you want to see what happens when I try to quit?
I don't think the voices in your head have a /. account, so how could they answer you?
Sounds kind of like global warming, where the people screaming most loudly about scientific consensus are also the ones that stand to benefit the most greatly financially.
Or the ones who scream that there isn't are almost always getting the funding for their research from oil companies.
Or the ones who scream that there is and that there isn't scientific consensus, always getting their funding from the Society for the Advancement of Silly Self-contradiction.
Doesn't work in my already-compromised computer running XP.
FTFY
This is why we have the justice system, and not Judge Dredd
FTFY
Dear Sir,
I apologize for my apparently callous reply to your statement about using the word 'source' as a verb. I was not aware, at the time that I replied, that you had suffered so much abuse at the hands of words that had gained new meaning within the last hundred years. I now see that my understanding of language as a collection of conventions that can be expanded upon by people (even people with MBAs or marketers) is wholly anathema to your understanding of the sancrosanct character of the vocabulary you grew up with. I sincerely hope that this apology eases any anguish that I, or any silica trapped in your cervix, may have caused you.
Before I get off your lawn, let me leave you with these links. I've heard tell that languages, being intrinsically conventional, are allowed to develop new meanings for words, and sometimes even entirely new words. Of course, maybe languages weren't like that, in your day, so I can understand your anger-at-what-is-different/fear-of-the-unknown.
boot camp by give some of them a psychological brake down.
As is apparent by the effect it has had on your grammar and spelling. Thank you, sir, for your service.
War should be fought by people so that they can understand its terrible cost and will work to oppose and end it.
Uh... if people aren't dying fighting wars wouldn't that mean that the cost isn't nearly as terrible? Eventually can't it just be reduced to robots killing other robots, seizing control of robot-run factories and robot-run resource-gathering operations (mines, lumber, farming, docks, etc). Then have the robot police/judges be programmed according to the whims/laws of the winning nation/dictator? Seems like a likely scenario given another 100 years or so... then the only lives lost will be in "insurrection" or "freedom fighters", that is, humans who try to take on the robots themselves. Maybe also a small, poor nation, or two, who can't afford an effectively completely robotic army.
Maybe we should go with the following working-definition:
Intelligence is that which inclines certain folks who have it to spend an inordinate amount of their time debating whether or not it (intelligence) could or should be defined, while folks who don't have it are busy breeding.
There's just so many jokes to make here I don't even know where to start. I guess I'll go with the non-obvious...
Unfortunately there's only one joke for me to make here. It starts with the World Health Organization, and ends with Orchard Supply Hardware. It's kinda short, but if you get it, it's actually pretty damn funny.
Quite right. People who claim to be "allergic" to modern technology invariably fail to prove it in properly designed double-blind scientific tests.
Maybe they're also allergic to double-blind studies...
Citation needed.
I scrolled down to the responses just in the hopes that someone posted exactly this. Well done, sir. An honest request that had me taxing my memory for an answer. Perhaps the GP can provide us with at least a couple examples from the dozens (hundreds?) of big unions.
Welcome to my friends list.
I have no problem with you taking risks that effect just you. But as far as I'm concerned, if you make my next drive unsafe, then you're behavior must be modified, either willingly or be force.
I love this quasi-libertarian stance. Here's a response in the form of a series of (hopefully) rhetorical questions:
If a study is performed showing that risk is reduced (and consequently there would be less fatalities) if people turned on their turn signals 10 seconds before every lane change, would you support a law to require this?
Should driving while not at your peak alertness (e.g. slightly drowsy, having a bad day, thinking about anything other than driving, etc) be illegal due to the increased risk to those around you?
How about driving a vehicle more likely to smash the shit out of anything it collides with (anything circa 1940/1950)?
Lowering the speed limit everywhere by 10-20 MPH? How about just take all speed limits down to 20 MPH, just to be safe?
Do you see my point? That oft touted quote about exchanging liberty for security isn't just applicable to the War on Terror...
It parses far too easily as a joke on spousal abuse.
Does it parse any other way!?
Well, I guess it could be parsed as planetary lesbian domestic partner abuse, if you really want to be PC.
You're admitting to buying porn... on /. !? Please turn in your geek card at the door. Thank you for stopping by.
Things like abnormal growths and the like are associated with being unhealthy.
You say that, but I'm pretty sure the majority of your audience experienced love-at-first-sight with a certain "special" lady from the movie Total Recall.