Looking at the sun isn't harmful, as long as you don't do it for any length of time. Thus my Mum fooled me as a kid by telling me not to even look at the sun - all I dared do was peek, and I thus was not hurt. It's interesting how a false message is often the right one to send (and no, I don't work for M$ marketing division).
Yes, but regular speeding might seriously be viewed as an indication of a general tendancy to do stupid and dangerous things. Such a tendancy would be a legitimate reason not to hire you for a wide range of jobs. It's nothing like as arbitrary as the other factors you mentioned (although for certain jobs age is also important, and for a very few, sex is too).
One of the other factors mentioned in the article was the failure of 'Green Revolution' crops with increased yields to take up vital micronutrients. It should be said that this can be, and is being, changed by GM technology. I have heard of GM varieties of rice, maize and wheat with improved uptake. If these crops are marketed at an affordable price for the Third World, they could help a great deal with that particular problem.
Of course, another reason for micronutrient shortage which was mentioned was soil depletion, and increased uptake cannot help where there are no micronutrients for the taking, but in much of India and the Far East the real problem is that the crops are not delivering the micronutrients that are there in the soil.
I am not uniformly pro-GM, in fact I believe that certain applications of the technology do more harm than good (suicide genes and herbicide resistance genes) but it must be said that it does have great merits as well.
To take this a bit more seriously, I'm not sure how much paper would be saved by not having a printed manual. Many users would make a hardcopy of a manual provided on the CD or the internet - for all the advantages mentioned earlier. The little bit of extra hassle which dealing with this would cause the consumer would not be welcome, nor would the likely lack of proper indexing in the print-out (hyperlinks would likely be used to go from one part of the manual to another, which obviously would not be reproduced in a hard copy).
If you want to be environmentally friendly and user-friendly, use recycled paper. It'll even make the users that notice feel better.
Try 'Imaginary Homelands' by Salman Rushdie. As I remember, he liked quite a few things about the film. It's a great collection of esays anyway, although a little dated. I picked up my.sig from another essay in that book, 'In Good Faith' (wherein he was defending the masterpiece 'The Satanic Verses').
I could tell you how to stab someone with great effectiveness in the torso, owing to some ninjitsu training I had a while back (no seriously, I'm not just being a troll). I don't want to, however, because I disaprove of diseminating this kind of information indiscriminately - outside of a disciplined training environment, any kid with a screwdriver becomes lethal with the knowledge of a little basic anatomy.
You quoted a very interesting article there. I live in England, and I am aware of many of the problems we face (particularly as a pub round the corner from me has a group of regulars who have been seen on more than one occasion with automatics). I still don't think that we'd be better off with legal guns though. A scared homeowner can shoot dead some kid burglar quite easily and unnecessarily (as happened recently here as well). In some states, I've been given to understand that it's legal to shoot burglars, even to the extent that in Texas it's legal to shoot someone you see stealing your neighbour's car. This is really not necessary, although I also think that the life sentence meeted out to the guy I mentioned above was a bit harsh too.
This life sentence does point out one thing though - gun-related violence should not be tolerated, because when you shoot at someone, you're almost invariably doing so with the intention of taking their life. (If you only want to scare them off, use blanks). And killing is intolerable. Human life is inviolate, and the taking of it to save yourself the loss of a little property is unacceptable.
Incidentally, where do you stand on capital punishment? As you can guess, I'm opposed to it. I also had a feeling you might be getting a little tired of the guns debate.
>With a knife, you can certainly stab or slash >just as easily, but unless you hit a >particularly vulnerable spot, more than one >attempt is necessary to kill a target.
I hate to disagree with you, as I also oppose the overly loose gun laws currently prevalent in the US, but this is not true. Stab someone in much of the torso or neck, and the odds are pretty good that they'll die. If you know what you're doing (as in where to go for), it's a certainty. Knives are lethal weapons too, which is why the circumstances under which it's legal to be carrying one are very limited in the UK. Luckily.
> The Treaty of Versailles did not put very harsh terms on Germany.
I totally disagree with this. Although Germany was not partitioned as it was to be at the end of WW2, it was diminished - on the east side, to give territory to Poland and on the west side to cede Alsace and Lorraine to the French. The colonies of Togoland, the Cameroons, German East Africa, and German South West Africa were seized under mandate. A massive amount of cash in the form of reparations was demanded (£6.6billion - a lot more then than it is now), armed forces were limited to a standing army of 100000 without conscription, and Germany was forced to sign a clause stipulating that she and she alone had been responsible for the beginning of the war (something which was certainly open to debate). Consider also that Germany was bankrupt and suffering from a famine and the most serious epidemic this century. (Admittedly the Western countries were also suffering from the latter). Its male population had been bled dry by the war, to the point where boys of fourteen and old men had been sent out to fight and die in the trenches against insuperable odds.
The debilitating effects which this had upon the German nation and its people directly fed Hitler's propaganda machine with ample xenophobia. In contrast, following WW2, West Germany at least was rebuilt with aid from the Allies and enabled to get a fresh, democratic start.
To answer your second point, Japan certainly did contribute to the start of WW2. The invasion of Manchuria set a very dangerous precedent which had three main consequences (quite apart from the tragic damage done to China). Firstly, it showed that the League of Nations was incapable of intervention in a crisis. Second (linked to the first) it encouraged other expansionist powers to follow suit (as Italy did in 1935). Third, it paved the way for the declaration of war which Japan made against China in 1937. The first two had clear links to the origins of the war in Europe.
Another way in which Japan contributed to the start of WW2 was by signing the Axis of Steel pact in the 30s with Germany and Italy, giving them the reassurance of her backing in time of war.
Oh and btw:
>It's also important to remember that World War >II involved the United Nations in Europe before >they did in the Pacific.
The United Nations was not founded until after WW2. Get your facts right.
I will agree that the invasion of Manchuria was a significant contribution to the start of WW2 but did not of itself begin the war. Why? Because it only really involved one of the world powers, whereas the invasion of Poland brought in Germany, France, Britain and a couple of less powerful states in one fell swoop. It also did not itself begin from nothing - the fundamental contributing factor had been the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression which followed. Japan was highly dependent on resources which were not easily obtained from within but were available in plentiful amounts in northern China. The damage which the Great Depression did to their economy limited their ability to obtain these resources through trade, the League of Nations was too weak to intervene, and so the Japanese military were able to invade and get away with it. I am not saying that Japan had to do what it did, or that what followed was not criminal and tragic, but it was not of itself enough to start the war, merely another link in the chain. Had another powerful nation, or the League of Nations, opposed Japan's actions at this time, the invasion might also have been halted. The further progress towards WW2 could also have been forstalled if action had been taken against the Italian Invasion of Abyssinia in 1935, or the German Anschluss with Austria, or the Annexation of the Sudetenland, or yet the subsequent inroads upon Czechoslovakia. But the order of the day was appeasement, and the invading parties were able to carry on and gain momentum unimpeded. I am not saying that intervention is always a wise policy - I personally opposed the bombing campaign of Kosovo and oppose the current measures being taken against Iraq. With hindsight, it seems like it might have been a good idea then, however.
To get back to my point, in no way does Japan alone deserve the blame for WW2. The failure of disarmament, the gross penalties against Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, the failure of other world powers to oppose expansionist states, and the expansionist policies of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Stalinist Russia (yes, they were on our side in the end, but they signed the treaty with Germany which led directly to the invasion of Poland) - all these factors played their role as well. Unjust apportioning of blame does a great deal of harm every time in world affairs - the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles can be directly linked to the rise of Hitler, and the use of the Jews as a scapegoat for Germany's poverty played a very significant role in the Holocaust. Therefore it pays to be careful in these matters.
When my kettle broke, and up till I picked up a new one, I used my microwave to boil mugs of water. It was significantly faster. However, the boiling water behaved in a slightly odd way. As soon as I put anything in it (like a tea-bag or powdered soup) it would fizz, even when it had stopped bubbling. The same thing never happened with my kettle. Try it with your microwave, or better still, try to tell me what was going on because I have no idea.
This was one of the films which I enjoyed the most this last year, and I would certainly rate it as being on a par with American Beauty. It didn't get a single nomination, despite the best performance from Nicolas Cage ever, a seamless yet unpredictable plot progression, direction which was clearly smooth as silk (as you'd expect from Martin Scorcese), a soundtrack which I enjoyed immensely and a further excellent performance from Patricia Arquette. Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed the films which did win a lot too. I'm just baffled as to what happened here.
So does the Ericsson A1018s, and you don't need a GSM provider for that. I've got the theme from Mozart's 4th Horn Concerto, 3rd movement programmed into mine at the moment, and I'm kind of curious/afraid about what will happen if my horn teacher ever hears it ring.
1999's Nobel Prizes were each worth 7900000 Swedish Krona which is about 900000 US$. Check out the Nobel foundation homepage at: http://www.nobel.se
I don't know about you, but I'm mildly irritated as the Nobel Prizes are awarded for achievements in fields which I would personally rate as more important than religion. Still, at least there's a lot more prestige attached: I confess that I'd never heard of the Templeton Prize before today.
I think (though I'm not completely sure) that they're both still alive. If not, one of them must have died fairly recently and I hope I'd have heard about that.
Forgive my enthusiasm, but IMNSHO, we miss out on this wonderfully controversial topic far too much.
Now I am somewhat disadvantaged on this topic by not having seen all of the planet of the apes films, but I think that you might have exaggerated a little. Yes, the politics were there, but that wasn't all there was to the films' philosophy. And anyway, I see nothing wrong with films being'animal-loving' (as long as bestiality isn't involved) because though it's a fairly limited variety of it, I myself am a supporter of environmental issues. And as for bigotry, I'm sorry to be rude, but look who's talking.
You're absolutely right. The danger of introduced species is one that is often overlooked.
The US government has frequently made attempts at 'biological control' of unwanted plants & animals by introducing species that prey on them. However, the scattershot methods that are employed - introducing perhaps a dozen new species with very little ecological impact assessment either before or after the event - is asking for, and occasionally triggers, a disaster. Ecological control of pollutants could well face the same problems, as the features which species will be chosen for, such as robustness and speed of growth or reproduction make them very effective invaders.
Actually, prevention is a big part of Western medicine, in the form of vaccinations, dietary and exercise advice (also present in Chinese medicine) and regular check-ups of certain features like eyes and teeth, so that you get to see the patient before things have gone really wrong. I tend to think that fairly regular check-ups of the rest of the body would be a good idea too, because even if you don't find anything wrong, you can contribute a great deal to the patient's peace of mind (yes, that mole is just a mole etc). I must hasten to add to this that I am not a doctor.
Also, what do they do with all the dead trees which have taken up all the toxins from the soil? You can't burn them, you can't let them rot, and it might even be dangerous to use them in housing (could someone fill me in on this?).
This leaves only a small range of applications for thousands upon thousands of dead poplars. And most of these will be pretty temporary, so the wood will rot and release everything again.
Finally, how much use is poplar wood for these applications compared to other varieties? Might it make more sense to use a more practical building material which grows a little slower?
Don't get me wrong, I think this technique has great potential, I'm just wondering about a few details which the exceptionally and excessively kindly interviewer failed to bring up.
All politicians are inveterate liars, and always have been. To put it simply, power corrupts and the corrupt seek power. With a positive feedback chain like that, the chances of a politician being a good man are less than a snowflake's in a caldera (that's the geographical feature, not the company).
Has anyone seen that ancient film 'When Worlds Collide'? Pretty cool to think it could actually happen (although I'd reckon we would be less likely to find life on an extrasolar planet, seeing as solar power is the primary energy source of most life on this planet, excepting only geothermal powered life forms and theoretically certain computer programs).
>You cannot remove the profit motive from >scientific research except in periods of war or >other danger.
Actually, it could be argued that in periods of war the profit motive is still in effect as research is usually still being funded from somewhere, especially when it might help the war effort.
There was an interesting article about other profit motives in war time in the Economist (http://www.economist.co.uk) under 'International' but sadly they chose not to publish that particular article on the web.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sir, are you saying that you want to blow up the moon?"
"Would you miss it? Would you?"
Looking at the sun isn't harmful, as long as you don't do it for any length of time. Thus my Mum fooled me as a kid by telling me not to even look at the sun - all I dared do was peek, and I thus was not hurt. It's interesting how a false message is often the right one to send (and no, I don't work for M$ marketing division).
Yes, but regular speeding might seriously be viewed as an indication of a general tendancy to do stupid and dangerous things. Such a tendancy would be a legitimate reason not to hire you for a wide range of jobs. It's nothing like as arbitrary as the other factors you mentioned (although for certain jobs age is also important, and for a very few, sex is too).
> I believe that certain applications of the
> technology do more harm than good (suicide
> genes and herbicide resistance genes)
I meant terminator rather than suicide genes. That is really irritating.
One of the other factors mentioned in the article was the failure of 'Green Revolution' crops with increased yields to take up vital micronutrients. It should be said that this can be, and is being, changed by GM technology. I have heard of GM varieties of rice, maize and wheat with improved uptake. If these crops are marketed at an affordable price for the Third World, they could help a great deal with that particular problem.
Of course, another reason for micronutrient shortage which was mentioned was soil depletion, and increased uptake cannot help where there are no micronutrients for the taking, but in much of India and the Far East the real problem is that the crops are not delivering the micronutrients that are there in the soil.
I am not uniformly pro-GM, in fact I believe that certain applications of the technology do more harm than good (suicide genes and herbicide resistance genes) but it must be said that it does have great merits as well.
To take this a bit more seriously, I'm not sure how much paper would be saved by not having a printed manual. Many users would make a hardcopy of a manual provided on the CD or the internet - for all the advantages mentioned earlier. The little bit of extra hassle which dealing with this would cause the consumer would not be welcome, nor would the likely lack of proper indexing in the print-out (hyperlinks would likely be used to go from one part of the manual to another, which obviously would not be reproduced in a hard copy).
If you want to be environmentally friendly and user-friendly, use recycled paper. It'll even make the users that notice feel better.
Try 'Imaginary Homelands' by Salman Rushdie. As I remember, he liked quite a few things about the film. It's a great collection of esays anyway, although a little dated. I picked up my .sig from another essay in that book, 'In Good Faith' (wherein he was defending the masterpiece 'The Satanic Verses').
I could tell you how to stab someone with great effectiveness in the torso, owing to some ninjitsu training I had a while back (no seriously, I'm not just being a troll). I don't want to, however, because I disaprove of diseminating this kind of information indiscriminately - outside of a disciplined training environment, any kid with a screwdriver becomes lethal with the knowledge of a little basic anatomy.
You quoted a very interesting article there. I live in England, and I am aware of many of the problems we face (particularly as a pub round the corner from me has a group of regulars who have been seen on more than one occasion with automatics). I still don't think that we'd be better off with legal guns though. A scared homeowner can shoot dead some kid burglar quite easily and unnecessarily (as happened recently here as well). In some states, I've been given to understand that it's legal to shoot burglars, even to the extent that in Texas it's legal to shoot someone you see stealing your neighbour's car. This is really not necessary, although I also think that the life sentence meeted out to the guy I mentioned above was a bit harsh too.
This life sentence does point out one thing though - gun-related violence should not be tolerated, because when you shoot at someone, you're almost invariably doing so with the intention of taking their life. (If you only want to scare them off, use blanks). And killing is intolerable. Human life is inviolate, and the taking of it to save yourself the loss of a little property is unacceptable.
Incidentally, where do you stand on capital punishment? As you can guess, I'm opposed to it. I also had a feeling you might be getting a little tired of the guns debate.
>With a knife, you can certainly stab or slash
>just as easily, but unless you hit a
>particularly vulnerable spot, more than one
>attempt is necessary to kill a target.
I hate to disagree with you, as I also oppose the overly loose gun laws currently prevalent in the US, but this is not true. Stab someone in much of the torso or neck, and the odds are pretty good that they'll die. If you know what you're doing (as in where to go for), it's a certainty. Knives are lethal weapons too, which is why the circumstances under which it's legal to be carrying one are very limited in the UK. Luckily.
> The Treaty of Versailles did not put very harsh
terms on Germany.
I totally disagree with this. Although Germany was not partitioned as it was to be at the end of WW2, it was diminished - on the east side, to give territory to Poland and on the west side to cede Alsace and Lorraine to the French. The colonies of Togoland, the Cameroons, German East Africa, and German South West Africa were seized under mandate. A massive amount of cash in the form of reparations was demanded (£6.6billion - a lot more then than it is now), armed forces were limited to a standing army of 100000 without conscription, and Germany was forced to sign a clause stipulating that she and she alone had been responsible for the beginning of the war (something which was certainly open to debate). Consider also that Germany was bankrupt and suffering from a famine and the most serious epidemic this century. (Admittedly the Western countries were also suffering from the latter). Its male population had been bled dry by the war, to the point where boys of fourteen and old men had been sent out to fight and die in the trenches against insuperable odds.
The debilitating effects which this had upon the German nation and its people directly fed Hitler's propaganda machine with ample xenophobia. In contrast, following WW2, West Germany at least was rebuilt with aid from the Allies and enabled to get a fresh, democratic start.
To answer your second point, Japan certainly did contribute to the start of WW2. The invasion of Manchuria set a very dangerous precedent which had three main consequences (quite apart from the tragic damage done to China). Firstly, it showed that the League of Nations was incapable of intervention in a crisis. Second (linked to the first) it encouraged other expansionist powers to follow suit (as Italy did in 1935). Third, it paved the way for the declaration of war which Japan made against China in 1937. The first two had clear links to the origins of the war in Europe.
Another way in which Japan contributed to the start of WW2 was by signing the Axis of Steel pact in the 30s with Germany and Italy, giving them the reassurance of her backing in time of war.
Oh and btw:
>It's also important to remember that World War
>II involved the United Nations in Europe before
>they did in the Pacific.
The United Nations was not founded until after WW2. Get your facts right.
Interesting argument: Who did start WW2?
I will agree that the invasion of Manchuria was a significant contribution to the start of WW2 but did not of itself begin the war. Why? Because it only really involved one of the world powers, whereas the invasion of Poland brought in Germany, France, Britain and a couple of less powerful states in one fell swoop. It also did not itself begin from nothing - the fundamental contributing factor had been the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression which followed. Japan was highly dependent on resources which were not easily obtained from within but were available in plentiful amounts in northern China. The damage which the Great Depression did to their economy limited their ability to obtain these resources through trade, the League of Nations was too weak to intervene, and so the Japanese military were able to invade and get away with it. I am not saying that Japan had to do what it did, or that what followed was not criminal and tragic, but it was not of itself enough to start the war, merely another link in the chain. Had another powerful nation, or the League of Nations, opposed Japan's actions at this time, the invasion might also have been halted. The further progress towards WW2 could also have been forstalled if action had been taken against the Italian Invasion of Abyssinia in 1935, or the German Anschluss with Austria, or the Annexation of the Sudetenland, or yet the subsequent inroads upon Czechoslovakia. But the order of the day was appeasement, and the invading parties were able to carry on and gain momentum unimpeded. I am not saying that intervention is always a wise policy - I personally opposed the bombing campaign of Kosovo and oppose the current measures being taken against Iraq. With hindsight, it seems like it might have been a good idea then, however.
To get back to my point, in no way does Japan alone deserve the blame for WW2. The failure of disarmament, the gross penalties against Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, the failure of other world powers to oppose expansionist states, and the expansionist policies of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Stalinist Russia (yes, they were on our side in the end, but they signed the treaty with Germany which led directly to the invasion of Poland) - all these factors played their role as well. Unjust apportioning of blame does a great deal of harm every time in world affairs - the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles can be directly linked to the rise of Hitler, and the use of the Jews as a scapegoat for Germany's poverty played a very significant role in the Holocaust. Therefore it pays to be careful in these matters.
Says it all really - but I reckon you really should have been moderated up by now.
This reminds me.
When my kettle broke, and up till I picked up a new one, I used my microwave to boil mugs of water. It was significantly faster. However, the boiling water behaved in a slightly odd way. As soon as I put anything in it (like a tea-bag or powdered soup) it would fizz, even when it had stopped bubbling. The same thing never happened with my kettle. Try it with your microwave, or better still, try to tell me what was going on because I have no idea.
This was one of the films which I enjoyed the most this last year, and I would certainly rate it as being on a par with American Beauty. It didn't get a single nomination, despite the best performance from Nicolas Cage ever, a seamless yet unpredictable plot progression, direction which was clearly smooth as silk (as you'd expect from Martin Scorcese), a soundtrack which I enjoyed immensely and a further excellent performance from Patricia Arquette. Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed the films which did win a lot too. I'm just baffled as to what happened here.
So does the Ericsson A1018s, and you don't need a GSM provider for that. I've got the theme from Mozart's 4th Horn Concerto, 3rd movement programmed into mine at the moment, and I'm kind of curious/afraid about what will happen if my horn teacher ever hears it ring.
1999's Nobel Prizes were each worth 7900000 Swedish Krona which is about 900000 US$. Check out the Nobel foundation homepage at: http://www.nobel.se
I don't know about you, but I'm mildly irritated as the Nobel Prizes are awarded for achievements in fields which I would personally rate as more important than religion. Still, at least there's a lot more prestige attached: I confess that I'd never heard of the Templeton Prize before today.
I think (though I'm not completely sure) that they're both still alive. If not, one of them must have died fairly recently and I hope I'd have heard about that.
Forgive my enthusiasm, but IMNSHO, we miss out on this wonderfully controversial topic far too much.
Now I am somewhat disadvantaged on this topic by not having seen all of the planet of the apes films, but I think that you might have exaggerated a little. Yes, the politics were there, but that wasn't all there was to the films' philosophy. And anyway, I see nothing wrong with films being'animal-loving' (as long as bestiality isn't involved) because though it's a fairly limited variety of it, I myself am a supporter of environmental issues. And as for bigotry, I'm sorry to be rude, but look who's talking.
You're absolutely right. The danger of introduced species is one that is often overlooked.
The US government has frequently made attempts at 'biological control' of unwanted plants & animals by introducing species that prey on them. However, the scattershot methods that are employed - introducing perhaps a dozen new species with very little ecological impact assessment either before or after the event - is asking for, and occasionally triggers, a disaster.
Ecological control of pollutants could well face the same problems, as the features which species will be chosen for, such as robustness and speed of growth or reproduction make them very effective invaders.
Actually, prevention is a big part of Western medicine, in the form of vaccinations, dietary and exercise advice (also present in Chinese medicine) and regular check-ups of certain features like eyes and teeth, so that you get to see the patient before things have gone really wrong. I tend to think that fairly regular check-ups of the rest of the body would be a good idea too, because even if you don't find anything wrong, you can contribute a great deal to the patient's peace of mind (yes, that mole is just a mole etc). I must hasten to add to this that I am not a doctor.
Also, what do they do with all the dead trees which have taken up all the toxins from the soil? You can't burn them, you can't let them rot, and it might even be dangerous to use them in housing (could someone fill me in on this?).
This leaves only a small range of applications for thousands upon thousands of dead poplars. And most of these will be pretty temporary, so the wood will rot and release everything again.
Finally, how much use is poplar wood for these applications compared to other varieties? Might it make more sense to use a more practical building material which grows a little slower?
Don't get me wrong, I think this technique has great potential, I'm just wondering about a few details which the exceptionally and excessively kindly interviewer failed to bring up.
All politicians are inveterate liars, and always have been. To put it simply, power corrupts and the corrupt seek power. With a positive feedback chain like that, the chances of a politician being a good man are less than a snowflake's in a caldera (that's the geographical feature, not the company).
Has anyone seen that ancient film 'When Worlds Collide'? Pretty cool to think it could actually happen (although I'd reckon we would be less likely to find life on an extrasolar planet, seeing as solar power is the primary energy source of most life on this planet, excepting only geothermal powered life forms and theoretically certain computer programs).
>You cannot remove the profit motive from
>scientific research except in periods of war or >other danger.
Actually, it could be argued that in periods of war the profit motive is still in effect as research is usually still being funded from somewhere, especially when it might help the war effort.
There was an interesting article about other profit motives in war time in the Economist (http://www.economist.co.uk) under 'International' but sadly they chose not to publish that particular article on the web.