But have you ever seen a Subaru commercial? (unless you live in the mountains, the answer is likely no).
But I like it because on a feature-for-feature comparison, it's one of the more economical and reliable (and safe) vehicles for the price.
But uhm ok.
I'm looking around my house for brands that I might have seen advertised somewhere.
I guess I use Colgate toothpaste... But that was mainly because I was using Tom's of Maine and it gave me bad breath.
I shopped around and Colgate had a variety of flavors I wanted to try.
Dude, I just don't see it.
I've bought just about every generic out there and only resort to the brands when the generic's quality is noticeably lower.
Hmmm you know what...
One time I bought a Molson beer because they sponsor my favorite hockey team... So there you go.. there's one instance.
But I didn't like it, so I didn't buy it again. Still buy micro-brews. The more beer ads I see with gigantic trains throwing snow on a city street make me roll my eyes. The funny thing is as much as I HATE that commercial, I can't remember what company it's for....
I saw ads for the new Nikon camera, which reminded me I had meant to drop by the local camera shop because It was something I'd been wanting to do (upgrade my camera)
I ended up doing some research and bought a Canon from an online discount shop.
I use a credit union because they give me better rates.
And I drive a 10 year old station wagon, because it's more practical.
I am fast-food agnostic and will eat anyplace that has a "drive-thru" window if I'm in a pinch for time.
Though mcdonalds does have decent fries. I tend to avoid it during these stupid "Monopoly" games because it seems to be twice as crowded. (obviously, advertising works there)
Because I've tried the other 8 or 10 competitors and I prefer the taste.
I credit their distribution channel for getting the product into every convenience store in the world. Maybe that has something to do with TV ads, but generally when I order a drink, I say "uhm I'll have a Coke or Pepsi or whatever". I guess if I were from the northeast it might be a "soda" but that also means bubbly water in some places...
Regardless, if I found something that tasted different, I'd get that. I really like Jones soda, though I've never seen an advertisment for them, sometimes I ask for them by name because they have very unique flavors.
I also like Blue Sky soda - they also have some interesting takes on some flavors.
Does anyone notice that the more pervasive advertising is, the less effective it is?
In other words, people build filters for it. I know within younger generations, advertising is almost invisible.
I recall older people at work asking me "did you notice that new ad on the webpage?"
To which I responded "uhm... our webpage has ads?"
Because I spend enough time on the web to have almost totally filtered them out (yeah, adblock does a bunch of that for me, but even without it....)
I don't think I could tell you after a TV show, who the sponsors were. Commercial time is just blank in my mind because I tune it out.
I don't think I've EVER clicked on an ad in a webpage. I don't know for sure, but television and radio advertising rarely affect my purchasing decisions, at least not in a way I can discern.
So, legitimately, how powerful is a wall-hanging logo for Pepsi in some random goofy youtube video ACTUALLY going to be?
Am I a total oddity in not even noticing most advertising?
It's not a barrier and does not "block" the waves.
It simply disrupts them, like pebbles on the bed of a river. The wave goes around the islands, pretty harmlessly, but the interference pattern created, essentially protects the object at the center.
It's a very subtle approach, not the brute force on you seem to think.
Or that, chemically and mathematically, life on Earth only has a 1:1,200,000,000,000,000,000 chance of happening the way evolutionists predict?
Wow!!!
There are probably more than that number of planetary systems in the universe, so there's better than a 1:1 chance of life existing by biochemical and mathematical chance.
I think your number is exagerated, or you pulled it out of your ass, but if it's accurate, you just proved that it's LIKELY that life would evolve from nothing somewhere in the universe.
Science should be about teaching students SOLID, known facts, not "theories". They should learn about gravity and atomic interaction and optics and the kinds of rocks and plate techtonics.
You do realize, of course, that these are accepted as having "reasonable evidence of being factual" but are actually theories, just like everything else in biology and chemistry. A theory is something that someone has postulated using the scientific method. Generally, theories will be studied and refined by scientists until it is disproven scientifically. So far, gravity and atomic theory as they stand have been distilled from dozens of theories on the topic and are generally accepted as accurate (if somewhat incomplete).
Evolutionary theory is exactly the same in this regard. It is generally accepted, though recognized as incomplete, but has never been scientifically disproven. There may be questions about it, but there are NO reputable scientists who deny evolution on any scale. There are a few (somewhere on the order of a tenth of a percent) who question whether this can expand to a larger scale), but nobody has ever put forth a reputable biological, chemical, genetic or morphological reason other than "wow, that blows my mind" to postulate what exactly would cause this "macro-evolution" barrier. Without scientific disproof and WITH massive amounts of evidence to support it, it is considered a very strong theory.
They should not be taught some bizarre dream that some guy hobbled together based on a few coincidental pieces of evidence.
If by "some guy", you mean somewhere on the order of a quarter of a million top scientists, and by "a few coincidental pieces of evidence", you mean somewhere on the order of three quarters of a million fossils, over 110,000 scientific papers spanning 400 years.... uhm.... sure.... whatever you say dude.
That's just not what science is.
Uhm, read my previous paragraph. That is exactly what science is. It is the epitome of modern science and the application of the scientific method, to be honest.
Evolution is a theory. That's all it ever has been and all it ever will be. We'll never be able to actually go out and test evolution.
It's a theory in as much as "the sun probably has a heavy metal core, undergoing massive fusion" is a theory.
We will never test it directly, but we have pretty damn good evidence from observation, that it's true, at least until we have some better explanation that follows scientific reason. It IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that there is a giant iguana breathing fire at the core of the sun, and we will never know. It's simply not scientific to teach that, even if someone might hold that theory.
All we really have is faith, and that's exactly why it's important to teach students about alternate belief systems.
Yes, faith! This is why it belongs in theology or philosophy, not science.
I still think evolution should be taught in science class because obviously you have to be on the up and up about what's going on.
Young-earth creationism has about as much evidence going for it as the old Hindu "earth was created during a cataclysmic fight between Brahma and Vishnu sometime before time existed"... which isn't science either, even if I still respect Hindu beliefs about spirituality and faith, just like Christianity.
But the same reasoning applies to intelligent design, which has made great advances in understanding life at the biochemical level.
PLEASE enlighten me. What advance has intelligent design contri
I'll take a reliable employee that shows up every day on time, but is only average, or even a little under-average
You will?
Hmmmmmm.. I was manager of an IT department and had an even split of both types of people.
One type was always early, always studiously reviewing policies and eating a brown-bag lunch at their desk so they could "keep working". Unfortunately, most of these people were also quite "average" and maybe even slightly "below-average" in competency. Their solutions were mechanical and I found, by their nature, they learned things in a linear way. I would have to train them, step by step, and provide documentation of every single procedure, down to the "don't forget to click on OK at the end" level.
The other type was frequently late, frequently took 2 hour lunches, but were absolutely brilliant at the work they needed to do. I had 3 of these people who got WAY more done in their 6 hour work day than the other folks finished in their 9 hour work day. The solutions were more intuitive and generally saved us time in the long run. They learned on the fly and were generally the folks who WROTE the documentation for the "punctual" folks.
I kept both types of people around because they each have qualities that benefit the department.
The on time people were answering the phones handling routine procedures, etc, the brilliant, but late folks handled tricky problems and discovered new features.
So... unless you run a team full of data entry clerks or factory-line button-pushers, I think you're selling yourself short by being rigid on punctuality over competence... OMG, the idle CSS is so fucked...
As soon as you said that it clicked that I was reading about the ITER and LHC on the same day and probably mixed those up because I couldn't find any literature about it with the LHC:-)
i stand corrected. Japan did contribute to the LHC, right? I'm pretty sure they did.
Well, considering that Japan has the largest single national contribution of people and materials, other than France, and were actually the 2nd choice site for locating the device itself, I don't think they regard the LHC as a negative to their cultural heritage.
As a concession to their not getting the collider on their territory, they received a larger than usual portion of control over the people and science that goes on there.
The only reason a nanotube has the tensile strength of the correct proportion is that it is a long chain of covalent bonds.
If you simply "weave" them together in the cotton sense, your tensile strength will be exactly equal to the strength of that woven joint... which is to say... significantly lower than pure carbon nanotubes.
Not to mention the fact that I believe I read that nanotubes are a VERY low friction surface. Oh, and they're only about 100um thick... so you can't exactly snatch them with your fingers (or most other tools)... Oh, did I mention they're almost entirely transparent? Awesome.:-)
Nanotubes are cool, but they're not cotton. Personally, I think this elevator thing is going nowhere fast.
Considering the bailout of the banks is a bit of a requirement to prevent a large-scale currency collapse (to pale 1929), I'm not sure you understand the magnitude of your question...
uhm. USENET isn't going away. It's just no longer offered as an included service by Comcast.
In order to "ban" USENET, they would have to effectively revamp the "common carrier" status of the major news carriers and/or legally mandate some special ability for the justice department to prosecute people who carry certain network traffic, regardless of the content.
Neither is likely to happen. You'll just have to pay for your USENET access.
The problem with removing it as a free service from the ISPs is that the only people left using it are paid users, which further distills the user community to those who have a vested interest in the anonymity provide by the nature of the system, and therefor, probably only increases the saturation of illegal activities.
Slashdot Mirror
The other problem is, for me, soda purchases are frequently a last-minute gas station purchase, where the selection is grossly limited.
That usually pisses me off, but meh... I don't really *care* that much what's on the label as long as it has a little caffeine and a decent flavor.
I have a hard on for the new Subaru wagon.
But have you ever seen a Subaru commercial? (unless you live in the mountains, the answer is likely no).
But I like it because on a feature-for-feature comparison, it's one of the more economical and reliable (and safe) vehicles for the price.
But uhm ok.
I'm looking around my house for brands that I might have seen advertised somewhere.
I guess I use Colgate toothpaste... But that was mainly because I was using Tom's of Maine and it gave me bad breath.
I shopped around and Colgate had a variety of flavors I wanted to try.
Dude, I just don't see it.
I've bought just about every generic out there and only resort to the brands when the generic's quality is noticeably lower.
Hmmm you know what...
One time I bought a Molson beer because they sponsor my favorite hockey team... So there you go.. there's one instance.
But I didn't like it, so I didn't buy it again. Still buy micro-brews. The more beer ads I see with gigantic trains throwing snow on a city street make me roll my eyes. The funny thing is as much as I HATE that commercial, I can't remember what company it's for....
meh... advertising...
Probably.
I saw ads for the new Nikon camera, which reminded me I had meant to drop by the local camera shop because It was something I'd been wanting to do (upgrade my camera)
I ended up doing some research and bought a Canon from an online discount shop.
Yay for Nikon ads.
Well... no
I use a credit union because they give me better rates.
And I drive a 10 year old station wagon, because it's more practical.
I am fast-food agnostic and will eat anyplace that has a "drive-thru" window if I'm in a pinch for time.
Though mcdonalds does have decent fries. I tend to avoid it during these stupid "Monopoly" games because it seems to be twice as crowded. (obviously, advertising works there)
Because I've tried the other 8 or 10 competitors and I prefer the taste.
I credit their distribution channel for getting the product into every convenience store in the world. Maybe that has something to do with TV ads, but generally when I order a drink, I say "uhm I'll have a Coke or Pepsi or whatever". I guess if I were from the northeast it might be a "soda" but that also means bubbly water in some places...
Regardless, if I found something that tasted different, I'd get that. I really like Jones soda, though I've never seen an advertisment for them, sometimes I ask for them by name because they have very unique flavors.
I also like Blue Sky soda - they also have some interesting takes on some flavors.
*shrugs*
Does anyone notice that the more pervasive advertising is, the less effective it is?
In other words, people build filters for it. I know within younger generations, advertising is almost invisible.
I recall older people at work asking me "did you notice that new ad on the webpage?"
To which I responded "uhm... our webpage has ads?"
Because I spend enough time on the web to have almost totally filtered them out (yeah, adblock does a bunch of that for me, but even without it....)
I don't think I could tell you after a TV show, who the sponsors were. Commercial time is just blank in my mind because I tune it out.
I don't think I've EVER clicked on an ad in a webpage. I don't know for sure, but television and radio advertising rarely affect my purchasing decisions, at least not in a way I can discern.
So, legitimately, how powerful is a wall-hanging logo for Pepsi in some random goofy youtube video ACTUALLY going to be?
Am I a total oddity in not even noticing most advertising?
Briefly, when WPA was new, there was some hardware that only had a chip to support WEP encryption.
With TKIP, those devices could (in theory) just get new firmware and continue to function using WEP+TKIP for the interim WPA standard.
The AES functionality was always the "preferred" method, but many devices still run "default" mode using WEP+TKIP because it is more compatible.
History lesson. :-)
pretty sure that was a typo for "sailing cats".
as in... catamarans... which weren't a popular sailboat design till the late 90s really.
I'm guessing here... but here's my take on it...
It's not a barrier and does not "block" the waves.
It simply disrupts them, like pebbles on the bed of a river. The wave goes around the islands, pretty harmlessly, but the interference pattern created, essentially protects the object at the center.
It's a very subtle approach, not the brute force on you seem to think.
Science is science.
As long as they're not using the half-mutilated corpses of oppressed minorities in their work, it's worth as much as anyone else's work.
The same goes for research coming out of ass-backwards places like Pakistan and Iran, if they ever got around to publishing this kind of research.
There is no such thing as a dark side of the moon.
There is one side that's not visible from earth, but it's by no means "more dark" than the other side.
In fact, it's not plagued by frequent terrestrial eclipses, so it would have more light than the near side of the moon.
Neato! :-)
Yes, I know you're not serious......
Or that, chemically and mathematically, life on Earth only has a 1:1,200,000,000,000,000,000 chance of happening the way evolutionists predict?
Wow!!!
There are probably more than that number of planetary systems in the universe, so there's better than a 1:1 chance of life existing by biochemical and mathematical chance.
I think your number is exagerated, or you pulled it out of your ass, but if it's accurate, you just proved that it's LIKELY that life would evolve from nothing somewhere in the universe.
Thanks for doing the hard part... :-)
It comes from seemingly limitless prosperity and saftey.
When people regard themselves as totally safe and perpetually prosperous, they stop thinking they have to try, and begin to EXPECT that they are OWED.
Science should be about teaching students SOLID, known facts, not "theories". They should learn about gravity and atomic interaction and optics and the kinds of rocks and plate techtonics.
Hahaha! You mean the Theory of gravity and Atomic Theory?
You do realize, of course, that these are accepted as having "reasonable evidence of being factual" but are actually theories, just like everything else in biology and chemistry. A theory is something that someone has postulated using the scientific method. Generally, theories will be studied and refined by scientists until it is disproven scientifically. So far, gravity and atomic theory as they stand have been distilled from dozens of theories on the topic and are generally accepted as accurate (if somewhat incomplete).
Evolutionary theory is exactly the same in this regard. It is generally accepted, though recognized as incomplete, but has never been scientifically disproven. There may be questions about it, but there are NO reputable scientists who deny evolution on any scale. There are a few (somewhere on the order of a tenth of a percent) who question whether this can expand to a larger scale), but nobody has ever put forth a reputable biological, chemical, genetic or morphological reason other than "wow, that blows my mind" to postulate what exactly would cause this "macro-evolution" barrier. Without scientific disproof and WITH massive amounts of evidence to support it, it is considered a very strong theory.
They should not be taught some bizarre dream that some guy hobbled together based on a few coincidental pieces of evidence.
If by "some guy", you mean somewhere on the order of a quarter of a million top scientists, and by "a few coincidental pieces of evidence", you mean somewhere on the order of three quarters of a million fossils, over 110,000 scientific papers spanning 400 years.... uhm.... sure.... whatever you say dude.
That's just not what science is.
Uhm, read my previous paragraph. That is exactly what science is. It is the epitome of modern science and the application of the scientific method, to be honest.
Evolution is a theory. That's all it ever has been and all it ever will be. We'll never be able to actually go out and test evolution.
It's a theory in as much as "the sun probably has a heavy metal core, undergoing massive fusion" is a theory.
We will never test it directly, but we have pretty damn good evidence from observation, that it's true, at least until we have some better explanation that follows scientific reason. It IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that there is a giant iguana breathing fire at the core of the sun, and we will never know. It's simply not scientific to teach that, even if someone might hold that theory.
All we really have is faith, and that's exactly why it's important to teach students about alternate belief systems.
Yes, faith! This is why it belongs in theology or philosophy, not science.
I still think evolution should be taught in science class because obviously you have to be on the up and up about what's going on.
Young-earth creationism has about as much evidence going for it as the old Hindu "earth was created during a cataclysmic fight between Brahma and Vishnu sometime before time existed"... which isn't science either, even if I still respect Hindu beliefs about spirituality and faith, just like Christianity.
But the same reasoning applies to intelligent design, which has made great advances in understanding life at the biochemical level.
PLEASE enlighten me. What advance has intelligent design contri
Uhm.....
"God is dead" - Nietzsche, 1882
"Nietzsche is dead" - Metabolic biochemistry, 1900 :-) not to quibble..... or anything...
I'll take a reliable employee that shows up every day on time, but is only average, or even a little under-average
You will?
Hmmmmmm.. I was manager of an IT department and had an even split of both types of people.
One type was always early, always studiously reviewing policies and eating a brown-bag lunch at their desk so they could "keep working". Unfortunately, most of these people were also quite "average" and maybe even slightly "below-average" in competency. Their solutions were mechanical and I found, by their nature, they learned things in a linear way. I would have to train them, step by step, and provide documentation of every single procedure, down to the "don't forget to click on OK at the end" level.
The other type was frequently late, frequently took 2 hour lunches, but were absolutely brilliant at the work they needed to do. I had 3 of these people who got WAY more done in their 6 hour work day than the other folks finished in their 9 hour work day. The solutions were more intuitive and generally saved us time in the long run. They learned on the fly and were generally the folks who WROTE the documentation for the "punctual" folks.
I kept both types of people around because they each have qualities that benefit the department.
The on time people were answering the phones handling routine procedures, etc, the brilliant, but late folks handled tricky problems and discovered new features.
So... unless you run a team full of data entry clerks or factory-line button-pushers, I think you're selling yourself short by being rigid on punctuality over competence. .. OMG, the idle CSS is so fucked...
You can go with a high-end business-class email hosting provider, such as usa.net
They specialize in just business email hosting.
Hahahaha!!!
You're right.
As soon as you said that it clicked that I was reading about the ITER and LHC on the same day and probably mixed those up because I couldn't find any literature about it with the LHC :-)
i stand corrected. Japan did contribute to the LHC, right? I'm pretty sure they did.
hah ok just spit my coffee on the keyboard... damnit...........
nope, that will be the research department.
Well, considering that Japan has the largest single national contribution of people and materials, other than France, and were actually the 2nd choice site for locating the device itself, I don't think they regard the LHC as a negative to their cultural heritage.
As a concession to their not getting the collider on their territory, they received a larger than usual portion of control over the people and science that goes on there.
The only reason a nanotube has the tensile strength of the correct proportion is that it is a long chain of covalent bonds.
If you simply "weave" them together in the cotton sense, your tensile strength will be exactly equal to the strength of that woven joint... which is to say... significantly lower than pure carbon nanotubes.
Not to mention the fact that I believe I read that nanotubes are a VERY low friction surface. Oh, and they're only about 100um thick... so you can't exactly snatch them with your fingers (or most other tools)... Oh, did I mention they're almost entirely transparent? Awesome. :-)
Nanotubes are cool, but they're not cotton. Personally, I think this elevator thing is going nowhere fast.
Do you know how much a cable that is 35,000 km long WEIGHS?
Assuming it's steel, it would be... like... a bajillion tons. :-)
The only material with the tensile strength to weight ratio currently known are pure carbon nanotubes.
The longest nanotube ever made was on the order of about 1cm long.
A space elevator needs to have (tens of) thousands of these on the order of 35,000km long.
Why wouldn't this work?
Considering the bailout of the banks is a bit of a requirement to prevent a large-scale currency collapse (to pale 1929), I'm not sure you understand the magnitude of your question...
uhm. USENET isn't going away. It's just no longer offered as an included service by Comcast.
In order to "ban" USENET, they would have to effectively revamp the "common carrier" status of the major news carriers and/or legally mandate some special ability for the justice department to prosecute people who carry certain network traffic, regardless of the content.
Neither is likely to happen. You'll just have to pay for your USENET access.
The problem with removing it as a free service from the ISPs is that the only people left using it are paid users, which further distills the user community to those who have a vested interest in the anonymity provide by the nature of the system, and therefor, probably only increases the saturation of illegal activities.