No way, there are so many changes to the laws of physics teached at high school all the time it definitely takes a full time publishing staff to keep up.
Simply put, they are shiny. People value the actual metal in addition to just the value it represents. They are a physically held asset. Without faith of value, paper money is worth the value of paper with a pretty picture on it. Metals have other uses, in addition to jewelry they are used in many industrial applications, photography, computers, etc.
6) If you want to talk about F***ING OVER artists and their rights, try looking at the contracts artists sign with labels. You can also look at the list of artists that have not been paid their royalties by the RIAA.
While I'm sure British politicians are completely above taking money from people to say things, given my experience with US politicians, I take their letter with a grain of salt.
The problem isn't them tapping phones. It's them doing it without a warrant. For a warrant all they need is a sympathetic judge. And this can be done without the person being tapped knowing about it. It is still secret, but it is legal. The difference being is that there is a record of it (which can be sealed) that is not directly controlled by them.
There are a few carbonated fruit juices out there. One of my favorites is the Knudsen Spritzers. I've only tried the black cherry so far. I found it quite tasty and it claims 100% fruit juice. They have a number of different flavors including a cola and a ginger ale but I don't know what their juice content is.
I was surprised to find out that Diet Mountain Dew contains fruit juice as an ingredient. The taste isn't too bad either.
As far as taste, I generally shy away from the artificial sweeteners but have always found that Diet Dr. Pepper does a good job (in my opinion) in hiding the taste and coming close to the original flavor.
Currently I find myself absolutely loving the new Diet Berries & Cream Dr. Pepper recently introduced. Think of it as a cream soda with just a hint of raspberry.
No. They didn't. People have a short memory when it comes to disasters. It lasts less than 10 years. This year we had flooding in California and everyone is now going on about how this never happens and how could we have known we shouldn't have built there. The last event was 1997. The one before that was 1986. Each time it happens they suddenly remember about the last one. Come 2016 they'll have forgotten again.
I hate to break this to you, but non-profit does not equal public ownership. I refer to private as in not public or taxpayer funded like NASA. Ownership by an organization is still ownership. Wikipedia belongs to that organization. The fact that they allow anyone to participate in their process is not a requirement, they chose to do it. It may give you a sense of ownership, but doesn't actually grant you ownership.
It isn't censorship. The people who took the actions in question were given the authority to do it. And if other people want to go through the proper process of replacing those people, more power to them. And if they are unsuccessful at that, then they can start their own wiki. But those people should focus the argument as not agreeing with policies rather than rabble rousing by calling it censorship. It takes away from real censorship issues.
I found this: The goal of the Wikimedia foundation is to develop and maintain open content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge. and a vision to bring a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet. Nothing about public good as a general concept. If you have a source that backs up your claim, please present it.
It might break our dependency on oil, but it will just replace that with a dependency on uranium. It would certainly alleviate some of the current problems but new ones would arise (though probably not as severe). But imagine how aggressive a country might be if we end up contaminating their water because the company we have mining it decides to cut corners..
I'd have to agree. While Wikipedia has community interaction, it is still privately owned and they have the right to decide if something is irrelevant (or controversial). People need to realize that and if they don't like it, they can start their own wiki rather than force other people to live by their ideals. No one is forcing anyone to read Wikipedia. I always love it how people can fight so vehemently for "freedoms" while trying to strip them away from the people they actually belong to.
I found it even more useful as a way to reconnect with people you haven't seen in awhile. I don't remember why I originally set up the page, but I managed to be found by people I haven't seen in 5-10 years. People who wandered to other parts of the globe. Of course I've had to deal with some more annoying aspects too, but the benefits definitely outweighed the costs. I just keep my friends list to people I've actually met in real life.
Different people get different things out of it. For me it's a way to update all of my friends in one spot. For others it is a competition to get as many friends on their list as possible.
I've also found it quite useful in discovering new music. I tend to listen to some of the more obscure genres so I can't hear the new stuff on the radio (except for the occasional college station). By looking at who is linked to bands I like, I can check them out, get a sample of their music and then decide if I want to hear more or not.
Amen to that. Very few people that I have dealt with deny the existence of global warming (though some will debate it's continuance). The major debates are about what causes it and what effects it will have. The only thing many people agree with is that we will have polar ice melting and increased sea level rise (and even then there are debates about by how much which is why we generally just run scenarios for various options rather than just assume that one is correct). We really don't have enough data to support or deny either claim about changing weather patterns. But the writer of the article is doing just that, but on the other side of the argument. He makes a case for the opposite based on what the models show.
The problem is that the models are horribly inaccurate. They are useful for producing a trend and that's about it. But then that is my opinion and I'll own up to it. But that opinion is based off of having seen the calibration data and seeing that it just doesn't match very well. That and knowing that the entirety of California is represented by two grid points. Last I checked the climate of California is a little more varied than that. I wouldn't stake my professional career on what the models told me would happen. And that is with what is considered one of the standard models.
He is very good about not mentioning which model he is referring to. Just "the" models. Adds an air of authority to it without actually specifying something that could be contested. There is the possibility that he is referring to models that aren't considered the accepted standard. If he believes those models are biased (which can be a valid argument) he should own up to it. I'm just annoyed that he is asserting a lot of claims without backing up any of it with details. Which my experience has taught me is the mark of someone who is standing on a house of cards.
Given their current litigation troubles with that name and their branching into music, they could use this as the time to announce the renaming/rebranding/splitting off of the music portion of their company.
Why? These books are standards and needed by everyone. They should be able to capitalize off the popularity by lowering the price. Surely it doesn't take $120 to make Mitchell's Machine Learning--it's such a tiny book!
That is most of the reason right there. The type of person who is buying a tech book usually has to buy it. As such they will pay a much higher cost. Since they will pay more, the market allows them to charge more.
It comes down to this. A book for pleasure has value into only itself. Once you have read the story the book has a much lower value to you (unless you tend to read the same books multiple times). A tech book continues to have value as a reference (at least until it become outdated technology). It also often has a financial return to the user assuming they are using it for their job.
My problem is that there is very little financial distinction for the tech books that are useful and those that are worthless. If I pay $10 for a novel and the story is horrid, I'm usually more upset about the time I wasted than the money. If I shell out $40 - $60 and the author presents the material badly I get really ticked. Thank goodness for reviews (when they are accurate).
I find my motion sickness occurs for similar reasons. If other things are going on like puzzles, talking to characters, or killing (cut scenes like Tenchu or Manhunt really help) I can last almost indefinitely but 5 minutes of running around non-stop (i.e. having to retrace steps or search for some obscurely hidden object) can cause me problems. Better camera behavior for a game helps too.
The quality of the background also makes a difference. Paying attention to the fact that things at a distance should appear blurrier. If they make them sharp, you tend to focus on it when you move around and that is a world of hurt.
I've also found that the first time I play a new game I have to stop for awhile, but one I get used to the motion and it becomes more intuitive I usually don't have any further problems.
Then there's Turok:Evolution... The motion in that game is so counter-intuitive I wasn't able to last a full minute before having to lay down for half an hour to recover myself.
Mixed with shorter DVD release time is that home theaters are becoming cheaper and more advanced. THX/Dolby was something you used to only be able to experience in the theater, now you can have it at home.
One big problem with radioactivity is that people can't see it. That makes it scary. Coal might be worse for us, but people can see it and the smoke that it produces. Also, coal has been around a lot longer, people are used to it. Most people understand the basic idea of coal. You burn it. Just like wood. It's something they can do themselves. Nuclear power requires people with PhDs. While it may be an evil, it's a familiar evil. People fear change and people fear those things they cannot see or understand.
Plus add the association with nuclear weapons. While is may be safer overall, if something goes wrong it affects a large area. It's similar to airplanes vs. cars. While air travel is statistically safer, people are more scared of it partially because it takes out more people all at once.
Air disasters also get more news coverage than auto accidents. Similarly, the news rarely covers ongoing coal fires but any little thing happens at a nuclear power plant and it goes on for weeks.
Things like this add to the overall attitude against nuclear power.
Some researchers tend to lose sight of the process and try to "prove" a theory they have in their head. If you massage the data different ways, you can come up with different conclusions from the same data. Correlations are easy to find. Causes are more difficult and often require the researcher to have no preconceived notion as to what it is so as to not inadvertantly introduce their own bias (hence the reason double blind studies are used when possible).
I have seen far too many "professionals" try to sell an idea like it is a religious belief rather than a scientifically determined conclusion. Often because their research did not sufficiently prove their theory.
Personally I'm curious how much research was done on the environments themselves. Previously many "cancer clusters" were attributed to chemical dumpings or other plausible though not easily provable theories (such as power lines).
Given how accurate some people tend to be, I don't think either prevents urine from being on the surface. Using that argument seems like more of a red herring . I would actually rate the 'waterless' as more sanitary since, unlike a handle flush you never need to touch it. But of course if you wash your hands after you go to the bathroom, like people should, it really wouldn't matter.
I used to have one where I worked and some of the people there went to some interesting lengths to try to control the smell when the jatintorial staff wasn't quick enough with the filter replacements.
Before I would say it is an efficient water design, I'd have to see the figures on how many gallons of water get used to produce each filter. And also how much pollution is created for each one. It might end up as a wash, or even a loss when you actually consider all of the process.
I wouldn't worry about the drunk ones. Even sober many people can't manage to drive decently in 2 dimensions. Add a third and you'll start seeing people falling out of the sky left and right.
Slashdot Mirror
No way, there are so many changes to the laws of physics teached at high school all the time it definitely takes a full time publishing staff to keep up.
Teached?
You must have used the free English textbook.
With the recent economy, even if he had the money then, its gone now.
Simply put, they are shiny. People value the actual metal in addition to just the value it represents. They are a physically held asset. Without faith of value, paper money is worth the value of paper with a pretty picture on it. Metals have other uses, in addition to jewelry they are used in many industrial applications, photography, computers, etc.
Your local post office should also be able to provide you with one.
While I'm sure British politicians are completely above taking money from people to say things, given my experience with US politicians, I take their letter with a grain of salt.
The problem isn't them tapping phones. It's them doing it without a warrant. For a warrant all they need is a sympathetic judge. And this can be done without the person being tapped knowing about it. It is still secret, but it is legal. The difference being is that there is a record of it (which can be sealed) that is not directly controlled by them.
There are a few carbonated fruit juices out there. One of my favorites is the Knudsen Spritzers. I've only tried the black cherry so far. I found it quite tasty and it claims 100% fruit juice. They have a number of different flavors including a cola and a ginger ale but I don't know what their juice content is.
I was surprised to find out that Diet Mountain Dew contains fruit juice as an ingredient. The taste isn't too bad either.
As far as taste, I generally shy away from the artificial sweeteners but have always found that Diet Dr. Pepper does a good job (in my opinion) in hiding the taste and coming close to the original flavor.
Currently I find myself absolutely loving the new Diet Berries & Cream Dr. Pepper recently introduced. Think of it as a cream soda with just a hint of raspberry.
No. They didn't. People have a short memory when it comes to disasters. It lasts less than 10 years. This year we had flooding in California and everyone is now going on about how this never happens and how could we have known we shouldn't have built there. The last event was 1997. The one before that was 1986. Each time it happens they suddenly remember about the last one. Come 2016 they'll have forgotten again.
I hate to break this to you, but non-profit does not equal public ownership. I refer to private as in not public or taxpayer funded like NASA. Ownership by an organization is still ownership. Wikipedia belongs to that organization. The fact that they allow anyone to participate in their process is not a requirement, they chose to do it. It may give you a sense of ownership, but doesn't actually grant you ownership.
It isn't censorship. The people who took the actions in question were given the authority to do it. And if other people want to go through the proper process of replacing those people, more power to them. And if they are unsuccessful at that, then they can start their own wiki. But those people should focus the argument as not agreeing with policies rather than rabble rousing by calling it censorship. It takes away from real censorship issues.
I found this: The goal of the Wikimedia foundation is to develop and maintain open content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge. and a vision to bring a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet. Nothing about public good as a general concept. If you have a source that backs up your claim, please present it.
It might break our dependency on oil, but it will just replace that with a dependency on uranium. It would certainly alleviate some of the current problems but new ones would arise (though probably not as severe). But imagine how aggressive a country might be if we end up contaminating their water because the company we have mining it decides to cut corners..
I'd have to agree. While Wikipedia has community interaction, it is still privately owned and they have the right to decide if something is irrelevant (or controversial). People need to realize that and if they don't like it, they can start their own wiki rather than force other people to live by their ideals. No one is forcing anyone to read Wikipedia. I always love it how people can fight so vehemently for "freedoms" while trying to strip them away from the people they actually belong to.
I found it even more useful as a way to reconnect with people you haven't seen in awhile. I don't remember why I originally set up the page, but I managed to be found by people I haven't seen in 5-10 years. People who wandered to other parts of the globe. Of course I've had to deal with some more annoying aspects too, but the benefits definitely outweighed the costs. I just keep my friends list to people I've actually met in real life.
Different people get different things out of it. For me it's a way to update all of my friends in one spot. For others it is a competition to get as many friends on their list as possible.
I've also found it quite useful in discovering new music. I tend to listen to some of the more obscure genres so I can't hear the new stuff on the radio (except for the occasional college station). By looking at who is linked to bands I like, I can check them out, get a sample of their music and then decide if I want to hear more or not.
Amen to that. Very few people that I have dealt with deny the existence of global warming (though some will debate it's continuance). The major debates are about what causes it and what effects it will have. The only thing many people agree with is that we will have polar ice melting and increased sea level rise (and even then there are debates about by how much which is why we generally just run scenarios for various options rather than just assume that one is correct). We really don't have enough data to support or deny either claim about changing weather patterns. But the writer of the article is doing just that, but on the other side of the argument. He makes a case for the opposite based on what the models show.
The problem is that the models are horribly inaccurate. They are useful for producing a trend and that's about it. But then that is my opinion and I'll own up to it. But that opinion is based off of having seen the calibration data and seeing that it just doesn't match very well. That and knowing that the entirety of California is represented by two grid points. Last I checked the climate of California is a little more varied than that. I wouldn't stake my professional career on what the models told me would happen. And that is with what is considered one of the standard models.
He is very good about not mentioning which model he is referring to. Just "the" models. Adds an air of authority to it without actually specifying something that could be contested. There is the possibility that he is referring to models that aren't considered the accepted standard. If he believes those models are biased (which can be a valid argument) he should own up to it. I'm just annoyed that he is asserting a lot of claims without backing up any of it with details. Which my experience has taught me is the mark of someone who is standing on a house of cards.
Speaking of that label...
Given their current litigation troubles with that name and their branching into music, they could use this as the time to announce the renaming/rebranding/splitting off of the music portion of their company.
Why? These books are standards and needed by everyone. They should be able to capitalize off the popularity by lowering the price. Surely it doesn't take $120 to make Mitchell's Machine Learning--it's such a tiny book!
That is most of the reason right there. The type of person who is buying a tech book usually has to buy it. As such they will pay a much higher cost. Since they will pay more, the market allows them to charge more.
It comes down to this. A book for pleasure has value into only itself. Once you have read the story the book has a much lower value to you (unless you tend to read the same books multiple times). A tech book continues to have value as a reference (at least until it become outdated technology). It also often has a financial return to the user assuming they are using it for their job.
My problem is that there is very little financial distinction for the tech books that are useful and those that are worthless. If I pay $10 for a novel and the story is horrid, I'm usually more upset about the time I wasted than the money. If I shell out $40 - $60 and the author presents the material badly I get really ticked. Thank goodness for reviews (when they are accurate).
I find my motion sickness occurs for similar reasons. If other things are going on like puzzles, talking to characters, or killing (cut scenes like Tenchu or Manhunt really help) I can last almost indefinitely but 5 minutes of running around non-stop (i.e. having to retrace steps or search for some obscurely hidden object) can cause me problems. Better camera behavior for a game helps too.
The quality of the background also makes a difference. Paying attention to the fact that things at a distance should appear blurrier. If they make them sharp, you tend to focus on it when you move around and that is a world of hurt.
I've also found that the first time I play a new game I have to stop for awhile, but one I get used to the motion and it becomes more intuitive I usually don't have any further problems.
Then there's Turok:Evolution... The motion in that game is so counter-intuitive I wasn't able to last a full minute before having to lay down for half an hour to recover myself.
Mixed with shorter DVD release time is that home theaters are becoming cheaper and more advanced. THX/Dolby was something you used to only be able to experience in the theater, now you can have it at home.
Both consoles actually only cost about $10 to make. They use slave labor to produce them by hand.
They put out all of these stories about how they are losing money on each console so that you feel like you're getting a bargain at $400.
Don't fall for the lie!
So what you're saying is that you can either have your computer turned on, or have the program run, but not both.
One big problem with radioactivity is that people can't see it. That makes it scary. Coal might be worse for us, but people can see it and the smoke that it produces. Also, coal has been around a lot longer, people are used to it. Most people understand the basic idea of coal. You burn it. Just like wood. It's something they can do themselves. Nuclear power requires people with PhDs. While it may be an evil, it's a familiar evil. People fear change and people fear those things they cannot see or understand.
Plus add the association with nuclear weapons. While is may be safer overall, if something goes wrong it affects a large area. It's similar to airplanes vs. cars. While air travel is statistically safer, people are more scared of it partially because it takes out more people all at once.
Air disasters also get more news coverage than auto accidents. Similarly, the news rarely covers ongoing coal fires but any little thing happens at a nuclear power plant and it goes on for weeks.
Things like this add to the overall attitude against nuclear power.
Some researchers tend to lose sight of the process and try to "prove" a theory they have in their head. If you massage the data different ways, you can come up with different conclusions from the same data. Correlations are easy to find. Causes are more difficult and often require the researcher to have no preconceived notion as to what it is so as to not inadvertantly introduce their own bias (hence the reason double blind studies are used when possible).
I have seen far too many "professionals" try to sell an idea like it is a religious belief rather than a scientifically determined conclusion. Often because their research did not sufficiently prove their theory.
Personally I'm curious how much research was done on the environments themselves. Previously many "cancer clusters" were attributed to chemical dumpings or other plausible though not easily provable theories (such as power lines).
Given how accurate some people tend to be, I don't think either prevents urine from being on the surface. Using that argument seems like more of a red herring . I would actually rate the 'waterless' as more sanitary since, unlike a handle flush you never need to touch it. But of course if you wash your hands after you go to the bathroom, like people should, it really wouldn't matter.
I used to have one where I worked and some of the people there went to some interesting lengths to try to control the smell when the jatintorial staff wasn't quick enough with the filter replacements.
Before I would say it is an efficient water design, I'd have to see the figures on how many gallons of water get used to produce each filter. And also how much pollution is created for each one. It might end up as a wash, or even a loss when you actually consider all of the process.
I believe it is that last bit of italics from the article itself.
I wouldn't worry about the drunk ones. Even sober many people can't manage to drive decently in 2 dimensions. Add a third and you'll start seeing people falling out of the sky left and right.