That step features prominently in the SAP implementation flowcart... just learning about that monster with simple examples makes it look like a huge mess.
We often hear the "less loss of life than a conventional ground invasion" argument, but that's a somewhat new twist. Also: harder to build the bomb, but the bombing run itself is easier. More impact per unit of damage than conventional bombing, so it makes sense that you could take the dividend partially in a lower casualty count.
The atomic bombing makes sense to me, but even if it didn't, I could see how the powers that be at the time thought it was a good idea. That's my take on it.
Just look at Faisal Shazad, the guy from Connecticut who tried to blow up Times Square. He tried to build his bomb with a toy clock and M80 firecrackers. He had a business degree.
Thing is, I *know* that I don't have bomb-making skills. (And since I don't want to make one, I won't learn - i.e I don't want to dabble in knowledge of the dark arts in this case.) Idiot trying to do something he didn't really know how to do (and failing) is a fairly standard storyline.
I also have way too fast of a timeline. So sometimes I just check the page for a particular feed. That, or just looking at my at replies.
I also have all of the feeds I'm following grouped into lists; choosing a particular list to look at is an intermediate between looking at my entire timeline and looking at one feed.
Obviously the home life of those around alcoholics is kinda FUBARed, but the children of teetotalers haven't been taught how to handle the stuff if^H^Hwhen they get ahold of it.
All my relatives seem to drink decent stuff in moderation.
This was the summer camp range officer talking about shotguns and rifles, as opposed to handguns.
12 to shoot, 16 to own your own, 18 to buy your own (between 16 and 18, you could receive one as a gift) Shotguns might have been older, whether de facto or de jure, because of handling the recoil.
Thanks for improving a perfectly good thread with a Big Lebowski reference.
(BTW, reminded of how on Colbert a couple weeks ago, he used some Lebowski clips to comment on the story of a drunk guy breaking into a mosque and peeing on the prayer rugs)
I'd rather see cults of personality around entertainers than around politicians (assuming the star has no plans of entering politics; BTW, on that point, Tom Lehrer's "George Murphy" is a fine example of his penchant for political satire via music.)
Sarah Palin worries me; Ke$ha does not. (They're both intelligent females who know how to make a point of appealing on grounds of lesser intelligence.:P)
However, this reminds me - many stars are opinionated about their politics, like us average Joes, but with a bigger platform. Do people have a tendency to choose politics that match their favorite star's, or do people tend to choose stars that match their politics? The celebrity may not be right, as is any pundit. However, even if they are right and help steer fans their way, that raises the following questions: * Is the right thing done for the wrong reason still the right thing? * Are there unintended consequences?
The type of games I play tend to be strategy-focused rather than acting out the details of in-game fights; I wonder if this helps my slower-speed (longer-term) strategizing and planning skills
I don't think lust helps thinking skills.:P Anyway, that would presumably depend on whether your partner likes the ideas you select from the pornographic literature.
I've run into some addictive non-substance habits myself; I tend to also see the applicability in throwing addiction metaphors around. Many slashdotters (including myself) likely have video game habits, for instance. Ke$ha's "Your Love is My Drug" song title and associated analogy/metaphor seems fitting here, whatever you think of her.
Maybe what you refer to is why celebrity fandom is associated with immature teenage girls and loser adults.
Fandom isn't entirely limited to those classes of people: maybe it's because the higher classes of fan like the product and then proceed to get caught up in the 'celebrity' side of it. Also, maybe the have determined that it's a good product and thus deserves adulation of its creator.
_Is_ celebrity fandom any more valid because you find the work of the celebrity to be valuable? (Contributions to art/entertainment and contributions to computing I'm seeing as apples and oranges here.)
Don't know about the price (still in my parents' basement, LOL), but our Frontier DSL connection seems to be 1mbps symmetrical, maybe 768kbps (as with dial-up, you can't be expected to exactly hit the listed maximum all the time, it's just that the maximum is higher.)
Pricing is somewhat complicated by the option to bundle it with phone and TV (both Frontier and Time Warner have such packages available.)
It's indeed unreasonable to assume that all massive connection users are file sharers, but it's easy to assume that as the default because, let's face it, a lot of them are.
You *aren't* actually sharing files, and you find it hard to force the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
That step features prominently in the SAP implementation flowcart ... just learning about that monster with simple examples makes it look like a huge mess.
We often hear the "less loss of life than a conventional ground invasion" argument, but that's a somewhat new twist.
Also: harder to build the bomb, but the bombing run itself is easier.
More impact per unit of damage than conventional bombing, so it makes sense that you could take the dividend partially in a lower casualty count.
The atomic bombing makes sense to me, but even if it didn't, I could see how the powers that be at the time thought it was a good idea. That's my take on it.
Engineers have a valuable skillset, which can be used for good or evil, and here we're seeing the latter.
Just look at Faisal Shazad, the guy from Connecticut who tried to blow up Times Square. He tried to build his bomb with a toy clock and M80 firecrackers. He had a business degree.
Thing is, I *know* that I don't have bomb-making skills. (And since I don't want to make one, I won't learn - i.e I don't want to dabble in knowledge of the dark arts in this case.)
Idiot trying to do something he didn't really know how to do (and failing) is a fairly standard storyline.
good, gave him the tools/;info to handle it himself and it worked out better.
This is a bad story, but is also why I love /. - the commenters will gladly point out BS in an article.
Won't rail about the changes just to rail about the changes.
Yeah, integrating those features in the site seems better than people linking to sites that Twitter pretends doesn't exist [kinda]
I also have way too fast of a timeline.
So sometimes I just check the page for a particular feed. That, or just looking at my at replies.
I also have all of the feeds I'm following grouped into lists; choosing a particular list to look at is an intermediate between looking at my entire timeline and looking at one feed.
Guess we can't go fusion now either, since that would entail imitating the cheese-eating surrender monkeys. :P)
(That was sarcasm...I hope.
Obviously the home life of those around alcoholics is kinda FUBARed, but the children of teetotalers haven't been taught how to handle the stuff if^H^Hwhen they get ahold of it.
All my relatives seem to drink decent stuff in moderation.
This was the summer camp range officer talking about shotguns and rifles, as opposed to handguns.
12 to shoot, 16 to own your own, 18 to buy your own (between 16 and 18, you could receive one as a gift)
Shotguns might have been older, whether de facto or de jure, because of handling the recoil.
There weren't age limits on shooting BB guns
Trained adult supervision of course.
Somewhat analogous to graduated driver licensing?
[In NY, the state]
Thanks for improving a perfectly good thread with a Big Lebowski reference.
(BTW, reminded of how on Colbert a couple weeks ago, he used some Lebowski clips to comment on the story of a drunk guy breaking into a mosque and peeing on the prayer rugs)
Yes, that's what I want, Mr. Clinton; didn't the check clear?
sheesh, does Appalachia need any more genetic damage?
buncha rednecks in the north too.
Department of Motherland Security maybe? Russkies overlooked in favor of the Nazis again? You don't hate mothers do you? :P
Seems everybody likes to harp on the other guy for shit similar to what they the accusers are also doing.
I'd rather see cults of personality around entertainers than around politicians (assuming the star has no plans of entering politics; BTW, on that point, Tom Lehrer's "George Murphy" is a fine example of his penchant for political satire via music.)
Sarah Palin worries me; Ke$ha does not. (They're both intelligent females who know how to make a point of appealing on grounds of lesser intelligence. :P)
However, this reminds me - many stars are opinionated about their politics, like us average Joes, but with a bigger platform. Do people have a tendency to choose politics that match their favorite star's, or do people tend to choose stars that match their politics? The celebrity may not be right, as is any pundit.
However, even if they are right and help steer fans their way, that raises the following questions:
* Is the right thing done for the wrong reason still the right thing?
* Are there unintended consequences?
(Celebrities' opinions aren't *less* valid, though)
The type of games I play tend to be strategy-focused rather than acting out the details of in-game fights; I wonder if this helps my slower-speed (longer-term) strategizing and planning skills
I figure many of the fans wish they knew their idol personally; maybe they know (somehow) what you're getting at.
I don't think lust helps thinking skills. :P
Anyway, that would presumably depend on whether your partner likes the ideas you select from the pornographic literature.
ah, so the sneakernet principle of high bandwith, high latency applied even in the past setting.
iTunes Music Store (and other online distribution, legal or otherwise) as competitive pressure on the price of physical media. Makes sense. Duh.
I've run into some addictive non-substance habits myself; I tend to also see the applicability in throwing addiction metaphors around. Many slashdotters (including myself) likely have video game habits, for instance. Ke$ha's "Your Love is My Drug" song title and associated analogy/metaphor seems fitting here, whatever you think of her.
Maybe what you refer to is why celebrity fandom is associated with immature teenage girls and loser adults.
Fandom isn't entirely limited to those classes of people:
maybe it's because the higher classes of fan like the product and then proceed to get caught up in the 'celebrity' side of it.
Also, maybe the have determined that it's a good product and thus deserves adulation of its creator.
_Is_ celebrity fandom any more valid because you find the work of the celebrity to be valuable? (Contributions to art/entertainment and contributions to computing I'm seeing as apples and oranges here.)
Don't know about the price (still in my parents' basement, LOL), but our Frontier DSL connection seems to be 1mbps symmetrical, maybe 768kbps (as with dial-up, you can't be expected to exactly hit the listed maximum all the time, it's just that the maximum is higher.)
Pricing is somewhat complicated by the option to bundle it with phone and TV (both Frontier and Time Warner have such packages available.)
It's indeed unreasonable to assume that all massive connection users are file sharers, but it's easy to assume that as the default because, let's face it, a lot of them are.
You *aren't* actually sharing files, and you find it hard to force the issue.