There are many recent articles that mention russian and many that mention ship. The DNC was two weeks ago and so results that hit on that term will be *way* down the result list.
They aren't burying anything, you are just using bad search terms. That's not your fault, that's the terrible search engine's fault. There's no need to leap to conspiracy theories, Russia is as usual in the news, and ship is a common word (hence why warship is a better term - far less commonly used).
Adding an extra term, like say DNC, doesn't help when the search engine is doing a basic OR search, you need to remove the words that are matching irrelevant things. That's got nothing to do with the media trying to bury and hide stories. It's just a bad search engine. They may very well be trying to hide things but those search results aren't evidence of that.
Because one contains the word "russian" and the other contains the word "ship" and hence they both match the search (which is as usual for web sites complete garbage and you are better using google and restricting to that site).
Amazing, stuff that is over 2 weeks old doesn't end up in the first few pages of political news during a presidential election campaign. I'm shocked! Of course if you use the term "warships" in your search it'll be in the top 5 results.
You cited a scientific article that had nothing to do with the claim. That's even less useful than anecdotes.
Yes I could research the topic myself. But it would be orders of magnitude faster for you just give me the damn titles/authors of a few of them. Is that really so hard?
I don't want "more understandable information oriented to lay people here", I want a simple citation to a scientific publication that actually says what you claimed.
I didn't ask for you explain years of medical training in a few words. I asked for a simple citation.
Not one that says that white rice increases the risk of diabetes. Not one that says that high GI foods are bad for you. Not one that says that the American diet is bad for you. Simply one that says that eating white rice cereal as an infant leads to a preference for high GI foods.
And thanks for diving right in with the insults, even though none were sent your way. Seriously is it that hard to mention one related citation? Or just to say "I can't be bothered, do your own research" without adding "even though you are obviously an idiot who won't be able to"?
Note hidden in you lay people link where some actual citations, but they seem to be about taste preference development not specifically GI level preference development.
Because the Angry Birds at B&N isn't the same software. Right? It's much better than the CHina^W Wal-Mart version of Angry Birds on Google Play that is going to give your pet liver failure when you play it. Right?
That says nothing about a correlation between what infants first eat and a later life preference for high glycemic index foods. Let alone anything causative. Which is what you claimed there was good evidence for.
It makes sense, my kids favorite foods are the things we let him eat. The kid across the street who eats spicy foods far more often (due to cultural background differences) seems to like spicy food much more. But "good evidence" implies you have more than just anecdotes. Especially since you were far more specific - white rice cereals in particular leads to high glycemic index foods in general (not just white rice cereals).
And yet my single parent mother with whom we moved every 6-12 months to stay with the next set of friends (much cheaper than renting by ourselves) managed to parent well enough. I don't think she ever took us to McDonalds, we did eat lentil soup and similar more often than I would choose to now. I'm pretty sure she wasn't supernatural either.
Why bother. What they did seems to have worked fine.
Last cycle the utility decided to enforce the penalty for not using thhe contracted amount of electricity which was more than just charging MS for the additional amount and pretending they used it (which I would assume it what MS hoped they'd do). So this time MS concentrated all the additional usage they needed to use up into as small a time frame as they could manage - in order to make it as painful as possible for the utility to deal with.
And they got their agreement this time without bothering with lobbyists.
So are you proposing a return to the good old days of the White Australia Policy? Or just back a little to letting the wogs in, but letting them know they are wogs at very opportunity?
Or maybe the past isn't quite as rosy as you remember?
Feel free to stick with your definition of course, but usually some sort of supernatural element is part of what most people call a religion so there'll always be some confusion when you are communicating on this topic with a general audience.
And the link you have now doesn't include your definition, at least when I view it now. Instead we have:
World English Dictionary
religion (rldn) — n 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny 2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion 3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers 4. chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns: to enter religion 5. something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion 6. archaic
a.the practice of sacred ritual observances
b.sacred rites and ceremonies
Note it leads with condemning the video, the half way through mentions that their was some violence in response. Two sentences mentioning the violence is enough since then it is back to condemning the "extremists" who made a video. Nowhere does it say anything like "The people commiting this violence are abusing the name of Islam and their actions show that they are not true followers of Mohammad."
Yes christians are also lunatic nut jobs who love to force people to agree with them and do as they say. How does that have any bearing on Islam and muslims?
Pol Pot killed less people Hitler or Stalin, so that makes him OK???
And the historic low points for various people's are irrelevant anyway. The here and now is what matters, and the historic highs for reference - though I'm pretty sure Muslims and Christians are both more able to openly practice their religions in say Australia than anywhere in the Middle Ages. Other than the bits of their religions that involve forcing others to do or not do things.
Yes because it also isn't peaceful, but instead supports keeping and beating slaves, killing people for their beliefs, punishing people for what their ancestors have done, etc, etc.
What idiot was claiming it was peaceful? Or was it just the voices in your head?
Why did you pick one that definition rather than one of the other options that are clearly more in line with the meaning the poster was using?
But yes, if that set of beliefs was proven or the bulk of the evidence pointed to it as the best explanation we currently have then it wouldn't be called religion. It would be science or just reality.
If your developers have time to spare and are salaried then it might make sense to have it be part of their jobs. If it can be done by someone cheaper or less critical to tight developer deadlines then you might have it be a job or a role in some other job.
I don't see anything inherently wrong with having some developers in that role though.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many recent articles that mention russian and many that mention ship. The DNC was two weeks ago and so results that hit on that term will be *way* down the result list.
They aren't burying anything, you are just using bad search terms. That's not your fault, that's the terrible search engine's fault. There's no need to leap to conspiracy theories, Russia is as usual in the news, and ship is a common word (hence why warship is a better term - far less commonly used).
Adding an extra term, like say DNC, doesn't help when the search engine is doing a basic OR search, you need to remove the words that are matching irrelevant things. That's got nothing to do with the media trying to bury and hide stories. It's just a bad search engine. They may very well be trying to hide things but those search results aren't evidence of that.
Couldn't hold of on the insult I see. Because typing in a reference for you claim is so much more work than name calling?
Because one contains the word "russian" and the other contains the word "ship" and hence they both match the search (which is as usual for web sites complete garbage and you are better using google and restricting to that site).
Amazing, stuff that is over 2 weeks old doesn't end up in the first few pages of political news during a presidential election campaign. I'm shocked! Of course if you use the term "warships" in your search it'll be in the top 5 results.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/dnc-apologizes-for-showing-russian-warships-in-tribute-to-us-veterans/
You cited a scientific article that had nothing to do with the claim. That's even less useful than anecdotes.
Yes I could research the topic myself. But it would be orders of magnitude faster for you just give me the damn titles/authors of a few of them. Is that really so hard?
I don't want "more understandable information oriented to lay people here", I want a simple citation to a scientific publication that actually says what you claimed.
I didn't ask for you explain years of medical training in a few words. I asked for a simple citation.
Not one that says that white rice increases the risk of diabetes. Not one that says that high GI foods are bad for you. Not one that says that the American diet is bad for you. Simply one that says that eating white rice cereal as an infant leads to a preference for high GI foods.
And thanks for diving right in with the insults, even though none were sent your way. Seriously is it that hard to mention one related citation? Or just to say "I can't be bothered, do your own research" without adding "even though you are obviously an idiot who won't be able to"?
Note hidden in you lay people link where some actual citations, but they seem to be about taste preference development not specifically GI level preference development.
Because the Angry Birds at B&N isn't the same software. Right? It's much better than the CHina^W Wal-Mart version of Angry Birds on Google Play that is going to give your pet liver failure when you play it. Right?
1) No the labor and resources the money is a proxy for is instead used up and sent into space.
2) Sure, that's also labor and resources that are used up in destroying things.
Does anyone put a phpmyadmin open to the world? Not just passworded but on a port that is firewalled off from all but a set of trusted ips???
I guess it has PHP in the name so probably some idiots do.
That says nothing about a correlation between what infants first eat and a later life preference for high glycemic index foods. Let alone anything causative. Which is what you claimed there was good evidence for.
It makes sense, my kids favorite foods are the things we let him eat. The kid across the street who eats spicy foods far more often (due to cultural background differences) seems to like spicy food much more. But "good evidence" implies you have more than just anecdotes. Especially since you were far more specific - white rice cereals in particular leads to high glycemic index foods in general (not just white rice cereals).
And yet my single parent mother with whom we moved every 6-12 months to stay with the next set of friends (much cheaper than renting by ourselves) managed to parent well enough. I don't think she ever took us to McDonalds, we did eat lentil soup and similar more often than I would choose to now. I'm pretty sure she wasn't supernatural either.
Why bother. What they did seems to have worked fine.
Last cycle the utility decided to enforce the penalty for not using thhe contracted amount of electricity which was more than just charging MS for the additional amount and pretending they used it (which I would assume it what MS hoped they'd do). So this time MS concentrated all the additional usage they needed to use up into as small a time frame as they could manage - in order to make it as painful as possible for the utility to deal with.
And they got their agreement this time without bothering with lobbyists.
So are you proposing a return to the good old days of the White Australia Policy? Or just back a little to letting the wogs in, but letting them know they are wogs at very opportunity?
Or maybe the past isn't quite as rosy as you remember?
5%. Just how tiny was this lamp?
Or the cost of one particular type of pollution is underpriced and hence such market forces won't work.
One has an uppercase 5. The other is all lowercase.
By being "un-dense". How do you propose for the kinetic energy to be removed?
Feel free to stick with your definition of course, but usually some sort of supernatural element is part of what most people call a religion so there'll always be some confusion when you are communicating on this topic with a general audience.
And the link you have now doesn't include your definition, at least when I view it now. Instead we have:
Really?
http://www.isna.net/events/Special-Announcement/ISNA-Statement-on-Profane-Video-of-Prophet-Muhammad.aspx
Note it leads with condemning the video, the half way through mentions that their was some violence in response. Two sentences mentioning the violence is enough since then it is back to condemning the "extremists" who made a video. Nowhere does it say anything like "The people commiting this violence are abusing the name of Islam and their actions show that they are not true followers of Mohammad."
Contrast with a random google example of another relgion responding to violence carried out by people calling themselves members of it: http://articles.latimes.com/1987-11-16/news/mn-14195_1_catholic-bishops
So what?
Yes christians are also lunatic nut jobs who love to force people to agree with them and do as they say. How does that have any bearing on Islam and muslims?
Pol Pot killed less people Hitler or Stalin, so that makes him OK???
And the historic low points for various people's are irrelevant anyway. The here and now is what matters, and the historic highs for reference - though I'm pretty sure Muslims and Christians are both more able to openly practice their religions in say Australia than anywhere in the Middle Ages. Other than the bits of their religions that involve forcing others to do or not do things.
Yes because it also isn't peaceful, but instead supports keeping and beating slaves, killing people for their beliefs, punishing people for what their ancestors have done, etc, etc.
What idiot was claiming it was peaceful? Or was it just the voices in your head?
Why did you pick one that definition rather than one of the other options that are clearly more in line with the meaning the poster was using?
But yes, if that set of beliefs was proven or the bulk of the evidence pointed to it as the best explanation we currently have then it wouldn't be called religion. It would be science or just reality.
No, it is when they state "my hatred" that most people read hate into it. Nothing at all do with disagreeing with anything,
If your developers have time to spare and are salaried then it might make sense to have it be part of their jobs. If it can be done by someone cheaper or less critical to tight developer deadlines then you might have it be a job or a role in some other job.
I don't see anything inherently wrong with having some developers in that role though.
If I go to verizon's web site there are 4 android phones with slide out physical keyboards, and 4 blackerry phones with physcial keyboards.
Next you'll claim asleep doesn't mean without sleep.