Asking for a peace treaty to end the war you illiterate
Yeah, right. Since when has Kim Jong-il ever been one to care for anything but his access to power? If he wants peace, let him surrender. Let him show he cares for the people he governs.
If he actually cared about his people he would have surrendered decades ago so his people wouldn't starve. Instead he clings to power and spends untold millions on himself when his own people don't even have the bare necessities of life. He's just as evil as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.... He cares for nothing but personal power and aggrandizement.
If the USA would give the DPRK the peace treaty they've been wanting for years, it wouldn't be much of a problem. Of course, then we would have one fewer excuse to maintain a couple hundred military bases across the globe.
Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's trust someone who will not only deny his own people basic human rights, but starves them to death by the millions as a matter of policy. Let's give him access to more military and financial assets as there's no possibility he will use them as he has used the assets he now possesses.
The jobs lost in drilling will create a ripple effect through Louisiana's economy. Take $2.1 billion out of a local economy in 6 months and it severely affects lots of other local businesses. Plus, not only does present drilling stop it most likely stops all oil exploration too, because who knows if the drilling will start up again. So, in the Louisiana ports 2/3's of the oil-related business is gone. With a low ball estimate of $1 billion in lost wages due to loss of exploration jobs, you've now taken more than $3 billion out of southern Louisiana's economy. That's going to have a major effect on all other parts of the economy as business is going to dry up for a lot of seemingly unrelated business where all those oil workers spent their money. That's going to cause those businesses to lay off employees who will have to stop spending money too. It's a vicious circle that just keeps on growing and widening in its effects.
This effect is compounded because of the effects of the spill on the economy there. No fishing, no drilling, no oil exploration, no shrimping. And you can't see a vast loss of jobs when that's the majority of the economy down there? Businesses that were just barely hanging on will be devastated losing these two revenue streams on top of what's already been lost.
So they are saying "if you don't let me play I'm going to take my toys and go home"?
Let's see. If you had equipment that each cost $350 million to build 9 years ago, and twice that to build now, you would just allow them to sit idle? Remember, the entire time they are idle you will still have to pay the upkeep on the equipment too, which is no small expense, and absorb the loss of business income. You'd also be laying off a lot your help, which would move out of the area to find work. So, when you restarted operation you would have to bring in people unfamiliar with your operation and rig, which is further cost to you....
How long would you allow a billion dollars or so of equipment to sit idle after you had passed safety inspections? How long do you think you could afford to do that?
especially when you consider 100 million has been put aside
That's less than 1 months wages for the people put out of work. The early estimates for direct wages lost is $350 million/month. That doesn't count all the indirect jobs lost either. In 6 months this is likely to cause the loss of 10-20,000 jobs in Louisiana, and all those drilling rigs will be moved out of the area into other parts of the world. A 6 month moratorium will effectively kill all those wells for several years as the well-drilling rigs are custom built and take over a year each to build.
Just what's needed for a region that's being killed economically already....
Anyone who considers PNG for storing pictures needs to stop, right away. PNG has one advantage: it's a lossless format (as opposed to JPEG). But then you could use TIFF, or DNG.
I tried shotwell with.tif files and it wouldn't import them. So, realistically, jpg is the only file format it reads.
His sarcasm was very appropriate given what's going on in our country today, and what the mayor of the town in Italy is doing. It was both relevant and timely as this entire story is political in nature. The mayor is playing politics by suing the geologist to cover up his own ineptitude and corruption in not making sure his town actually was earthquake-proofed as had been alleged.
This is exactly what has been done by US government inspectors falsifying records relating to having equipment on hand so there could be an immediate response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and our president being so tied to the unions that he refused the help that would have made sure the oil wouldn't be reaching our wetlands and beaches at this time.
Learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it. You modded a sarcastic comment making fun of both sides of the political aisle as flamebait. He made fun of the socialists and the conservatives in just two sentences. That's hard to do. He ought to be modded +5 funny, not flamebait, on his ability to use sarcasm alone....
Yeah, I've seen that kind of crap too, only I've been on the other side of the fence.
It was done to me by a very shady collection agency back in the 80's. I'd made payment arrangements so I didn't show up for court. More than a year later I get a phone call telling me there was a judgment against me and that my wages were going to be garnisheed. And all that after I'd faithfully made my payment every month.
I went to three different lawyers and they all told me I was screwed. I didn't believe it. So, I went to the judge during small claims court at the same court I'd had a judgment rendered against me for not showing up for court. I told the judge the story and he got really mad. He asked for records as I'd been making my payments through his court, and when he saw I hadn't missed, or been late with, a single payment he blew up. He said he was going to personally take care of this, and told me to get back in contact with him if I had any more problems with them.
I ended up getting 3 times the amount that had been garnisheed, and all interest on the bill dropped. I don't know what that judge told the guy who ran that collection agency, but whatever it was it sure worked. It was justice, pure and simple, from an honest judge.
Yes, you can do controlled experiments, but you have to do them in a controlled environment. Lure manufacturers have large tanks in which they test their lures during development. They control ph, temperature, water "color", water clarity, lighting, etc... to make sure they have repeatable results. In addition they test lure color, size, retrieval method, retrieval speed, etc... under each condition and film the entire procedure under water. What they do is a far cry from real world fishing, but it is logical and repeatable and thus leads to solid conclusions as to lure efficacy.
Going from one fishing site to the next can change all the water variables and lighting variables, as well as what the fish are used to seeing and what they feed on, as well as fishing pressure and what lures are most used where, so how are you going to know what to factor into your decision on the rating of lures? All you're proposing, in reality, is doing what fishermen do every day of the year all around the world: testing by trial and error to see what works that day until you know the water and the fish. It's hardly scientific experimentation. It's just real world fishing.
There are fishing pros who measure ph, clarity, temperature, whether the water is rising or falling, factor in the phase of the moon (seriously), when the last storm occurred, and the size of fish they want to catch in choosing the size, color, and type of lure they are going to use. They fish scientifically, not with the random method you propose for testing lures. What you're proposing is equivalent to the level of skill that a noob fisherman uses when he first starts fishing. You're, in fact, proposing what amounts to shooting in the dark as a scientific method.
I'd imagine that clouds are far more complex than fishing, and that conditions within a single cloud can vary much more wildly than the water and lighting variables at play in fishing. Plus, they can't be modeled in a controlled environment as the fishing variables are.
You're missing the point. Unless lure A and lure B are exactly the same type of lure, are the same color, etc... fishing them in the same place, the same way can be the entire reason one works and the other doesn't. Even speed of retrieval can affect the action and the results you get. So can the size of the lure. Using too large or too small a lure can affect your results too.
You have to know how the lure was designed to work, how to fish it, the best color for the water conditions and lighting conditions, etc.... Just using the wrong color of lure for the conditions can make all the difference in the world in how many fish you catch. So can water surface conditions. Whether the surface is mirror calm, has a little movement, or even some chop can all affect the performance of two different lures. Quite often it just comes down to local knowledge of what works where and when on that particular body of water.
The number of variables in play in catching fish with lures is incredible. To be a really good fisherman it takes a vast amount of knowledge of fish, how lures are designed to work, where lures are designed to work. etc.... Not catching fish with one lure can also mean that the fish right there have seen that lure enough times that they recognize it and won't hit it. Catch and release fishing has done a lot to educate fish about fishermen and what they use to catch fish.
There's a reason fishing is addictive. It's a very challenging sport, whether you fish to feed yourself or for sport only. You have to adapt to infinitely changing conditions and learn what works when, and why it works when it does work. It also takes a knowledge of where fish will be during which conditions, how active they will be under those conditions. etc.... As I said earlier, the number of variables in play as to whether lure A or lure B works at the time and place you're fishing them are incredibly large in number.
I'll relate one experience I had bass fishing. I'm not much of a bass fisherman, but this day my ignorance of bash fishing worked to my advantage. It was spring time and the bass were holding at the mouth of the creek that fed the lake.
There must have been 20+ guys there fishing and no one was catching anything. I walked up and looked around, looked to see what all I had with me and decided I'd use worms for bait. Well, all the choice spots were taken so I went a little further up the creek where it took a sharp turn and there was a small tree in the water where high water that spring had washed out the dirt supporting it and it had fallen into the creek. I looked at the situation and thought, well, if I was fishing for trout I'd want to fish by allowing my worms to drift in under that tree where the current was pretty strong.
What I didn't know was no one else was fishing it because everyone else knew bass didn't stay in that habitat very often. Plus it was a very difficult spot to fish. It was one of those places in which you catch a lot of stick fish, and lose a lot of tackle, unless you're very careful. To make a long story short I caught 10 bass in less than a half hour.
It was pure blind luck on my part, and the best day I ever had bass fishing. But even though it was pure luck, I had to know where to stand in the current relative to tree, how much weight to use for the amount of current, and just how to drift my bait back under that tree or I still wouldn't have caught anything. I'd learned those skills fishing for trout but on this particular day they worked like a charm on bass. Never had it work again like that either.
There were a bunch of guys fishing worms there that morning. They were fishing the slow moving current using bobbers to suspend their worms up a ways off the bottom. I happened, in my ignorance of bass fishing, to use the correct technique for that day and those conditions. A lot of guys fished the same bait, but only one guy out of the group caught any fish. That's just how finicky fishing can be.
Yes. That's exactly what I'm telling you. You could be fishing lure B in the wrong places, under the wrong lighting and/or water conditions, in the wrong manner, or even using the wrong color of lure. In fact, I've known of lures that were absolute killer lures in one body of water, and worked anywhere from very poorly to okay where ever else I ever used them.
I fished a lake in northwestern Montana that had the nicest Cutthroat trout I've ever seen. But, you had to have local knowledge to fish it as there was only one way to catch them. You had to pack a canoe in a half mile and then troll the lake by paddling the canoe, as no motors were allowed, at the right time of day with a certain spinner. With it you would catch 6-8 lb cutthroat, and with anything else you went home skunked. That same lure worked okay in other places but it wasn't the killer lure it was in that particular lake. I got skunked on that lake quite a few times before one of my parent's neighbors took pity on me and told me how to catch them. I'd have never figured it out on my own as I didn't live there and couldn't fish the lake on a regular/daily basis and I was far better at stream fishing than lake fishing.
Nope. You can't. You can use the same lure on the same fish under identical conditions and get fish to respond 90% of the time on day one, and on day two fish will respond to the same lure, fished the same way, 10% of the time.
If fishing was as predictable as you think it is, it would be called catching, not fishing. There's a reason most fishermen who use lures have a large tackle box with a good selection of lures. What works one day will not attract a single fish the next day. The same goes for fly fishing. There's a reason a good fly fisherman will have a large variety of flies. What works one day won't work the next.
I fished streams for years, and yes, some lures or baits worked better than others, as in on more days than other lures/bait, but if I had fished only one bait or one lure every time I went out fishing I would have gotten skunked a whole lot more than I did.
I was a pretty good at stream fishing too, as the Umatilla and Nez Perce Indians I used to fish with on a regular basis used to call me "The Great White Fisherman" as I'd go home with my limit when they were going home skunked. I rarely went home skunked, but I used a large variety of bait and lures, and could picture in my head where fish would be holding.
I think it's a good thing the police were notified, this is a potential threat, and it's good that they acted upon it.
I find this type of logic very shaky.
Someone is pushed to the breaking point, so punish the person that has been pushed to that point, not the cause of the situation. It's absolutely stupid. It does nothing to address the problem, and only exacerbates the problem because then the bullies slap themselves on the back and congratulate themselves on how they ruined someone's life. They see the entire result as a validation of their own behavior.
The real threat are the bullies who create the situation, not the person who only wants to defend himself. Punishing their victim does nothing to keep the situation from happening again and again.
You must be very young. I can remember when even Computer Shopper had some decent technical articles. I learned a lot from it.
I can also remember when there were multiple magazines about anything technical. From computers to hotrodding you could find a lot of very technical how-to projects that took months for the magazine to complete. Every aspect of the project was gone over in great detail, unlike the vast majority of what you find on the internet today that is very, very cursory information. Back in the day a good article on hotrodding would tell you how to cc and modify the cylinder head combustion chambers to provide even power from all cylinders in your engine, or tell you how to completely rebuild and strengthen the transmission or rear differential in your car, or how to build drive train from beginning to end to get the most performance and longevity out of it. The last type of article would teach you to understand cam lobe technology and how it affects the power band of your engine, how to match heads and intake manifold, to the cam. How to match compression ratio to all of that, and then how to match your clutch, transmission, and rear end to the engine. The amount of knowledge those magazines made available was incredible.
The old computer magazines were just as thorough in their approach to computing as the good hotrod magazines were to hotrodding. Even Radio Shack had a decent reputation for technical projects. Now they're nothing interesting at all. Thirty years ago you could buy almost anything you could think of in electronic components from them. They'd even sell you a build-from-scratch computer kit. Not the greatest computer in the world even for that time, but a great learning project. Nothing like it even exists today.
I've seen more presidents than a lot of Slashdot readers and I can tell you, I've never seen a group of people driven so completely, utterly, shit-on-the-floor crazy by a president than you Republicans are just because Obama is black.
I know a lot of people who don't like Obama's Presidency. I'm one of them. However, I don't know of one person who dislikes Obama because of the color of his skin. Everyone I know who dislikes Obama's Presidency, dislikes it because of his politics, his bad decision making, and his spending us into oblivion. In other words, it's his actions that we dislike, not his color. We think he's a rigid ideologue and corrupt to boot.
BTW, I'm not a Republican, I'm an independent and the people I know who dislike Obama come from both sides of the aisle, both Democrat and Republican. It's a wide swath of people, politically speaking. My father-in-law has voted Democrat for 16 straight Presidential elections and voted for Obama because he was a Democrat and his promises of transparency. He now thoroughly dislikes Obama now because of what he's done as President.
The vast majority of us out here want to see everyone succeed. Color just doesn't matter. We all bleed red. We're all human beings. We're all in this mess called life-on-earth together. Disliking someone because of the color of their skin is just plain old self-defeating. It's a waste of time and energy to hate everyone who looks different than I do, as there are billions of people who have a different skin color, and one of them just might have answers to life and the problems here on earth that someone who looks like me won't come up with.
If you want to find bigots, you'll find them, but just consider the source and move on. Remember, the vast majority of people don't agree with them.
Baloney. Hunting and self defense were major issues when the Constitution was written. Anyone not living in a major city in that time hunted to feed themselves, and defended themselves from Indian attack on a fairly regular basis. To say that the writers of the Constitution would have ignored every day life is just ridiculous.
The other part of the right to keep and bear arms is political in nature. It's to make sure that the citizens can arise and overthrow a corrupt government or a government that has become oppressive. Read the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and the Federalist Papers. It's very clear what they intended when you read their own words.
Where did I accuse you of socialism? My comments have been in response to the usual slamming of capitalism, and the claim that socialism is the solution to greed. Take a look at the next couple of posts in line after yours to see what I mean.
I agree with you. Capitalism doesn't require greed to succeed, nor does it require profit to be the only goal of doing business. Greed is in fact destructive to capitalism just as it's destructive to all other forms of government and to all societies.
Really? Hmmmm.... Taking money away from the top earners by force, taxing at rates of 78%, is not a disincentive to invest, to earn more, to work harder? Giving money to people who don't earn it is an incentive to work, to improve ones self?
Sounds to me as if you have zero understanding of human nature....
f your front door had a lock that could be opened by anyone pushing a button clearly marked on the outside, and a robber pushed the button and came in, would you consider that a fault of the lock, the door, or the house?
You failed to give the correct option. The correct answer is: the idiot that installed such a lock.
I'd say you need to start reading the news from Europe.
The Euro has dropped 22% when measured against the dollar in the last 6 months. There are unemployment rates from 10 - 20% across Europe. Even the strongest European economy, Germany, has initiated an austerity plan, and Germany forced budget cuts on Greece, Spain, and Portugal after having to bail them out so they wouldn't default on their debts and take down the entire European economy.
So, you don't deny any of my arguments, but you still claim socialism is the answer to wealth being held in the hands of a very few people?
Ummm...Show me where your claims of standard of living are true.... Greece? Italy? Spain? Portugal?
Also show how these economies are sustainable. Right now the EU is showing that these economies are not sustainable. They are going broke in a hurry and degenerating into major civil unrest. And, don't argue that the US is going broke too. It is. And it's because our politicians have been following the European model for the last few decades. Before that, before we adopted the failed model we were the strongest economy on earth for more than 100 years.
And that is why socialism will always fail. It limits incentives to excel and will never be able to stop abuses of power. Both problems are bad for society because limiting incentives to succeed limits the prosperity of the country as a whole, and places all the power and incentive to abuse power in the hands of the government where it can and will be used to enforce government mandates, not limit governmental abuses of power.
Slashdot Mirror
Asking for a peace treaty to end the war you illiterate
Yeah, right. Since when has Kim Jong-il ever been one to care for anything but his access to power? If he wants peace, let him surrender. Let him show he cares for the people he governs.
If he actually cared about his people he would have surrendered decades ago so his people wouldn't starve. Instead he clings to power and spends untold millions on himself when his own people don't even have the bare necessities of life. He's just as evil as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.... He cares for nothing but personal power and aggrandizement.
If the USA would give the DPRK the peace treaty they've been wanting for years, it wouldn't be much of a problem. Of course, then we would have one fewer excuse to maintain a couple hundred military bases across the globe.
Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's trust someone who will not only deny his own people basic human rights, but starves them to death by the millions as a matter of policy. Let's give him access to more military and financial assets as there's no possibility he will use them as he has used the assets he now possesses.
The jobs lost in drilling will create a ripple effect through Louisiana's economy. Take $2.1 billion out of a local economy in 6 months and it severely affects lots of other local businesses. Plus, not only does present drilling stop it most likely stops all oil exploration too, because who knows if the drilling will start up again. So, in the Louisiana ports 2/3's of the oil-related business is gone. With a low ball estimate of $1 billion in lost wages due to loss of exploration jobs, you've now taken more than $3 billion out of southern Louisiana's economy. That's going to have a major effect on all other parts of the economy as business is going to dry up for a lot of seemingly unrelated business where all those oil workers spent their money. That's going to cause those businesses to lay off employees who will have to stop spending money too. It's a vicious circle that just keeps on growing and widening in its effects.
This effect is compounded because of the effects of the spill on the economy there. No fishing, no drilling, no oil exploration, no shrimping. And you can't see a vast loss of jobs when that's the majority of the economy down there? Businesses that were just barely hanging on will be devastated losing these two revenue streams on top of what's already been lost.
So they are saying "if you don't let me play I'm going to take my toys and go home"?
Let's see. If you had equipment that each cost $350 million to build 9 years ago, and twice that to build now, you would just allow them to sit idle? Remember, the entire time they are idle you will still have to pay the upkeep on the equipment too, which is no small expense, and absorb the loss of business income. You'd also be laying off a lot your help, which would move out of the area to find work. So, when you restarted operation you would have to bring in people unfamiliar with your operation and rig, which is further cost to you....
How long would you allow a billion dollars or so of equipment to sit idle after you had passed safety inspections? How long do you think you could afford to do that?
especially when you consider 100 million has been put aside
That's less than 1 months wages for the people put out of work. The early estimates for direct wages lost is $350 million/month. That doesn't count all the indirect jobs lost either. In 6 months this is likely to cause the loss of 10-20,000 jobs in Louisiana, and all those drilling rigs will be moved out of the area into other parts of the world. A 6 month moratorium will effectively kill all those wells for several years as the well-drilling rigs are custom built and take over a year each to build.
Just what's needed for a region that's being killed economically already....
I understood that. I was just pointing out that there is only one file type that shotwell can use. As far as I'm concerned that makes it useless.
Anyone who considers PNG for storing pictures needs to stop, right away. PNG has one advantage: it's a lossless format (as opposed to JPEG). But then you could use TIFF, or DNG.
I tried shotwell with .tif files and it wouldn't import them. So, realistically, jpg is the only file format it reads.
It wasn't corrected until after I pointed out the injustice. He was modded as -1 flamebait when I posted.
I see... Another humorless /.er.
His sarcasm was very appropriate given what's going on in our country today, and what the mayor of the town in Italy is doing. It was both relevant and timely as this entire story is political in nature. The mayor is playing politics by suing the geologist to cover up his own ineptitude and corruption in not making sure his town actually was earthquake-proofed as had been alleged.
This is exactly what has been done by US government inspectors falsifying records relating to having equipment on hand so there could be an immediate response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and our president being so tied to the unions that he refused the help that would have made sure the oil wouldn't be reaching our wetlands and beaches at this time.
Mods, give it a rest.
Learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it. You modded a sarcastic comment making fun of both sides of the political aisle as flamebait. He made fun of the socialists and the conservatives in just two sentences. That's hard to do. He ought to be modded +5 funny, not flamebait, on his ability to use sarcasm alone....
Yeah, I've seen that kind of crap too, only I've been on the other side of the fence.
It was done to me by a very shady collection agency back in the 80's. I'd made payment arrangements so I didn't show up for court. More than a year later I get a phone call telling me there was a judgment against me and that my wages were going to be garnisheed. And all that after I'd faithfully made my payment every month.
I went to three different lawyers and they all told me I was screwed. I didn't believe it. So, I went to the judge during small claims court at the same court I'd had a judgment rendered against me for not showing up for court. I told the judge the story and he got really mad. He asked for records as I'd been making my payments through his court, and when he saw I hadn't missed, or been late with, a single payment he blew up. He said he was going to personally take care of this, and told me to get back in contact with him if I had any more problems with them.
I ended up getting 3 times the amount that had been garnisheed, and all interest on the bill dropped. I don't know what that judge told the guy who ran that collection agency, but whatever it was it sure worked. It was justice, pure and simple, from an honest judge.
Yes, you can do controlled experiments, but you have to do them in a controlled environment. Lure manufacturers have large tanks in which they test their lures during development. They control ph, temperature, water "color", water clarity, lighting, etc... to make sure they have repeatable results. In addition they test lure color, size, retrieval method, retrieval speed, etc... under each condition and film the entire procedure under water. What they do is a far cry from real world fishing, but it is logical and repeatable and thus leads to solid conclusions as to lure efficacy.
Going from one fishing site to the next can change all the water variables and lighting variables, as well as what the fish are used to seeing and what they feed on, as well as fishing pressure and what lures are most used where, so how are you going to know what to factor into your decision on the rating of lures? All you're proposing, in reality, is doing what fishermen do every day of the year all around the world: testing by trial and error to see what works that day until you know the water and the fish. It's hardly scientific experimentation. It's just real world fishing.
There are fishing pros who measure ph, clarity, temperature, whether the water is rising or falling, factor in the phase of the moon (seriously), when the last storm occurred, and the size of fish they want to catch in choosing the size, color, and type of lure they are going to use. They fish scientifically, not with the random method you propose for testing lures. What you're proposing is equivalent to the level of skill that a noob fisherman uses when he first starts fishing. You're, in fact, proposing what amounts to shooting in the dark as a scientific method.
I'd imagine that clouds are far more complex than fishing, and that conditions within a single cloud can vary much more wildly than the water and lighting variables at play in fishing. Plus, they can't be modeled in a controlled environment as the fishing variables are.
You're missing the point. Unless lure A and lure B are exactly the same type of lure, are the same color, etc... fishing them in the same place, the same way can be the entire reason one works and the other doesn't. Even speed of retrieval can affect the action and the results you get. So can the size of the lure. Using too large or too small a lure can affect your results too.
You have to know how the lure was designed to work, how to fish it, the best color for the water conditions and lighting conditions, etc.... Just using the wrong color of lure for the conditions can make all the difference in the world in how many fish you catch. So can water surface conditions. Whether the surface is mirror calm, has a little movement, or even some chop can all affect the performance of two different lures. Quite often it just comes down to local knowledge of what works where and when on that particular body of water.
The number of variables in play in catching fish with lures is incredible. To be a really good fisherman it takes a vast amount of knowledge of fish, how lures are designed to work, where lures are designed to work. etc.... Not catching fish with one lure can also mean that the fish right there have seen that lure enough times that they recognize it and won't hit it. Catch and release fishing has done a lot to educate fish about fishermen and what they use to catch fish.
There's a reason fishing is addictive. It's a very challenging sport, whether you fish to feed yourself or for sport only. You have to adapt to infinitely changing conditions and learn what works when, and why it works when it does work. It also takes a knowledge of where fish will be during which conditions, how active they will be under those conditions. etc.... As I said earlier, the number of variables in play as to whether lure A or lure B works at the time and place you're fishing them are incredibly large in number.
I'll relate one experience I had bass fishing. I'm not much of a bass fisherman, but this day my ignorance of bash fishing worked to my advantage. It was spring time and the bass were holding at the mouth of the creek that fed the lake.
There must have been 20+ guys there fishing and no one was catching anything. I walked up and looked around, looked to see what all I had with me and decided I'd use worms for bait. Well, all the choice spots were taken so I went a little further up the creek where it took a sharp turn and there was a small tree in the water where high water that spring had washed out the dirt supporting it and it had fallen into the creek. I looked at the situation and thought, well, if I was fishing for trout I'd want to fish by allowing my worms to drift in under that tree where the current was pretty strong.
What I didn't know was no one else was fishing it because everyone else knew bass didn't stay in that habitat very often. Plus it was a very difficult spot to fish. It was one of those places in which you catch a lot of stick fish, and lose a lot of tackle, unless you're very careful. To make a long story short I caught 10 bass in less than a half hour.
It was pure blind luck on my part, and the best day I ever had bass fishing. But even though it was pure luck, I had to know where to stand in the current relative to tree, how much weight to use for the amount of current, and just how to drift my bait back under that tree or I still wouldn't have caught anything. I'd learned those skills fishing for trout but on this particular day they worked like a charm on bass. Never had it work again like that either.
There were a bunch of guys fishing worms there that morning. They were fishing the slow moving current using bobbers to suspend their worms up a ways off the bottom. I happened, in my ignorance of bass fishing, to use the correct technique for that day and those conditions. A lot of guys fished the same bait, but only one guy out of the group caught any fish. That's just how finicky fishing can be.
Yes. That's exactly what I'm telling you. You could be fishing lure B in the wrong places, under the wrong lighting and/or water conditions, in the wrong manner, or even using the wrong color of lure. In fact, I've known of lures that were absolute killer lures in one body of water, and worked anywhere from very poorly to okay where ever else I ever used them.
I fished a lake in northwestern Montana that had the nicest Cutthroat trout I've ever seen. But, you had to have local knowledge to fish it as there was only one way to catch them. You had to pack a canoe in a half mile and then troll the lake by paddling the canoe, as no motors were allowed, at the right time of day with a certain spinner. With it you would catch 6-8 lb cutthroat, and with anything else you went home skunked. That same lure worked okay in other places but it wasn't the killer lure it was in that particular lake. I got skunked on that lake quite a few times before one of my parent's neighbors took pity on me and told me how to catch them. I'd have never figured it out on my own as I didn't live there and couldn't fish the lake on a regular/daily basis and I was far better at stream fishing than lake fishing.
Nope. You can't. You can use the same lure on the same fish under identical conditions and get fish to respond 90% of the time on day one, and on day two fish will respond to the same lure, fished the same way, 10% of the time.
If fishing was as predictable as you think it is, it would be called catching, not fishing. There's a reason most fishermen who use lures have a large tackle box with a good selection of lures. What works one day will not attract a single fish the next day. The same goes for fly fishing. There's a reason a good fly fisherman will have a large variety of flies. What works one day won't work the next.
I fished streams for years, and yes, some lures or baits worked better than others, as in on more days than other lures/bait, but if I had fished only one bait or one lure every time I went out fishing I would have gotten skunked a whole lot more than I did.
I was a pretty good at stream fishing too, as the Umatilla and Nez Perce Indians I used to fish with on a regular basis used to call me "The Great White Fisherman" as I'd go home with my limit when they were going home skunked. I rarely went home skunked, but I used a large variety of bait and lures, and could picture in my head where fish would be holding.
I think it's a good thing the police were notified, this is a potential threat, and it's good that they acted upon it.
I find this type of logic very shaky.
Someone is pushed to the breaking point, so punish the person that has been pushed to that point, not the cause of the situation. It's absolutely stupid. It does nothing to address the problem, and only exacerbates the problem because then the bullies slap themselves on the back and congratulate themselves on how they ruined someone's life. They see the entire result as a validation of their own behavior.
The real threat are the bullies who create the situation, not the person who only wants to defend himself. Punishing their victim does nothing to keep the situation from happening again and again.
You must be very young. I can remember when even Computer Shopper had some decent technical articles. I learned a lot from it.
I can also remember when there were multiple magazines about anything technical. From computers to hotrodding you could find a lot of very technical how-to projects that took months for the magazine to complete. Every aspect of the project was gone over in great detail, unlike the vast majority of what you find on the internet today that is very, very cursory information. Back in the day a good article on hotrodding would tell you how to cc and modify the cylinder head combustion chambers to provide even power from all cylinders in your engine, or tell you how to completely rebuild and strengthen the transmission or rear differential in your car, or how to build drive train from beginning to end to get the most performance and longevity out of it. The last type of article would teach you to understand cam lobe technology and how it affects the power band of your engine, how to match heads and intake manifold, to the cam. How to match compression ratio to all of that, and then how to match your clutch, transmission, and rear end to the engine. The amount of knowledge those magazines made available was incredible.
The old computer magazines were just as thorough in their approach to computing as the good hotrod magazines were to hotrodding. Even Radio Shack had a decent reputation for technical projects. Now they're nothing interesting at all. Thirty years ago you could buy almost anything you could think of in electronic components from them. They'd even sell you a build-from-scratch computer kit. Not the greatest computer in the world even for that time, but a great learning project. Nothing like it even exists today.
I've seen more presidents than a lot of Slashdot readers and I can tell you, I've never seen a group of people driven so completely, utterly, shit-on-the-floor crazy by a president than you Republicans are just because Obama is black.
I know a lot of people who don't like Obama's Presidency. I'm one of them. However, I don't know of one person who dislikes Obama because of the color of his skin. Everyone I know who dislikes Obama's Presidency, dislikes it because of his politics, his bad decision making, and his spending us into oblivion. In other words, it's his actions that we dislike, not his color. We think he's a rigid ideologue and corrupt to boot.
BTW, I'm not a Republican, I'm an independent and the people I know who dislike Obama come from both sides of the aisle, both Democrat and Republican. It's a wide swath of people, politically speaking. My father-in-law has voted Democrat for 16 straight Presidential elections and voted for Obama because he was a Democrat and his promises of transparency. He now thoroughly dislikes Obama now because of what he's done as President.
The vast majority of us out here want to see everyone succeed. Color just doesn't matter. We all bleed red. We're all human beings. We're all in this mess called life-on-earth together. Disliking someone because of the color of their skin is just plain old self-defeating. It's a waste of time and energy to hate everyone who looks different than I do, as there are billions of people who have a different skin color, and one of them just might have answers to life and the problems here on earth that someone who looks like me won't come up with.
If you want to find bigots, you'll find them, but just consider the source and move on. Remember, the vast majority of people don't agree with them.
Baloney. Hunting and self defense were major issues when the Constitution was written. Anyone not living in a major city in that time hunted to feed themselves, and defended themselves from Indian attack on a fairly regular basis. To say that the writers of the Constitution would have ignored every day life is just ridiculous.
The other part of the right to keep and bear arms is political in nature. It's to make sure that the citizens can arise and overthrow a corrupt government or a government that has become oppressive. Read the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and the Federalist Papers. It's very clear what they intended when you read their own words.
Where did I accuse you of socialism? My comments have been in response to the usual slamming of capitalism, and the claim that socialism is the solution to greed. Take a look at the next couple of posts in line after yours to see what I mean.
I agree with you. Capitalism doesn't require greed to succeed, nor does it require profit to be the only goal of doing business. Greed is in fact destructive to capitalism just as it's destructive to all other forms of government and to all societies.
Really? Hmmmm.... Taking money away from the top earners by force, taxing at rates of 78%, is not a disincentive to invest, to earn more, to work harder? Giving money to people who don't earn it is an incentive to work, to improve ones self?
Sounds to me as if you have zero understanding of human nature....
f your front door had a lock that could be opened by anyone pushing a button clearly marked on the outside, and a robber pushed the button and came in, would you consider that a fault of the lock, the door, or the house?
You failed to give the correct option. The correct answer is: the idiot that installed such a lock.
Seems to me that this is a validation problem.
I'd say you need to start reading the news from Europe.
The Euro has dropped 22% when measured against the dollar in the last 6 months. There are unemployment rates from 10 - 20% across Europe. Even the strongest European economy, Germany, has initiated an austerity plan, and Germany forced budget cuts on Greece, Spain, and Portugal after having to bail them out so they wouldn't default on their debts and take down the entire European economy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100608/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_financial_crisis
So, you don't deny any of my arguments, but you still claim socialism is the answer to wealth being held in the hands of a very few people?
Ummm...Show me where your claims of standard of living are true.... Greece? Italy? Spain? Portugal?
Also show how these economies are sustainable. Right now the EU is showing that these economies are not sustainable. They are going broke in a hurry and degenerating into major civil unrest. And, don't argue that the US is going broke too. It is. And it's because our politicians have been following the European model for the last few decades. Before that, before we adopted the failed model we were the strongest economy on earth for more than 100 years.
And that is why socialism will always fail. It limits incentives to excel and will never be able to stop abuses of power. Both problems are bad for society because limiting incentives to succeed limits the prosperity of the country as a whole, and places all the power and incentive to abuse power in the hands of the government where it can and will be used to enforce government mandates, not limit governmental abuses of power.