Welcome to the internet, AC. I'm amazed that you've learned how to computer so quickly. I only have one question: Did you have to go to the imdb for that post, or did you simply type it out from memory?
The reverse is also true. I would argue that the fundamentalists on evolution's side are much, much worse. When I point out that dinosaurs couldn't have evolved their way through the mass extinction, because it would have required rapid, species-universal evolution (otherwise there would not be the threat of mass extinction), the few responses that aren't ad-hominem attacks are handwaves or the infamous: "You obviously don't understand evolution..." which is equivalent to "It's true, because it's in the bible." argument.
Basically, the problem is that the scientific principals are being undermined. It's hard to buy into theories when observation so commonly disagrees with prediction. Flat Earthers are funny because they refute the observable world -- but so do the proponents of the "Climate change" movement, when every predictive model made falls flat. Evolution, climate change (as it's understood), and other theories are commonly refuted by the observable world or have no observable models -- so they are not even true science, rather just thought experiments and allegations!
Evolution, for example, was crafted with a complete lack of data in its time, which has since had data piled around it in order to verify/vindicate its origins. This is bad science and bad practice. BAD. It also is non disprovable -- as an experiment, conjure whatever evidence it would take to refute evolution[climate change] in your eyes. This should be simple, if it is a true science. Then, turn around and offer the imaginatory refutation as fact to someone who believes in evolution[climate change] as fiercely as you do, and say "since evolution[climate change] can't explain that, evolution[climage change] has been wrong all along!" and watch the fireworks. They will warp the very foundations of reality to show you how you're wrong, don't understand evolution, and that evolution TOTALLY explains it. Is that really science? No. It's religion and politics posturing itself as science. It is scientific blasphemy and it should be cause for serious concern, rather than considered PROOF THAT IT'S TRUE! as it is now.
I'm married, and this situation never came up where I needed to get into a girlfriend's house without her being there. I can understand an occassional "Oops, could you run to my house and pick something up for me? I'm at work and I need it, and you're inexplicably at your house watching TV during a work day!" but that's an exception to the rule. I didn't give her the keys to my apartment and she didn't give me the keys to her apartment because we weren't retarded. It is also why I never had to change my locks when I broke up with someone.
It's NOT normal to have the keys to someone else's house unless you're just trying to show off that you HAVE the keys to their house -- it's an amateur move made by attention whores.
Well, when someone else on slashdot is telling you that it's just a social stigma not to drink 10 gallons of distilled cyanide every day, I'm glad to be around to tell you that there are facts that refute his claims and that a healthy society does not consist of everyone drinking 10 gallons of cyanide a day -- even if it paints me as an "irrational believer" to slashdot's biggest idiots. Perhaps you should bother to read some of the scientific studies posted in the GP comment that prove that my belief is rational, and those unfounded ape hollers you sound out, in response, are the mating cries of an asstrich. The only thing I'm cramming down your throat is the information you need to make an educated decision in the matter. Perhaps in due time, it will make its way through your system, down to your asshole, where your head can finally read it (if it's not too dark in there)
Your post is why sex still needs to be treated as special. Women are emotionally tied to their vaginas because of biochemical reactions before they are emotionally tied to them by social pressures (google: oxytocin). Humans mate for life, from a natural standpoint (because our children are completely worthless until the age of 14) and from a social/psychologicalstandpoint. You don't bother to learn any of this because you're so sexually frustrated you can't see straight enough to read any writing on the wall.
If we don't treat sex as special, then we can ALL become emotionally and sexually jaded as you are. There are reasons why sex is expected to happen between two people who are married from a social standpoint that shows RESPONSIBILITY rather than what you seem to think is "Obnoxious stupidity." But since sexual responsibility is the opposite of what you're asking for, I can probably assume social responsibility is a moot point.
Poor analogy. It's more like saying that cars clearly run off a combustion of air and gasoline, then finding out that 20% of cars can run underwater indefinitely. It doesn't compliment the hypothesis, it refutes it. If the "air/gas combustion" was a theory, it would be reduced back to the drawing board. It shows that there are deep, underlying complexities involved that your air/gas cumbustion theory was drawn independent from -- not just that "Cars will run on air/gas except for some that run on water instead."
Or, to use your analogy, if you've geared your entire geometric science around pi=3, and just ignore the.14+ trailing it, then not only will all your future equations based on circles be wrong, but you're missing out on some very interesting maths. When someone introduces a big circle that has a measurable difference "Hey, we're like 20 meters off! Who calculated this?" "Oh, pi only equals 3 for smaller circles. As the circle increases in size, pi approaches 3.2"
Then tell all the haters that they just don't understand the exponential beauty of circular geometric ratios, because they're too dumb.:)
I'm not an evolution denialist, but I do think the current scientific understanding of evolution has a religious zeal.
The fact that this type of finding actually refutes most current hypotheses of evolution, yet people are attempting to use evolution to explain it, and the article is tagged "evolution", I would say that you made a bit of an understatement.
Haha, I was actually thinking of visiting Croatia, too. Might have to put it off if their board of tourism thinks spamming is a good way to get the word out.
Right now, there is a Bosnian sitting back in his chair, pressing the tips of his fingers together in front of his face, and saying "Just as planned."
4. The caveat of #3 is that such treatments are expensive, and will get progressively more expensive based on the degree of testing and individualization required (until the wide use and technology make them cheaper of course). This will necessarily introduce a further divide into the available treatments for the rich and the poor, and contribute to the class struggle that's already rather inflamed. The problem is that there's no OTHER way - giving everyone $100'000 treatments would bankrupt us rather quickly. Instead, similar to the case with electronics, we will simply have to suffer through the period of expensive first-adopter treatments, until the improvements in laboratory techniques and high-throughput testing make such treatments increasingly affordable.
But they can't. When Western Digital finally comes out with a Petabyte drive, it will cost a high price, but the next week, Seagate comes out with a Petabyte drive. Competition increases, prices drop, and the drives become increasingly affordable. In medicine, the patents are extended a little further. The patent holder can charge whatever he wants, because he needs to make back the money he spent on risky research, but for the next n+[too many] years, he gets to hold the sick of the world hostage. Well, what if company B wants to design a competitor drug?
1. Good luck to them.
2. View the #2 in your post. They have to struggle in a market that's immediately artificially saturated by Company A's wonder drug. This is like Pepsi trying to show up and claim "we can quench your thirst", but regulations say that, for the first n number of years, people have to drink a full coke before they can drink a Pepsi. Hope you're still thirsty after that coke, and if you're not, then hopefully the pepsi will quench your thirst when the coke did not!
And there, spelled out in soda, we have the well-meaning recipe for disaster in American healthcare -- the one that isn't fixed by the government plan, but needs to be before the government plan sends us headlong into a depression because of this unresolved bug.
Leaving a company locked out of their equipment is not leaving them in working order, nor does it constitute a "lack of damage."
as another poster pointed out, the passwords were retrievable. Also, he was willing to give the passwords to the mayor, as was allowed and expected in his guidelines.
if you can be that wrong, there's not much point in addressing the other ways your "interpretation" of the facts is wrong.
Now you've got me curious. What is the crime, exactly, that You committed? They haven't caught you yet, have they? Do they know what you've done without connecting the case to you, or did they let you off the hook? It wasn't spur of the moment/just happened, was it? It was completely premeditated. You condemn this man with all your power, without solid evidence, and act as if you know something that we don't -- which means you think he did it because YOU did it, and got off the hook for it.
If you were simply lashing out because some sysadmin did the same to YOU and YOUR systems, then you would be able to tell the difference between an act of malice and an anti-social nerd who doesn't know how to quit without burning a bridge. If I am mistaken, and you are, in fact, lashing out against your own previous admin, then I must confess, it was not a conscious betrayal -- he was just ungraceful in quitting and you read too much into it.
But really, you're acting like you're hiding something. Now that I'm onto you, does that mean I'm next?;)
The spectrum for Infrared is large -- larger than our visible spectrum. Depending on how broad a spectrum these oled's accept as input, you should easily be able to register sources like channel changers and DS communications without dipping into heat signatures.
While under police surveillance, he decided then to leave the state and make cash withdrawals of over $10,000. He was arrested, and that's where it became a criminal matter instead of simply an employment matter.
Is leaving a company in working order a criminal offense now? The fact that nothing broke until the new guys got ahold of the equipment was signs enough that his intent was not criminal, but self-preservative. It's understandable that he could be taken into custody under suspicion -- but the lack of damage showed that those suspicions were misplaced. Then, the complete incompetence shown by his employers showed that his motives were much more likely to be abandoning a sinking ship, piloted by blame-happy idiots than some short-sighted plot for revenge. At that time, it should have reverted back to an employment matter, and criminal charges should have been dropped.
San Francisco's mayor is one of the most prominent douchebags of recent history. There's no way he would resign unless it meant that he could become governor, senator, or president of the USA by next election. He's an animated golemn, crafted of every negative stereotype of San Francisco there is. When he had every reason to defend Child's actions, he testified against him - condemning what he knew to be an innocent man. What would an egomaniac like that have to gain from stepping down or retracting his testimony against the man when he's busy patting himself on the back for helping put away a dangerous terrorist such as Terry Childs?
If this was 200 years ago, I'd challenge the man to a duel. "You took 5 years of an innocent man's life away because you could. Just how many innocent men have you knowingly put away for 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? How many innocent lifetimes has your sick ego cost the world? I'm sure the devil will give you a full report when you reach Hell."
But now, in 2010, I could probably get charges filed against me just for suggesting something like that! It's those damned everchanging laws of propriety...
There are other applications that come to mind. Modularity, for one. When it's time to swap out the old weapon systems and swap in the new, it could be a simple detach, unload, load and attach -- like violent blade servers. Keeping a weapon powerful, while also making the shape more stack-friendly is a concept that could go a very long way for advancing marine warfare. (or Mechs, for the little geek in you)
The summary's description of it, however, immediately brings the anti-conventional tactics to mind. I don't have video, so I can't view the commercial to see how they're marketing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to the internet, AC. I'm amazed that you've learned how to computer so quickly. I only have one question: Did you have to go to the imdb for that post, or did you simply type it out from memory?
The reverse is also true. I would argue that the fundamentalists on evolution's side are much, much worse. When I point out that dinosaurs couldn't have evolved their way through the mass extinction, because it would have required rapid, species-universal evolution (otherwise there would not be the threat of mass extinction), the few responses that aren't ad-hominem attacks are handwaves or the infamous: "You obviously don't understand evolution..." which is equivalent to "It's true, because it's in the bible." argument.
Basically, the problem is that the scientific principals are being undermined. It's hard to buy into theories when observation so commonly disagrees with prediction. Flat Earthers are funny because they refute the observable world -- but so do the proponents of the "Climate change" movement, when every predictive model made falls flat. Evolution, climate change (as it's understood), and other theories are commonly refuted by the observable world or have no observable models -- so they are not even true science, rather just thought experiments and allegations!
Evolution, for example, was crafted with a complete lack of data in its time, which has since had data piled around it in order to verify/vindicate its origins. This is bad science and bad practice. BAD. It also is non disprovable -- as an experiment, conjure whatever evidence it would take to refute evolution[climate change] in your eyes. This should be simple, if it is a true science. Then, turn around and offer the imaginatory refutation as fact to someone who believes in evolution[climate change] as fiercely as you do, and say "since evolution[climate change] can't explain that, evolution[climage change] has been wrong all along!" and watch the fireworks. They will warp the very foundations of reality to show you how you're wrong, don't understand evolution, and that evolution TOTALLY explains it. Is that really science? No. It's religion and politics posturing itself as science. It is scientific blasphemy and it should be cause for serious concern, rather than considered PROOF THAT IT'S TRUE! as it is now.
I'm married, and this situation never came up where I needed to get into a girlfriend's house without her being there. I can understand an occassional "Oops, could you run to my house and pick something up for me? I'm at work and I need it, and you're inexplicably at your house watching TV during a work day!" but that's an exception to the rule. I didn't give her the keys to my apartment and she didn't give me the keys to her apartment because we weren't retarded. It is also why I never had to change my locks when I broke up with someone.
It's NOT normal to have the keys to someone else's house unless you're just trying to show off that you HAVE the keys to their house -- it's an amateur move made by attention whores.
Why does he have keys to his girlfriend's place? In case he wants to be there when she isn't? Creeeeeepy.
Would it be ok if they were selling you guys out to Canadian lobby groups?
Well, when someone else on slashdot is telling you that it's just a social stigma not to drink 10 gallons of distilled cyanide every day, I'm glad to be around to tell you that there are facts that refute his claims and that a healthy society does not consist of everyone drinking 10 gallons of cyanide a day -- even if it paints me as an "irrational believer" to slashdot's biggest idiots. Perhaps you should bother to read some of the scientific studies posted in the GP comment that prove that my belief is rational, and those unfounded ape hollers you sound out, in response, are the mating cries of an asstrich. The only thing I'm cramming down your throat is the information you need to make an educated decision in the matter. Perhaps in due time, it will make its way through your system, down to your asshole, where your head can finally read it (if it's not too dark in there)
Your post is why sex still needs to be treated as special. Women are emotionally tied to their vaginas because of biochemical reactions before they are emotionally tied to them by social pressures (google: oxytocin). Humans mate for life, from a natural standpoint (because our children are completely worthless until the age of 14) and from a social/psychological standpoint. You don't bother to learn any of this because you're so sexually frustrated you can't see straight enough to read any writing on the wall.
If we don't treat sex as special, then we can ALL become emotionally and sexually jaded as you are. There are reasons why sex is expected to happen between two people who are married from a social standpoint that shows RESPONSIBILITY rather than what you seem to think is "Obnoxious stupidity." But since sexual responsibility is the opposite of what you're asking for, I can probably assume social responsibility is a moot point.
It may have no turbines, but it does have an oscillator!
That's partially because of litigation. If I say the words "I'm sorry," then that is synonymous for "You can sue me for something"
Poor analogy. It's more like saying that cars clearly run off a combustion of air and gasoline, then finding out that 20% of cars can run underwater indefinitely. It doesn't compliment the hypothesis, it refutes it. If the "air/gas combustion" was a theory, it would be reduced back to the drawing board. It shows that there are deep, underlying complexities involved that your air/gas cumbustion theory was drawn independent from -- not just that "Cars will run on air/gas except for some that run on water instead."
.14+ trailing it, then not only will all your future equations based on circles be wrong, but you're missing out on some very interesting maths. When someone introduces a big circle that has a measurable difference "Hey, we're like 20 meters off! Who calculated this?" "Oh, pi only equals 3 for smaller circles. As the circle increases in size, pi approaches 3.2"
:)
Or, to use your analogy, if you've geared your entire geometric science around pi=3, and just ignore the
Then tell all the haters that they just don't understand the exponential beauty of circular geometric ratios, because they're too dumb.
I'm not an evolution denialist, but I do think the current scientific understanding of evolution has a religious zeal.
The fact that this type of finding actually refutes most current hypotheses of evolution, yet people are attempting to use evolution to explain it, and the article is tagged "evolution", I would say that you made a bit of an understatement.
Haha, I was actually thinking of visiting Croatia, too. Might have to put it off if their board of tourism thinks spamming is a good way to get the word out.
Right now, there is a Bosnian sitting back in his chair, pressing the tips of his fingers together in front of his face, and saying "Just as planned."
4. The caveat of #3 is that such treatments are expensive, and will get progressively more expensive based on the degree of testing and individualization required (until the wide use and technology make them cheaper of course). This will necessarily introduce a further divide into the available treatments for the rich and the poor, and contribute to the class struggle that's already rather inflamed. The problem is that there's no OTHER way - giving everyone $100'000 treatments would bankrupt us rather quickly. Instead, similar to the case with electronics, we will simply have to suffer through the period of expensive first-adopter treatments, until the improvements in laboratory techniques and high-throughput testing make such treatments increasingly affordable.
But they can't. When Western Digital finally comes out with a Petabyte drive, it will cost a high price, but the next week, Seagate comes out with a Petabyte drive. Competition increases, prices drop, and the drives become increasingly affordable. In medicine, the patents are extended a little further. The patent holder can charge whatever he wants, because he needs to make back the money he spent on risky research, but for the next n+[too many] years, he gets to hold the sick of the world hostage. Well, what if company B wants to design a competitor drug?
1. Good luck to them.
2. View the #2 in your post. They have to struggle in a market that's immediately artificially saturated by Company A's wonder drug. This is like Pepsi trying to show up and claim "we can quench your thirst", but regulations say that, for the first n number of years, people have to drink a full coke before they can drink a Pepsi. Hope you're still thirsty after that coke, and if you're not, then hopefully the pepsi will quench your thirst when the coke did not!
And there, spelled out in soda, we have the well-meaning recipe for disaster in American healthcare -- the one that isn't fixed by the government plan, but needs to be before the government plan sends us headlong into a depression because of this unresolved bug.
That was just the median. What you should focus on more is the 3-year survival rate: 34% vs 23% -- almost a 50% increase in long-term survival.
Congratulations on your ability to: READ ONE SENTENCE.
Now, see if you can increase on that, and try: READ TWO SENTENCES.
Leaving a company locked out of their equipment is not leaving them in working order, nor does it constitute a "lack of damage."
as another poster pointed out, the passwords were retrievable. Also, he was willing to give the passwords to the mayor, as was allowed and expected in his guidelines.
if you can be that wrong, there's not much point in addressing the other ways your "interpretation" of the facts is wrong.
Now you've got me curious. What is the crime, exactly, that You committed? They haven't caught you yet, have they? Do they know what you've done without connecting the case to you, or did they let you off the hook? It wasn't spur of the moment/just happened, was it? It was completely premeditated. You condemn this man with all your power, without solid evidence, and act as if you know something that we don't -- which means you think he did it because YOU did it, and got off the hook for it.
;)
If you were simply lashing out because some sysadmin did the same to YOU and YOUR systems, then you would be able to tell the difference between an act of malice and an anti-social nerd who doesn't know how to quit without burning a bridge. If I am mistaken, and you are, in fact, lashing out against your own previous admin, then I must confess, it was not a conscious betrayal -- he was just ungraceful in quitting and you read too much into it.
But really, you're acting like you're hiding something. Now that I'm onto you, does that mean I'm next?
The spectrum for Infrared is large -- larger than our visible spectrum. Depending on how broad a spectrum these oled's accept as input, you should easily be able to register sources like channel changers and DS communications without dipping into heat signatures.
While under police surveillance, he decided then to leave the state and make cash withdrawals of over $10,000. He was arrested, and that's where it became a criminal matter instead of simply an employment matter.
Is leaving a company in working order a criminal offense now? The fact that nothing broke until the new guys got ahold of the equipment was signs enough that his intent was not criminal, but self-preservative. It's understandable that he could be taken into custody under suspicion -- but the lack of damage showed that those suspicions were misplaced. Then, the complete incompetence shown by his employers showed that his motives were much more likely to be abandoning a sinking ship, piloted by blame-happy idiots than some short-sighted plot for revenge. At that time, it should have reverted back to an employment matter, and criminal charges should have been dropped.
It's my fault. I had to replace a few ink cartridges in my printer. That, alone, probably paid for Palm.
1) Since the 3.5" were smaller than the 5.25" disks, I always call them "Compact Disks"
San Francisco's mayor is one of the most prominent douchebags of recent history. There's no way he would resign unless it meant that he could become governor, senator, or president of the USA by next election. He's an animated golemn, crafted of every negative stereotype of San Francisco there is. When he had every reason to defend Child's actions, he testified against him - condemning what he knew to be an innocent man. What would an egomaniac like that have to gain from stepping down or retracting his testimony against the man when he's busy patting himself on the back for helping put away a dangerous terrorist such as Terry Childs?
If this was 200 years ago, I'd challenge the man to a duel. "You took 5 years of an innocent man's life away because you could. Just how many innocent men have you knowingly put away for 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? How many innocent lifetimes has your sick ego cost the world? I'm sure the devil will give you a full report when you reach Hell."
But now, in 2010, I could probably get charges filed against me just for suggesting something like that! It's those damned everchanging laws of propriety...
I use Linux - the family never listens to me.
Well, then stop using Linux!
Check out this link from the summary. It's not a pretty sight.
@OpsBase: Closin in on cnfrmd Osama loc now. Our 1 blindspot is HUGE RED BARN in middle of AB BALA (3443N 6744E) Hope he not hidin there at 0800 2moro
There are other applications that come to mind. Modularity, for one. When it's time to swap out the old weapon systems and swap in the new, it could be a simple detach, unload, load and attach -- like violent blade servers. Keeping a weapon powerful, while also making the shape more stack-friendly is a concept that could go a very long way for advancing marine warfare. (or Mechs, for the little geek in you)
The summary's description of it, however, immediately brings the anti-conventional tactics to mind. I don't have video, so I can't view the commercial to see how they're marketing it.