The grandparent's choice of a dumpster is a bit extreme, but groups often have some set of options that they find anathema. People in that group would likely know that set. Now draw a line around that "bad" set in the option-space and choose something just on the plausible side of the line. You get a rational seeming bid that you can have high confidence will be outvoted. No dumpster diving needed (btw, with my friends, bidding Chili's would be pretty much an equivalent to the dumpster vote).
Umm, not to put myself on the side of "USA over all", or to doubt your job; but why would one need to hide explosives on something that carries an explosive payload and whose means of movement involves rocketry? Wouldn't a properly placed "malfunction" be enough to render the weapon into a non-weapon? I can see using extra explosives if one doesn't want someone else to be able to recover the weapon in whole or part. But if a designer/manufacturer just wants prevent an ICBM from being used against their own side, something along the lines of a malfunction or grounding would be fine.
That answer is a total non-starter. Because I, and most everyone else, can honestly say that we have never violated a direct command that was given to us, face to face, by a creature that we knew with complete certainly to be the creator of all existence. If you can't understand that difference, then I don't think you should bother with a subject as complex and subtle as theology.
But when one has chosen a guest to have on a "Live" interview program, doesn't that mean that you have already made the decision that what they have to say (their perspectives, good ideas, bad ideas, special insight, interesting conjecture, amusing tall tale, topical information, and even vicious rude opinions) while being probed by an interviewer are something worthy of some attention? Those two are pretty much the same decision. And your insults are going to change that point.
If some random irresponsible Republican goes on a live show and says that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian and she's hiding that fact to keep from showing that she is simply advancing a gay/lesbian agenda, it would be horribly irresponsible to air it even the first time (much less a second time). This is the same way.
Way I see it, they should definitely air your hypothetical "irresponsible Republican", because making such a claim puts his credibility on the line. If the claim turns out to be true, I can consider trusting more his claims in the future, and trusting them less if it turns out false. See, the claim itself is an event with its own ramifications. Since this was an interview, with someone clearly expressing his opinions, that perspective on the things said would seem to dominate how this event is considered
Journalists aren't supposed to protect us from having to think, lest we draw the wrong conclusions. They are supposed to help us get more information to think with.
Personally, I would rather A) the software flips a coin between Kirk and Picard, to let the populous know they have handed the keys to the country to geeks or B) write in votes for the CEO of Diebold, to get the right name (to blame) in the press right up front.
I think for most guys, that would be a reasonably easy sell. We know how much we are getting screwed over by the razor blade makers. $350 isn't much to screw them back once and for all. Hell, promote putting a $1 in a jar for each $1 you spend on disposable blades. I think we would all see the point.
Asking a question and telling someone that their BS doesn't answer that question is not being disruptive. It is being inquisitive and honest. The cop shouldn't have removed a citizen that had every right to be in a public place (I hope a name and number got taken down for use in a letter). If a company doesn't want to face the public, then they shouldn't. The company put themselves there, and the poster was simply engaging the complany in a way that the company had chosen for themselves.
I used to have some friends that didn't have a TV at their place come over to watch a movie occasionally. They had both become quite proud of how they hadn't watched the box for years. But after the movies, I would ammuse myself with just how easy it was to keep them fixated long after their stated desire to stop watching, just by flipping the channel to some differnt crappy show. Seemed to me they had lost their abilty to not care about what new thing the box was showing them.
I know of someone who made a pacman-like game in which presidential canidates ran around eating money, chased by the mascot from the other party. Seemed like political satire to me.
Or maybe since it was the owners of the songs that shared them online, one could argue that it is then ok to have them. If I intentional put some of my money on the ground, I can't very well accuse whoever picks it up of stealing.
A pair of magnets used like that will exert constant pressure on the tissue which can lead to loss of circulation and tissue damage. Embedded magnets really aren't that good of an idea.
Crap I totally put this on the wrong story. Sorry, everyone. Feel free to kick me.
As for Voyager 1. I've put a tack on the wall next to my poster of the solar sytem, out at the proper scaled distance. "Good job" to all those that worked on that project, our far-off emissary into the void.
I mean stupid and unscientific. Couldn't they have found a good prefix to mean the same thing. Call 'em "deciplanets" or "mesoplanets" or "microplanets" or "semiplanets" or "subplanets" or even "infraplanets". Whichever has the best shades of meaning. But "dwarf"? I know it means something that is small compared to other members of its species. Still seems like some prefix could have done the job. Heck, "pluton" sounds way cooler.
Besides, it's not like concentrated H2O2 is hard to come by.
You think so huh? I did too until I had to spend like 30 minutes searching through 6 different chemical supply cabinets back in the chase the other day. And to top it off, it was a half used bottle!
Look people, it isn't that hard. You are supposed to put the bottle back on the chemical cart when you are done pouring at the wet-bench. What the heck was a half used bottle even doing back in the chase cabinets!? Except for the strong acids in the special cabinet, all the bottles back there are supposed to be either new and unopened, empties, or well marked waste products in the proper places. (I won't even go into how many ambiguously marked waste containers I found back there, mixed in with the new supplies.)
I can tell you what a half used bottle of H2O2 was doing back there. I know damn well why it was there. Someone saw that the bottle was getting low and squirreled the rest away for themselves in that obscure cabinet. This kind of childish, unprofessional behavior is exactly the reason we keep loosing good, talented people around here. (And if an inspector ever saw those crazy-marked waste bottles, all our experiments would all be shut down for a week or three.) Shape up, people!
Strategy = "give over your money and stuff to mugger-with-gun" Result Odds loss of $ 100% loss of life <<1%
Strategy = "have gunfight with mugger-with-gun" Result Odds loss of $ same as next result loss of life for average person = 50%, for trained person =~=10%
Now it doesn't even start to matter if you can take that last percentage down to 5% or even 1% (btw, what makes you think that the average mugger-with-gun won't have some gun-and-reflex training?). To see that let's boil the issure down to its essential simplistic question: "Is your life worth the contents of your pockets?"
Even if we weight the value of the life and the pocket-contents with the various probablities, none of the probablities are even in the right order of magnitude to start making my pocket-contents worth my life. If one values life at like 10,000 times the value of the pocket-contents (which seems a rather low value to place on life), then one needs a 0.01% chance of death to start evening up the risk*what-is-risked numbers.
Such a device could also cycle through some pics and info about the people you know in a town during the free moments of your traveling there. Refreshing your bio-brain's association paths in anticipation of perhaps needing them.
Learn some new fact that you would like to remember? Tell your wearable to remind/quiz you frequently on it in a flashcard type way until you score better than 95% on recalling it. After that, it puts it in rotation with all the other things that have a low probability of coming back up in the flashcard que.
Right. Go above the Curie temp and the melting temp of the material, then stir the liquid and cool in a strong magnetic field to realign all the magnetic domains in one direction. I don't see how many bits could survive that. It would be like back-calculating the exact state of an egg after it has been scrambled.
I think your date for the web-browser is off by about 10 years. As it is written, your point is wrong, since no one had web browsers in 1989. In reality your point is correct. The first web browser and server and page were up and going in late 1990. By late 2000, the dot-com bubble was already crashing. Ten years from version 1 to world reshaping.
"What's with the iPod only having one shuffle option, and no option to shuffle based on genre, artist, etc?"
Huh? Load a play list (or an artist or a genre or an album). Set to shuffle. It works just fine.
I'm just guessing, but I think the grand-parent meant that when song n ends, song n+1 will be from a different genre, artist, whatever. If one does your shuffle in a playlist idea, then it is possible to get two songs from the same genre, artist, whatever in a row. I'm guessing this because they said "shuffle based on", not "shuffle within".
Slashdot Mirror
The grandparent's choice of a dumpster is a bit extreme, but groups often have some set of options that they find anathema. People in that group would likely know that set. Now draw a line around that "bad" set in the option-space and choose something just on the plausible side of the line. You get a rational seeming bid that you can have high confidence will be outvoted. No dumpster diving needed (btw, with my friends, bidding Chili's would be pretty much an equivalent to the dumpster vote).
Umm, not to put myself on the side of "USA over all", or to doubt your job; but why would one need to hide explosives on something that carries an explosive payload and whose means of movement involves rocketry? Wouldn't a properly placed "malfunction" be enough to render the weapon into a non-weapon? I can see using extra explosives if one doesn't want someone else to be able to recover the weapon in whole or part. But if a designer/manufacturer just wants prevent an ICBM from being used against their own side, something along the lines of a malfunction or grounding would be fine.
That answer is a total non-starter. Because I, and most everyone else, can honestly say that we have never violated a direct command that was given to us, face to face, by a creature that we knew with complete certainly to be the creator of all existence. If you can't understand that difference, then I don't think you should bother with a subject as complex and subtle as theology.
But when one has chosen a guest to have on a "Live" interview program, doesn't that mean that you have already made the decision that what they have to say (their perspectives, good ideas, bad ideas, special insight, interesting conjecture, amusing tall tale, topical information, and even vicious rude opinions) while being probed by an interviewer are something worthy of some attention? Those two are pretty much the same decision. And your insults are going to change that point.
Way I see it, they should definitely air your hypothetical "irresponsible Republican", because making such a claim puts his credibility on the line. If the claim turns out to be true, I can consider trusting more his claims in the future, and trusting them less if it turns out false. See, the claim itself is an event with its own ramifications. Since this was an interview, with someone clearly expressing his opinions, that perspective on the things said would seem to dominate how this event is considered
Journalists aren't supposed to protect us from having to think, lest we draw the wrong conclusions. They are supposed to help us get more information to think with.
I don't know, but someone should update his wikipedia entry to say that it was 100% his great idea.
Personally, I would rather A) the software flips a coin between Kirk and Picard, to let the populous know they have handed the keys to the country to geeks or B) write in votes for the CEO of Diebold, to get the right name (to blame) in the press right up front.
I think for most guys, that would be a reasonably easy sell. We know how much we are getting screwed over by the razor blade makers. $350 isn't much to screw them back once and for all. Hell, promote putting a $1 in a jar for each $1 you spend on disposable blades. I think we would all see the point.
Whatever, I'm skipping both. Gotta save some room for Web 3.14159265358979323846... Mmmmmmmmm. Finally a tastier web.
Or maybe since it was the owners of the songs that shared them online, one could argue that it is then ok to have them. If I intentional put some of my money on the ground, I can't very well accuse whoever picks it up of stealing.
A pair of magnets used like that will exert constant pressure on the tissue which can lead to loss of circulation and tissue damage. Embedded magnets really aren't that good of an idea.
Crap I totally put this on the wrong story. Sorry, everyone. Feel free to kick me.
As for Voyager 1. I've put a tack on the wall next to my poster of the solar sytem, out at the proper scaled distance. "Good job" to all those that worked on that project, our far-off emissary into the void.
But, you know, "dwarf planet" still sounds dumb.
I mean stupid and unscientific. Couldn't they have found a good prefix to mean the same thing. Call 'em "deciplanets" or "mesoplanets" or "microplanets" or "semiplanets" or "subplanets" or even "infraplanets". Whichever has the best shades of meaning. But "dwarf"? I know it means something that is small compared to other members of its species. Still seems like some prefix could have done the job. Heck, "pluton" sounds way cooler.
You think so huh? I did too until I had to spend like 30 minutes searching through 6 different chemical supply cabinets back in the chase the other day. And to top it off, it was a half used bottle!
Look people, it isn't that hard. You are supposed to put the bottle back on the chemical cart when you are done pouring at the wet-bench. What the heck was a half used bottle even doing back in the chase cabinets!? Except for the strong acids in the special cabinet, all the bottles back there are supposed to be either new and unopened, empties, or well marked waste products in the proper places. (I won't even go into how many ambiguously marked waste containers I found back there, mixed in with the new supplies.)
I can tell you what a half used bottle of H2O2 was doing back there. I know damn well why it was there. Someone saw that the bottle was getting low and squirreled the rest away for themselves in that obscure cabinet. This kind of childish, unprofessional behavior is exactly the reason we keep loosing good, talented people around here. (And if an inspector ever saw those crazy-marked waste bottles, all our experiments would all be shut down for a week or three.) Shape up, people!
Let me lay out the logic of the other side here:
Strategy = "give over your money and stuff to mugger-with-gun"
Result Odds
loss of $ 100%
loss of life <<1%
Strategy = "have gunfight with mugger-with-gun"
Result Odds
loss of $ same as next result
loss of life for average person = 50%, for trained person =~=10%
Now it doesn't even start to matter if you can take that last percentage down to 5% or even 1% (btw, what makes you think that the average mugger-with-gun won't have some gun-and-reflex training?). To see that let's boil the issure down to its essential simplistic question: "Is your life worth the contents of your pockets?"
Even if we weight the value of the life and the pocket-contents with the various probablities, none of the probablities are even in the right order of magnitude to start making my pocket-contents worth my life. If one values life at like 10,000 times the value of the pocket-contents (which seems a rather low value to place on life), then one needs a 0.01% chance of death to start evening up the risk*what-is-risked numbers.
Learn some new fact that you would like to remember? Tell your wearable to remind/quiz you frequently on it in a flashcard type way until you score better than 95% on recalling it. After that, it puts it in rotation with all the other things that have a low probability of coming back up in the flashcard que.
Right. Go above the Curie temp and the melting temp of the material, then stir the liquid and cool in a strong magnetic field to realign all the magnetic domains in one direction. I don't see how many bits could survive that. It would be like back-calculating the exact state of an egg after it has been scrambled.
I think your date for the web-browser is off by about 10 years. As it is written, your point is wrong, since no one had web browsers in 1989. In reality your point is correct. The first web browser and server and page were up and going in late 1990. By late 2000, the dot-com bubble was already crashing. Ten years from version 1 to world reshaping.
Actually, I think that is the old meaning.