I was thinking the same thing, how difficult would it really be to build certain devices into the framework of the buildings themselves, just to make the floor a bit harder for one performance, and make it just a bit softer for another and such..... conspiracies, conspiracies...
It's pretty clear that you have no clue about how old many of these 'kids' are when they win their first gold medals in national and international events.
1. Competed in her first National Championships as a junior in 2002, at the age of 12½. 2. She was chosen to compete with the U.S. team at the 2002 Junior Pan American Championships, where she contributed to the team gold medal and placed second on the uneven bars, balance beam and all-around. 3. By 2003, Liukin was one of the strongest junior gymnasts in the United States. She won the junior division of the U.S. National Championships, as well as gold medals on three of the four events: uneven bars, balance beam and floor exercise. She repeated these accomplishments in 2004. Liukin was a member of the gold-medal winning U.S. team at the 2003 Pan Am Games; she took second place in the all-around behind fellow American Chellsie Memmel. She also won the all-around in the junior division of the 2004 Pacific Alliance Championships.[13]
Whoever is arguing that kids are not allowed into the Olympics because of this ridiculous notion of 'destruction of their bodies' is clearly not informed about the age, at which the gymnasts start their training and when they are allowed to compete in various local, regional, national and international (like world) events. How many medals must a gymnast have before they are even allowed to the Olympics in gymnastics? More often than not, these 'kids' already are world champions.
I and many of my colleagues at work (who are mostly Chinese) agree that the Chinese girls are definitely between 12 and 14 years of age, not anywhere near 16.
You are mistaken if you think that Stalin repressed people and ideas for the sake of repression. It was done in the name of the Great Revolution, it was justified by tagging people as counter-revolutionists, anti-stalinists and such. The ideas were repressed because they were dangerous in themselves to the regime. Just like the ideas the so called 'terrorists' represent, they have ideas that are dangerous to the current regime. There is no difference in the reasons for these repressions, there are certainly some differences in implementation. The USA still pretends to be a democracy so things like that have to be done under guise of fighting the terrorists, who apparently hate freedoms. For Stalin it was the 'other-thinkers', who apparently hated that system (obviously many of the repressed were really just the unfortunate people, who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time and someone wanted them gone temporarily or permanently, then again, some people were accused just to propagate the visibility of constant fighting.)
Both regimes feed themselves on the idea that there are people who are intrinsically dangerous to the regime simply because they are bad people, not that they have a valid point of-course. Both regimes use the same strategy, the difference is in tactics.
I never listen to music, I don't buy it or download it, I don't listen to music on the radio, I don't own an MP3 player etc. How do I make sure I don't end up paying to the ISPs for this 'service' I will never use? How can they charge me for something I will never use? Is it even legal and can it be taken to a court?
Nothing wrong with private health care. Where I live (Canada) I often have to choose to go to the US to get quick results instead of waiting for months for any kind of help.
I personally am for a dual system setup as follows:
1. The private health care is allowed (unlike what we have here, in Canada at this point in time.)
2. The government creates a non-for profit corporation, which would insure anyone if they wish so for a monthly/yearly fee, but they cannot decline a claim. They also cannot discriminate against a person by raising the fee. The fee is standard and the same for all, no matter what the claims are. The money is used to build hospitals in order to treat the patients there (it may or may not be cheaper than outsorcing to private clinics.)
Basically this will create competition between the government unprofitable health coverage, which will not deny a claim and will not raise fees and between the private for-profit corporations, which will have to compete based on quality even though they can deny a claim and can raise fees.
But oh noooo, in Canada we can't have any private health care (as if me crossing the border to see a specialist in timely fashion is not it.) And oh noooo, in the US a government cannot allow itself to make a step like that, the private health insurance corps would not allow it.
What about me? I don't listen to music. I don't own any music. I don't download any music. I don't listen to music on the radio. I don't listen to music in my car. I don't listen to any music at all. *
* Unless some music is playing somewhere, where I happen to be passing by, or if it is part of a TV show or part of a movie that I am watching.
I live in Canada, so I suppose it doesn't apply to me (initially) Of-course, when they introduced the tax on the blank data media, I had to pay the money for something I don't do.
If my ISP tries to do this to me, I'll freaking sue.
You are probably correct, I am going to check that client. I wonder how it decides what is split, just by filtering out anything that is directed at an IP not within the company subnet or maybe there are lists of IPs that go through encrypted channel. Thanks.
My wife has shown something to me today that really has been bugging me for the entire day, she connected to her work via VPN with a security token, a number generator that is given to her that is synchronized against a server number list I suppose and when she ran a search on something she mistyped, our provider, Rogers Canada, was able to get the mistyped word and injected their own search frame into the HTML that returned to her browser.
Now, I am not sure how this happened, I was under the impression that VPN encrypts all requests and responses. Maybe the search string from the browser was sent out as clear text but this seems counterintuitive to me, I believed all communications on VPN channel are encrypted. I know that this article is not really about MIT attack, but I was wondering if anyone else had a similar experience with Rogers or any other provider or even if it sounds at all even remotely possible and I am missing some key point here.
I checked that her computer was only on one network card, the wireless was disabled, the VPN was on, it was a wired connection and the search was done through FF search bar aimed at Google.
among other reasons: I don't kill because I don't need to. If I really decided that I needed to, then all I would have to do is balance that against the little problem of getting away with it.
As an atheist I also am not spiritual, but I understand that it makes sense to bury the dead or dispose of them in some other fashion, like burning them, rather than leaving them be wherever they fell. Some of the reasons are: preventing others from abusing the dead bodies, having a place to remember the dead (isn't that what burial grounds are for?) preventing contamination, making sure that various animals are not attracted to the place by smell and such.
Incorrect. As long as the scientific principles are understood by the person, he does not need to have any faith, only understanding of the process of scientific work. It is not needed to have faith in consistency of research of others, the principles of peer review and even more importantly, the usefulness of the model to predict the outcomes, that is all that is important. If a model is not good enough to predict outcomes and if peer review finds inconsistencies, then more work has to be done until the model is fixed and can be used. This does not require faith, it only needs to follow the same principles as other scientific works and if the principles are not followed then what good is the model? It will be useless even with all the faith.
You don't need to test every single thing by yourself and you don't need faith, only understanding of scientific principles.
Oh, and by the way it is not a good idea to put faith in your senses, our senses often are wrong.
as always there is the question of 'the beginning'. If the god is question is just a computer programmer, then is he part of another computer program himself? It is possible to use mathematics to show infinite sets, sets within sets etc., but as a physical expression there may be a limit to such nesting. Maybe not.
In any case, if it is not possible to continue nesting physical sets within each other infinitely, then there has to be a beginning, which would be the reduced form of this recursion, the base case.
Assuming there is a base case, we can just reduce our own case to the base case to avoid the recursion complexity. In this situation there is not need for god, the physics, the chemistry, the biology worked themselves out eventually. Back to the Big Bang.
Tell it to my neighbor, she died because the brain tumor she had was apparently 'not a priority'. Her tests were scheduled 6 months into the future, by the time she got the scan it was already too late. She died 3 months later. Tell it to my wife, who waits for 6-9 months for an appointment with a gynecologist. By the time she gets an appointment, she could give birth already. But the point is that she had an ectopic situation and even after that they wouldn't schedule to see her earlier than 9! months. Thus we go where we can pay and get results immediately. These may or may not be life threatening situations. Nobody knows until they are properly diagnosed.
Slashdot Mirror
Notice what the subject is about? It's against regulations for women to go to Olympics before they are 16. So she didn't cheat, that's what it means.
Well, in my case polygamy WILL cause my untimely demise, or so my wife promises to me...
I was thinking the same thing, how difficult would it really be to build certain devices into the framework of the buildings themselves, just to make the floor a bit harder for one performance, and make it just a bit softer for another and such..... conspiracies, conspiracies...
It's pretty clear that you have no clue about how old many of these 'kids' are when they win their first gold medals in national and international events.
Here is a very familiar example
1. Competed in her first National Championships as a junior in 2002, at the age of 12½.
2. She was chosen to compete with the U.S. team at the 2002 Junior Pan American Championships, where she contributed to the team gold medal and placed second on the uneven bars, balance beam and all-around.
3. By 2003, Liukin was one of the strongest junior gymnasts in the United States. She won the junior division of the U.S. National Championships, as well as gold medals on three of the four events: uneven bars, balance beam and floor exercise. She repeated these accomplishments in 2004. Liukin was a member of the gold-medal winning U.S. team at the 2003 Pan Am Games; she took second place in the all-around behind fellow American Chellsie Memmel. She also won the all-around in the junior division of the 2004 Pacific Alliance Championships.[13]
Whoever is arguing that kids are not allowed into the Olympics because of this ridiculous notion of 'destruction of their bodies' is clearly not informed about the age, at which the gymnasts start their training and when they are allowed to compete in various local, regional, national and international (like world) events. How many medals must a gymnast have before they are even allowed to the Olympics in gymnastics? More often than not, these 'kids' already are world champions.
I and many of my colleagues at work (who are mostly Chinese) agree that the Chinese girls are definitely between 12 and 14 years of age, not anywhere near 16.
You are mistaken if you think that Stalin repressed people and ideas for the sake of repression. It was done in the name of the Great Revolution, it was justified by tagging people as counter-revolutionists, anti-stalinists and such. The ideas were repressed because they were dangerous in themselves to the regime. Just like the ideas the so called 'terrorists' represent, they have ideas that are dangerous to the current regime. There is no difference in the reasons for these repressions, there are certainly some differences in implementation. The USA still pretends to be a democracy so things like that have to be done under guise of fighting the terrorists, who apparently hate freedoms. For Stalin it was the 'other-thinkers', who apparently hated that system (obviously many of the repressed were really just the unfortunate people, who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time and someone wanted them gone temporarily or permanently, then again, some people were accused just to propagate the visibility of constant fighting.)
Both regimes feed themselves on the idea that there are people who are intrinsically dangerous to the regime simply because they are bad people, not that they have a valid point of-course. Both regimes use the same strategy, the difference is in tactics.
your comment provides no value, does it?
I want choice.
I never listen to music, I don't buy it or download it, I don't listen to music on the radio, I don't own an MP3 player etc. How do I make sure I don't end up paying to the ISPs for this 'service' I will never use? How can they charge me for something I will never use? Is it even legal and can it be taken to a court?
Nothing wrong with private health care. Where I live (Canada) I often have to choose to go to the US to get quick results instead of waiting for months for any kind of help.
I personally am for a dual system setup as follows:
1. The private health care is allowed (unlike what we have here, in Canada at this point in time.)
2. The government creates a non-for profit corporation, which would insure anyone if they wish so for a monthly/yearly fee, but they cannot decline a claim. They also cannot discriminate against a person by raising the fee. The fee is standard and the same for all, no matter what the claims are. The money is used to build hospitals in order to treat the patients there (it may or may not be cheaper than outsorcing to private clinics.)
Basically this will create competition between the government unprofitable health coverage, which will not deny a claim and will not raise fees and between the private for-profit corporations, which will have to compete based on quality even though they can deny a claim and can raise fees.
But oh noooo, in Canada we can't have any private health care (as if me crossing the border to see a specialist in timely fashion is not it.) And oh noooo, in the US a government cannot allow itself to make a step like that, the private health insurance corps would not allow it.
And so we are where we are.
What about people who do not listen to music, don't download it, don't buy it, ever?
Are they going to have to pay this tax to the ISPs as well? If yes, can't they do something about it, like a lawsuit?
What about me? I don't listen to music. I don't own any music. I don't download any music. I don't listen to music on the radio. I don't listen to music in my car. I don't listen to any music at all. *
* Unless some music is playing somewhere, where I happen to be passing by, or if it is part of a TV show or part of a movie that I am watching.
I live in Canada, so I suppose it doesn't apply to me (initially) Of-course, when they introduced the tax on the blank data media, I had to pay the money for something I don't do.
If my ISP tries to do this to me, I'll freaking sue.
that is the most likely possibility, I thought at first maybe her work uses Rogers as an ISP, but then I checked and it doesn't
You are probably correct, I am going to check that client. I wonder how it decides what is split, just by filtering out anything that is directed at an IP not within the company subnet or maybe there are lists of IPs that go through encrypted channel. Thanks.
My wife has shown something to me today that really has been bugging me for the entire day, she connected to her work via VPN with a security token, a number generator that is given to her that is synchronized against a server number list I suppose and when she ran a search on something she mistyped, our provider, Rogers Canada, was able to get the mistyped word and injected their own search frame into the HTML that returned to her browser.
Now, I am not sure how this happened, I was under the impression that VPN encrypts all requests and responses. Maybe the search string from the browser was sent out as clear text but this seems counterintuitive to me, I believed all communications on VPN channel are encrypted. I know that this article is not really about MIT attack, but I was wondering if anyone else had a similar experience with Rogers or any other provider or even if it sounds at all even remotely possible and I am missing some key point here.
I checked that her computer was only on one network card, the wireless was disabled, the VPN was on, it was a wired connection and the search was done through FF search bar aimed at Google.
Thanks.
among other reasons: I don't kill because I don't need to. If I really decided that I needed to, then all I would have to do is balance that against the little problem of getting away with it.
As an atheist I also am not spiritual, but I understand that it makes sense to bury the dead or dispose of them in some other fashion, like burning them, rather than leaving them be wherever they fell. Some of the reasons are: preventing others from abusing the dead bodies, having a place to remember the dead (isn't that what burial grounds are for?) preventing contamination, making sure that various animals are not attracted to the place by smell and such.
Incorrect. As long as the scientific principles are understood by the person, he does not need to have any faith, only understanding of the process of scientific work. It is not needed to have faith in consistency of research of others, the principles of peer review and even more importantly, the usefulness of the model to predict the outcomes, that is all that is important. If a model is not good enough to predict outcomes and if peer review finds inconsistencies, then more work has to be done until the model is fixed and can be used. This does not require faith, it only needs to follow the same principles as other scientific works and if the principles are not followed then what good is the model? It will be useless even with all the faith.
You don't need to test every single thing by yourself and you don't need faith, only understanding of scientific principles.
Oh, and by the way it is not a good idea to put faith in your senses, our senses often are wrong.
As an atheist I also am not spiritual, but that does not mean that I would leave a dead human body to be eaten by animals on the ground somewhere.
It depends, is it an African midget or a European midget?
as always there is the question of 'the beginning'. If the god is question is just a computer programmer, then is he part of another computer program himself? It is possible to use mathematics to show infinite sets, sets within sets etc., but as a physical expression there may be a limit to such nesting. Maybe not.
In any case, if it is not possible to continue nesting physical sets within each other infinitely, then there has to be a beginning, which would be the reduced form of this recursion, the base case.
Assuming there is a base case, we can just reduce our own case to the base case to avoid the recursion complexity. In this situation there is not need for god, the physics, the chemistry, the biology worked themselves out eventually. Back to the Big Bang.
So not in 5 years, but in 6 maybe?
So next time someone complaints about air pollution, we can just tell him that this is our fight against the global warming.
Let's all pollute the air, the Earth will cool down, then we can stop polluting I guess.
You don't need it.
What is an 'anecdote' to you, to us is life, that's why we go to NY to get immediate medical attention.
Tell it to my neighbor, she died because the brain tumor she had was apparently 'not a priority'. Her tests were scheduled 6 months into the future, by the time she got the scan it was already too late. She died 3 months later. Tell it to my wife, who waits for 6-9 months for an appointment with a gynecologist. By the time she gets an appointment, she could give birth already. But the point is that she had an ectopic situation and even after that they wouldn't schedule to see her earlier than 9! months. Thus we go where we can pay and get results immediately. These may or may not be life threatening situations. Nobody knows until they are properly diagnosed.