> Wind power parks are huge, ugly and tend to be located in terrain that would otherwise be quite scenic and serene.
You really think a huge field is scenic? Sounds like you don't live near any mountains. Find someone who lives in the Rockies (or Appalachians, like me) and have them drive across.. oh.. Kansas, for instance. They will go fucking nuts because it is SOOO boring & there's nothing to look at. No sir, "scenic," for me at least, is mountians, forest, desert... not a giant, flat, damned field.
Actually, the turbines might IMPROVE this, as it will give you something to see & judge distances. I think they look cool.
Since you said it, care to elaborate why? Because you feel a sense of duty to protect a national symol (assuming you're in the U.S.)? Because it's endangered? Because it's cuter? Because it doesn't carry as many human-infecting diseases? I'd prefer they both stay alive, and I'm guessing you will never have to make that choice.
Another thing: Don't eagles tend to hang out in mountainous areas (where turbines would be less useful)? I could be wrong... It's happened once or twice before.
And the part you left out: "which is done so that they don't kill each other." I'm not saying it is right -- the process should be changed so that they aren't in close-enough quarters to kill each other. Your statement as-is, though, is either misinformed or intentionally misleading.
> I'd far rather have people with darker skin (any race) for neighbors than some fucking white devil.
Wow, call him a racist and then say you prefer a certain race. To avoid being called racist, I'll refrain from the Kettle Argument...
I'd prefer to have nice neighbors, regardless of race. There are assholes & morons in every race, and from my personal experience, each race has them in similar ratios. Of course, I have never lived in the inner-(big-)city, so my sample population is a bit skewed (in favor of minorities, actually).
> Getting balances right is very difficult, one miss calculation and you have a big problem.
Well, unless they miscalculated how far a carp can swim without "breathing..." Carp (these ones at least) do not live in salt water.
There were previously 0 carp in Australia, so the only miscalculation is leaving any at all.
Unless someone catches a carp and keeps it alive until they can get to another continent (hint: Australia's pretty far away) and then releases it into a large carp population, there is NO chance AT ALL of it spreading outside of Australia.
> You have a disease with 100% transmission rate that is "fatal" to the infected female. How interconnected are the carp populations and how fast could it spread before it kills off it's host populations?
This does not apply at all. This is not a virus. A Fatal virus can kill its host before getting a chance to reproduce. The fish in question can still reproduce, spread, and have their offspring spread the gene for their entire, normal-length life.
FYI, no, fish scales are too hard for a mosquito to go through. Plus, (I think) mosquitos use heat sensing organs to find hosts - fish are cold-blooded.
A statement does not make a fact. The problem with your theory is that you seem to think that the GM'ed carp have less chance of breeding, when in fact they have just as much chance at it. As it spreads, they have even more chance. You seem to think that this disadvantage would stop them from breeding, but it would not. Go back to Darwin - survival of the fittest. We are intentionally making them UNFIT, so that they do NOT survive.
When a certain area is overpopulated with male fish, guess what happens. They don't all suddenly die, the remaining males try to go find other females. That means they have to swim away. Guess what that's called? Spreading.
> Why wouldn't only the part of the population that carries the male-tendency gene die off?
Because Carp live so long & reproduce so many times, they will spread. There isn't a "carp population" as such -- the gene will spread. And the gene doesn't kill them. They will start by reproducing at the same rate, but the offspring will all be male, which swim away & have little eggs of their own -- which will be all male.
This is not a controlled ecosystem, they spread physically, spreading their freak gene in the process. If all the GM'ed carp stayed in the same 1-mile radius for 200 years, then yes, it would only affect that area. They do not, however.
> The items I look for in hiring are: > 1. Attitude - People can aqcuire knowledge and skills, as long as they have a decent attitude.
I'm not surprised that most of the responses are about #2 (Loyalty), instead of #1. I'm also glad that you listed Attitude as #1, because aside from having minimum talent in the potential job, a good attitude is the best possible trait to have.
I don't claim to be a genius, and my resume reflects that, but I have gotten a few well-paying positions because I always show a very positive, professional attitude. I don't have to feel that way inside, but it makes things much smoother and, for those who care about such things, it also may give you better opportunities for advancement.
Who wants to take some jerk with a bad attitude & promote them? No one: they'll prefer to take the guy with the well-balanced attitude. Granted, attitude over skills may sometimes give us PHBs and clueless management, but if the people with real skills always had better attitudes, maybe we'd get qualified people running things, instead of scheister's who can talk their way into a job.
> I have a good attitude on things and I won't quit a job over something stupid but I am NOT loyal to ANY company. I think for myself.
If "I think for myself" is your reasoning for not being loyal to your company, you certainly DO NOT have a good attitude. I think for myself, and often my views oppose those of my employer. Fortunately, those ideals have nothing to do with the work being performed, so it isn't an issue. I've only been working at my job for 10 months, but I feel some loyalty to the place (granted, it helps that it is a hospital). I feel it is partially because of my good work attitude that I feel loyalty (I specify "work" attitude, because my non-work attitude is horrible).
You don't have to be loyal, but by assuming all businesses are out to screw you, you discount a lot (I believe, perhaps incorrectly, the majority) of very good people who just happen to work in management.
> Read up on soutern america to see what it means to live in a place where companies are the boss. > I have no idea what northern american unions are like
While what you said may be correct, I do not think it is what you meant (which is more correct).
For future reference, the continents are "North/South America" and many might get confused when you say northern and southern, thinking you mean regions of the country referred-to as "America." When you first said that, I was thinking along the lines of "Alabama & Mississippi," not "Brazil & Uraguay."
I'm not trying to be an ass, just trying to help you clarify.
> Unions would fight tooth and nail against the exporting of jobs
Only if it didn't cost them much money to fight it. Some U.S. unions these days seem to have the idea that they are there to collect dues & abandon the people they are supposed to represent as soon as something bad happens.
> are you lying if you leave something off your resume?
That's a difficult question. If you list all your other jobs under "Work Experience" or some such thing, and leave out one, what was it then? Was it not experience? Usually, the interviewer will ask about that period. If you don't say it then, then it is lieing. If you explain, even in a professional way, why you didn't want to list that, they still might be a bit leery of hiring you -- what else have you "conveniently left out?"
Essentially, what I am saying is that it is probably better to have it there first and explain later.
> I'm not going to forget about that any time soon.
So you will completely discount a program because an old version didn't import math equations? Sounds like your mind was made up before you even saw it.
> > If william shatner ever pulls you in to the men's room and asks you, do you want to see the captain's log, just say NO > How about the first mate's
Men's Room, First Mate's room... Either way, it's bad news.
A White t-shirt with grease stains and Dorito cheese smeared on it, a ripped-up pair of sweatpants, and underwear with holes large enough to drive a truck through. Sexy, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
> Wind power parks are huge, ugly and tend to be located in terrain that would otherwise be quite scenic and serene.
You really think a huge field is scenic? Sounds like you don't live near any mountains. Find someone who lives in the Rockies (or Appalachians, like me) and have them drive across.. oh.. Kansas, for instance. They will go fucking nuts because it is SOOO boring & there's nothing to look at. No sir, "scenic," for me at least, is mountians, forest, desert... not a giant, flat, damned field.
Actually, the turbines might IMPROVE this, as it will give you something to see & judge distances.
I think they look cool.
> I would rather save an eagle than a rat.
Since you said it, care to elaborate why? Because you feel a sense of duty to protect a national symol (assuming you're in the U.S.)? Because it's endangered? Because it's cuter? Because it doesn't carry as many human-infecting diseases? I'd prefer they both stay alive, and I'm guessing you will never have to make that choice.
Another thing: Don't eagles tend to hang out in mountainous areas (where turbines would be less useful)? I could be wrong... It's happened once or twice before.
> Clipped wings, Debeaked, Declawed
And the part you left out: "which is done so that they don't kill each other." I'm not saying it is right -- the process should be changed so that they aren't in close-enough quarters to kill each other. Your statement as-is, though, is either misinformed or intentionally misleading.
> There is no such thing as a "pure master race"
Bullshit! I am the pure master race. Only problem is, pure does net necessarily equal good: pure shit is still "pure."
> I'd far rather have people with darker skin (any race) for neighbors than some fucking white devil.
Wow, call him a racist and then say you prefer a certain race. To avoid being called racist, I'll refrain from the Kettle Argument...
I'd prefer to have nice neighbors, regardless of race. There are assholes & morons in every race, and from my personal experience, each race has them in similar ratios. Of course, I have never lived in the inner-(big-)city, so my sample population is a bit skewed (in favor of minorities, actually).
> Getting balances right is very difficult, one miss calculation and you have a big problem.
Well, unless they miscalculated how far a carp can swim without "breathing..." Carp (these ones at least) do not live in salt water.
There were previously 0 carp in Australia, so the only miscalculation is leaving any at all.
Unless someone catches a carp and keeps it alive until they can get to another continent (hint: Australia's pretty far away) and then releases it into a large carp population, there is NO chance AT ALL of it spreading outside of Australia.
> You have a disease with 100% transmission rate that is "fatal" to the infected female. How interconnected are the carp populations and how fast could it spread before it kills off it's host populations?
This does not apply at all. This is not a virus. A Fatal virus can kill its host before getting a chance to reproduce. The fish in question can still reproduce, spread, and have their offspring spread the gene for their entire, normal-length life.
> (do mosquitoes bite fish?)
FYI, no, fish scales are too hard for a mosquito to go through. Plus, (I think) mosquitos use heat sensing organs to find hosts - fish are cold-blooded.
> So it wouldn't spread. Simple as that.
A statement does not make a fact. The problem with your theory is that you seem to think that the GM'ed carp have less chance of breeding, when in fact they have just as much chance at it. As it spreads, they have even more chance. You seem to think that this disadvantage would stop them from breeding, but it would not. Go back to Darwin - survival of the fittest. We are intentionally making them UNFIT, so that they do NOT survive.
When a certain area is overpopulated with male fish, guess what happens. They don't all suddenly die, the remaining males try to go find other females. That means they have to swim away. Guess what that's called? Spreading.
> It's a Darwian disadvantage
Darwin is about "natural selection." This is controlled selection, so Darwinian theories aren't 100% usable in this case.
> Why wouldn't only the part of the population that carries the male-tendency gene die off?
Because Carp live so long & reproduce so many times, they will spread. There isn't a "carp population" as such -- the gene will spread. And the gene doesn't kill them. They will start by reproducing at the same rate, but the offspring will all be male, which swim away & have little eggs of their own -- which will be all male.
This is not a controlled ecosystem, they spread physically, spreading their freak gene in the process. If all the GM'ed carp stayed in the same 1-mile radius for 200 years, then yes, it would only affect that area. They do not, however.
> Fish [...] don't have the 'Grow old and die' gene
Then why do all my damn goldfish die after 2 days?
> that doesn't give me any title to your CD player does it?
You win the award for "Best Analogy af the Week." Seriously, that's a really good way of looking at it. Did you come up with it yourself?
> The items I look for in hiring are:
> 1. Attitude - People can aqcuire knowledge and skills, as long as they have a decent attitude.
I'm not surprised that most of the responses are about #2 (Loyalty), instead of #1. I'm also glad that you listed Attitude as #1, because aside from having minimum talent in the potential job, a good attitude is the best possible trait to have.
I don't claim to be a genius, and my resume reflects that, but I have gotten a few well-paying positions because I always show a very positive, professional attitude. I don't have to feel that way inside, but it makes things much smoother and, for those who care about such things, it also may give you better opportunities for advancement.
Who wants to take some jerk with a bad attitude & promote them? No one: they'll prefer to take the guy with the well-balanced attitude. Granted, attitude over skills may sometimes give us PHBs and clueless management, but if the people with real skills always had better attitudes, maybe we'd get qualified people running things, instead of scheister's who can talk their way into a job.
> I have a good attitude on things and I won't quit a job over something stupid but I am NOT loyal to ANY company. I think for myself.
If "I think for myself" is your reasoning for not being loyal to your company, you certainly DO NOT have a good attitude. I think for myself, and often my views oppose those of my employer. Fortunately, those ideals have nothing to do with the work being performed, so it isn't an issue. I've only been working at my job for 10 months, but I feel some loyalty to the place (granted, it helps that it is a hospital). I feel it is partially because of my good work attitude that I feel loyalty (I specify "work" attitude, because my non-work attitude is horrible).
You don't have to be loyal, but by assuming all businesses are out to screw you, you discount a lot (I believe, perhaps incorrectly, the majority) of very good people who just happen to work in management.
> Read up on soutern america to see what it means to live in a place where companies are the boss.
> I have no idea what northern american unions are like
While what you said may be correct, I do not think it is what you meant (which is more correct).
For future reference, the continents are "North/South America" and many might get confused when you say northern and southern, thinking you mean regions of the country referred-to as "America." When you first said that, I was thinking along the lines of "Alabama & Mississippi," not "Brazil & Uraguay."
I'm not trying to be an ass, just trying to help you clarify.
> Unions would fight tooth and nail against the exporting of jobs
Only if it didn't cost them much money to fight it. Some U.S. unions these days seem to have the idea that they are there to collect dues & abandon the people they are supposed to represent as soon as something bad happens.
> These days professionals don't form unions. They form associations.
If you call a pile of shit a rose, does that make it smell nice?
> are you lying if you leave something off your resume?
That's a difficult question. If you list all your other jobs under "Work Experience" or some such thing, and leave out one, what was it then? Was it not experience? Usually, the interviewer will ask about that period. If you don't say it then, then it is lieing. If you explain, even in a professional way, why you didn't want to list that, they still might be a bit leery of hiring you -- what else have you "conveniently left out?"
Essentially, what I am saying is that it is probably better to have it there first and explain later.
> On that note what does "SCO" stand for in the current SCO? I
Sue-Crazy Organization.
> I'm not going to forget about that any time soon.
So you will completely discount a program because an old version didn't import math equations? Sounds like your mind was made up before you even saw it.
> > If william shatner ever pulls you in to the men's room and asks you, do you want to see the captain's log, just say NO
> How about the first mate's
Men's Room, First Mate's room... Either way, it's bad news.
> what r u wearing.
A White t-shirt with grease stains and Dorito cheese smeared on it, a ripped-up pair of sweatpants, and underwear with holes large enough to drive a truck through. Sexy, eh?
> FP (Score:-1, Redundant)
How can a First Post be redundant?
> because he's a fucking dopehead?
No, D'Pshitz, because it's funny. Too hard for you to recognize humour? Boo Hoo, go complain somewhere else. Moron.
> Or was it just a scheme of Polaroid & tattoo parlors to boost their sales?
Sorry to screw up your joke, but...
Polaroid, maybe, but the guy didn't trust anyone enough to tattoo him. He did it all himself.