Why do vegetarians need to make their food (tofu pups, veggieburgers) look like meat they simply wont eat?
do you really think this is a strange thing to do? vegetarians are in the minority so when they eat with others, say at a bbq, there often are only a few to a larger number of meat eaters. what are these meat eaters eating? hamburgers and hot dogs. so doesn't it actually make MORE sense that the vegetarian food be prepared in such a way that they can take advantage of the same buns, dressings, and condiments as the meat eaters? it's much more economical.
It seems to my that they're saying in the article that you do have some right to privacy, but if you don't make an effort to keep it private - you're essentially giving up that right. i.e. If i'm asking for an oil change only and a have kilo of cocaine sitting on the passenger seat, there should be reasonable expectation that in the course of changing my oil, the mechanic may look at the passenger seat. So I shouldn't be protected if he does. However, if I have it in a hidden compartment underneath the back seat, then the mechanic likely had to invade my privacy in order to find it - as that wouldn't be a normal place of interest for a mechanic changing my oil.
Of course, like most other, that's probably a terrible analogy.
are you honestly trying to tell us that apple doesn't ship, with each ipod, the cable used to connect it to your computer (i.e. the charging cable)? of course they do, so stop saying they don't.
if you're complaining that they don't include the outlet adapter anymore, that's fine, but it's not really relevant either to the parent or to the main story.
besides you missing the point of "natural prey", you do understand how ludicrous your analogy is right? because some animals prey on certain primates, absolutely does not mean they prey on all primates (there's a lot of different primates -- it is an order). that's like (almost) saying that because some felidae (the feline family - family is more specific than order) pray on zebras, that my cat does too.
actually the two linked articles are in disagreement. the dailymail article says that they chose the more fertile one 60% of the time. the newscientist article says that they chose the more fertile one 60% more of the time than would be expected by random (same as what the summary says).
and if i had to choose between the two, i'd say the newscientist article is more likely to be worded correctly.
Isn't the right question why does this guy even get first place "Sysadmin of the Year" when the incident in question happened 2 years ago? At least he didn't win the grand prize...
as i said, that's inference. and if you actually read my post i acknowledge that while that reasoning is acceptable enough for me to be against the death penalty it is NOT proof that we have executed an innocent person which is what the parent poster claims exists (without providing reference).
unless you have a link, i'm generally skeptical of your claims as to what the UC law school found. one, because you claim it wasn't published (this makes little sense in a university setting - where darn near everything anywhere near important gets published and this would definitely be important). and two, it directly contradicts the cnn article as to why ryan made the decision he made.
i'm not claiming that we haven't executed innocent people. but i haven't seen a lot of definitive proof showing we have. just inference (which is valid enough to me to be against the death penalty, but doesn't actually prove anything). if you look at this anti-death penalty site you'll find it contains no proven claims of innocence after someone has been executed - and you'd expect that if there were such a site would definitely have that information. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6 &did=111#executed
sure, some of these were before dna testing and sure, prosecutors don't want to reopen the case for a dead person so dna testing is about the only way to prove innocence without going through a trial making it nearly impossible without someone else confessing and being proven guilty. but it does make your claims very hard for me to believe (even if i agree with the end conclusion that the death penalty is bad).
this is incorrect. first, it was governor ryan of illinois. but noone in the US has been exonerated after they were executed. many have been shown innocent before they were killed and obviously freed from death row. and this is why ryan commuted the sentences of all of the illinois death row inmates. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.exe cutions.02/
if you have a link to somewhere indicating that someone in the us has bene proven innocent after they were executed, please include it.
they may have started cancelling the auctions because the seller is guaranteed not to currently have the product and has no real guarantee that will at launch.
would they really get a shock since they wouldn't be grounded? isn't this how they are able to sit on telephone wires without issue? or am i just making stuff up (i freely admit to knowing nothing about electricity)?
at least earlier in the HDTV cycle i believe that 'HD Ready' actually meant that it could display HD signals (720p and/or 1080i) but did not have a built-in HD tuner capable of receiving and processing the HD signal so you'd need another piece of equipment (typically a cable or satellite box) that would do this for you.
or a potentially pretty good test if you're hiring people that will be manipulating and deriving words using patterns and partial information (cryptography). i'd suspect it probably correlates pretty well. certainly a good bit of crossword puzzle work these days is just being familiar with the standard clues (and why i hate them). but being able to think of 5 letter words with, potentially 'e' as the third letter and 'f as the fifth is good.
they don't include it because it's used for analog transport of HD signals. and that's not the main market for the wii. i'm sure the wii includes composite cables and probably not s-video. are you getting component and composite cables confused as many have in this thread?
though $60 is still overpriced for the component cables, if you go to most consumer electronics stores for them, they'll be somewhere around this range. mostly because they're the standard overpriced monster cables. online you can get them much cheaper.
the numbers from the article saying it's equivalent to 1.5 million people's consumption is not if everyone in the USA 'totally' goes for these, but if they replace only a single bulb. if they 'totally' go for these and the article is correct that there's between 50 and 100 bulbs in every house, then aren't your.1 to.2% numbers actually more like 5 to 10% assuming 50 bulbs per house? isn't that quite a decent amount of energy savings with no long term net investment by the consumer?
completely agree with what you say. though the great great grandparent post indicated that windows software firewalls were completely useless and the only real firewall option for us 'driveling masses' who aren't smart enough to be able to escape from microsoft's evil embrace would be to use a separate device (running *nix) that would handle the firewalling for our completely inept microsoft platform products. this iscompletely impractical (if we're too dumb to not choose ms, we're not going to be able to properly work that device and keep IT from being hacked -- because just because it's linux doesn't mean it can't and won't) and, quite simply, just ms bashing flamebait. to the contrary, the software products (combined with regular updates of the OS and other pertinent software) will provide the required level of protection for most people. this is the exact same thing that would be required for a separate firewall device. i am not trying to claim that windows is inherently either more secure or more stable than linux and other unix variants.
as for the 95% statement. i meant more that windows + software firewall + virus scanner will work correctly and acceptable for 95% of users. rather than it would stop 95% of attacks.
because it's completely impossible that someone might CHOOSE to use windows over linux. completely, undeniably, impossible.
*BZZZZZZT* wrong.
i CHOOSE to use windows. 90% of what i do on a daily basis could be done in either. with a decent amount of extra effort, i could probably get that last 10% working under linux. but in my opinion, linux just isn't there yet. xp, warts and all, allows me to be more productive. yes, i have a linux partition on my laptop (that doesn't get much use). and i have linux vms available for various uses when i need them for certain development testing needs (and these get more use). but i'm in windows 98% of the time, because it's easier.
and as my laptop goes with me, it's connected mostly to unsecured wireless networks and since it's utterly incomprehensible that the only acceptable firewall could come in the form of a separate device that i'd have to carry around, i run a software firewall and virus protection software under windows. and i have NEVER gotten a virus of any sort. these are not going to be perfect. but they're the 95% solution (at least). and that's good enough considering the practicality of the alternatives.
but your microsoft bashing is insulting. not because microsoft is the patron saint of software, but because those of us who choose to use it are not automatically idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
do you really think this is a strange thing to do? vegetarians are in the minority so when they eat with others, say at a bbq, there often are only a few to a larger number of meat eaters. what are these meat eaters eating? hamburgers and hot dogs. so doesn't it actually make MORE sense that the vegetarian food be prepared in such a way that they can take advantage of the same buns, dressings, and condiments as the meat eaters? it's much more economical.
It seems to my that they're saying in the article that you do have some right to privacy, but if you don't make an effort to keep it private - you're essentially giving up that right. i.e. If i'm asking for an oil change only and a have kilo of cocaine sitting on the passenger seat, there should be reasonable expectation that in the course of changing my oil, the mechanic may look at the passenger seat. So I shouldn't be protected if he does. However, if I have it in a hidden compartment underneath the back seat, then the mechanic likely had to invade my privacy in order to find it - as that wouldn't be a normal place of interest for a mechanic changing my oil.
Of course, like most other, that's probably a terrible analogy.
great analogy. except it's not at all like that.
then you get to sue people -- come on, this is america!
are you honestly trying to tell us that apple doesn't ship, with each ipod, the cable used to connect it to your computer (i.e. the charging cable)? of course they do, so stop saying they don't.
if you're complaining that they don't include the outlet adapter anymore, that's fine, but it's not really relevant either to the parent or to the main story.
besides you missing the point of "natural prey", you do understand how ludicrous your analogy is right? because some animals prey on certain primates, absolutely does not mean they prey on all primates (there's a lot of different primates -- it is an order). that's like (almost) saying that because some felidae (the feline family - family is more specific than order) pray on zebras, that my cat does too.
on the other hand, as has been pointed out by others -- the actual study indicates that the newscientist is wrong...
actually the two linked articles are in disagreement. the dailymail article says that they chose the more fertile one 60% of the time. the newscientist article says that they chose the more fertile one 60% more of the time than would be expected by random (same as what the summary says).
and if i had to choose between the two, i'd say the newscientist article is more likely to be worded correctly.
we've moved past the megahertz myth. we're stuck on the gigahertz myth now.
Isn't the right question why does this guy even get first place "Sysadmin of the Year" when the incident in question happened 2 years ago? At least he didn't win the grand prize...
as i said, that's inference. and if you actually read my post i acknowledge that while that reasoning is acceptable enough for me to be against the death penalty it is NOT proof that we have executed an innocent person which is what the parent poster claims exists (without providing reference).
unless you have a link, i'm generally skeptical of your claims as to what the UC law school found. one, because you claim it wasn't published (this makes little sense in a university setting - where darn near everything anywhere near important gets published and this would definitely be important). and two, it directly contradicts the cnn article as to why ryan made the decision he made.
6 &did=111#executed
i'm not claiming that we haven't executed innocent people. but i haven't seen a lot of definitive proof showing we have. just inference (which is valid enough to me to be against the death penalty, but doesn't actually prove anything). if you look at this anti-death penalty site you'll find it contains no proven claims of innocence after someone has been executed - and you'd expect that if there were such a site would definitely have that information.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=
sure, some of these were before dna testing and sure, prosecutors don't want to reopen the case for a dead person so dna testing is about the only way to prove innocence without going through a trial making it nearly impossible without someone else confessing and being proven guilty. but it does make your claims very hard for me to believe (even if i agree with the end conclusion that the death penalty is bad).
> shown to be innocent AFTER they were killed
e cutions.02/
this is incorrect. first, it was governor ryan of illinois. but noone in the US has been exonerated after they were executed. many have been shown innocent before they were killed and obviously freed from death row. and this is why ryan commuted the sentences of all of the illinois death row inmates.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.ex
if you have a link to somewhere indicating that someone in the us has bene proven innocent after they were executed, please include it.
they may have started cancelling the auctions because the seller is guaranteed not to currently have the product and has no real guarantee that will at launch.
looks like you've already got that whole in the head.
would they really get a shock since they wouldn't be grounded? isn't this how they are able to sit on telephone wires without issue? or am i just making stuff up (i freely admit to knowing nothing about electricity)?
i'm not entirely sure how you get 500 miles at 29 mpg for 13.5 gallons. do you push the last 100 to really increase the mileage?
but if the real value of the software is free, why would you want it?
at least earlier in the HDTV cycle i believe that 'HD Ready' actually meant that it could display HD signals (720p and/or 1080i) but did not have a built-in HD tuner capable of receiving and processing the HD signal so you'd need another piece of equipment (typically a cable or satellite box) that would do this for you.
or a potentially pretty good test if you're hiring people that will be manipulating and deriving words using patterns and partial information (cryptography). i'd suspect it probably correlates pretty well. certainly a good bit of crossword puzzle work these days is just being familiar with the standard clues (and why i hate them). but being able to think of 5 letter words with, potentially 'e' as the third letter and 'f as the fifth is good.
they don't include it because it's used for analog transport of HD signals. and that's not the main market for the wii. i'm sure the wii includes composite cables and probably not s-video. are you getting component and composite cables confused as many have in this thread?
though $60 is still overpriced for the component cables, if you go to most consumer electronics stores for them, they'll be somewhere around this range. mostly because they're the standard overpriced monster cables. online you can get them much cheaper.
the numbers from the article saying it's equivalent to 1.5 million people's consumption is not if everyone in the USA 'totally' goes for these, but if they replace only a single bulb. if they 'totally' go for these and the article is correct that there's between 50 and 100 bulbs in every house, then aren't your .1 to .2% numbers actually more like 5 to 10% assuming 50 bulbs per house? isn't that quite a decent amount of energy savings with no long term net investment by the consumer?
completely agree with what you say. though the great great grandparent post indicated that windows software firewalls were completely useless and the only real firewall option for us 'driveling masses' who aren't smart enough to be able to escape from microsoft's evil embrace would be to use a separate device (running *nix) that would handle the firewalling for our completely inept microsoft platform products. this iscompletely impractical (if we're too dumb to not choose ms, we're not going to be able to properly work that device and keep IT from being hacked -- because just because it's linux doesn't mean it can't and won't) and, quite simply, just ms bashing flamebait. to the contrary, the software products (combined with regular updates of the OS and other pertinent software) will provide the required level of protection for most people. this is the exact same thing that would be required for a separate firewall device. i am not trying to claim that windows is inherently either more secure or more stable than linux and other unix variants.
as for the 95% statement. i meant more that windows + software firewall + virus scanner will work correctly and acceptable for 95% of users. rather than it would stop 95% of attacks.
because it's completely impossible that someone might CHOOSE to use windows over linux. completely, undeniably, impossible.
*BZZZZZZT* wrong.
i CHOOSE to use windows. 90% of what i do on a daily basis could be done in either. with a decent amount of extra effort, i could probably get that last 10% working under linux. but in my opinion, linux just isn't there yet. xp, warts and all, allows me to be more productive. yes, i have a linux partition on my laptop (that doesn't get much use). and i have linux vms available for various uses when i need them for certain development testing needs (and these get more use). but i'm in windows 98% of the time, because it's easier.
and as my laptop goes with me, it's connected mostly to unsecured wireless networks and since it's utterly incomprehensible that the only acceptable firewall could come in the form of a separate device that i'd have to carry around, i run a software firewall and virus protection software under windows. and i have NEVER gotten a virus of any sort. these are not going to be perfect. but they're the 95% solution (at least). and that's good enough considering the practicality of the alternatives.
but your microsoft bashing is insulting. not because microsoft is the patron saint of software, but because those of us who choose to use it are not automatically idiots.