The whole reason we have industrial farming is because meat tastes good and everyone wants some slightly worse tasting meat more often than some premium stuff less often. Sausage in the morning, beef at lunch and dinner and maybe even a midnight snack, the world is a meat eater's paradise. Yum yum.
I think vegetables fricking suck donkey dick. The only vegetables that don't suck are green beans and corn, and maybe potatoes - if you have some sort of butter and meat gravy to go with the potatoes, or fry them in beef fat. But eating alfafa and cauliflower and trying to pretend a bunch of mashed up sprouts is some kind of a hamburger, that sucks.
Knowing that an animal is self aware is part of the fun of killing it and eating it. You don't see lions or sharks waxing sentimental when they hunt and devour their prey do you? If the theory of man is that we are not so far from the animals that we think, then, why wouldn't we enjoy killing? Certainly the enjoyment of killing is a predictable response to evolution.
Sure, you can tell me that humans don't like it. Really, they don't like themselves being killed. But, I bet you could put a person on a train driving past a bunch of Buffalo and shoot them until they are almost extinct for no more purpose than the killing. Oh wait, we already did that!
I asked the Flying Spaghetti Monster if it was wrong to eat cows. He did not say so, so I'm chopping away!
I refuse to concede that any mere man has the right to tell me what is right vs what is wrong. Anyone else that believes in the ethicist as an arbiter of morality is a retard.
Three ex-sun developers didn't have Oracle kiss their rears and so they left and tried to get a little hype for themselves by saying their former masters are dying. Regardless of whether or not its true, the whole way they tried to get some press is pathetic. If they want to make news, make a product release with cool features.
I think it is fair to say that manned programs push the boundaries of engineering and with it, science. Just because we got a person to hang out in orbit or walk on the moon means that we are masters of it. There is a lot to learn.
Space science is a strategic priority for the United States or at least should be treated like one. If you need to have basic research and exploration, and I want my manned exploration, then let us geeks stand up for this one, double NASA's budget, and chop something else. Surely we can find 10B out of 150B a year of people that aren't really needing social security disability
Just from a species survival standpoint, it will be a LONG time before we have a self-sustaining base off-earth.
Not necessarily. The whole reason space is so expensive right now is because weight it is so absolutely critical, and that's only because space flight is at the very upper limit of what can be achieved through the use of chemical reactions. If we make a few breakthroughs in nuclear fusion, space flight becomes a lot easier, because you won't have to spend literally millions of dollars trying to balance saving a kilogram here or there among so many different priorities.
I swear Democrats just can't stand NASA and I have no idea why. The party has been consumed by this cancer of a Walter Mondale wing that says that any federal dime not being spent on the poor is just being wasted, and we see all of these people crawling out of the woodworks to rip one of the few government agencies that actually accomplished something.
I'm just drawing a blank at private companies that managed to break the sound barrier, explorer hypersonic flight, put people in orbit and then on the moon. I mean, it just doesn't exist.
Outsourcing as a form of magic for cost containment was a great and wonderful idea in the early 1990s, but that's pushing 20 years ago, and we have a federal budget that is bigger than it ever was. Give it a rest already. If outsourcing was so great, the F-22 would have been on time and budget, and the Navy's multiple procurement programs would also be working as planned. If you ask me, I'd be more amenable to actually putting the Navy back into the shipbuilding business, and the air force into the plane building business, and keeping NASA in the space business simply because the needs of these agencies are so incredibly specialized.
Asshole. No seriously, you might be a nice person, but harboring that value system makes you an asshole. Thankfully (hopefully?) your values are becoming the minority. Hell, five years ago, I would have been 100% with you buddy. But I've seen the light. Your line of thinking (and formerly mine) is not only inhumane, but honestly it is just logically unsound.
I think it is easy enough to say all that, that, we should all just chip in and pay, but, that somehow this socialized nonsense is morally better, but is it? The lion's share of all cancers are caused by voluntary exposures to carcinogens. What's really fair, asking society to pay $1,000,000 for one guy who smoked for fourty years, didn't pay a dime forward for his own obviously pending cancer expense, or, taking that money and, jeez, perhaps investing it in fusion research, space research, maybe college tuition for 20 people, k-12 school level education for 100 kids, or so on. I mean, health care costs -a lot- and it costs so much that you can't just wave "the you don't care" around like you are some kind of a goddamned pope. Frankly, if it were in my hands, I think you could make the argument that, given that 90% of all lung cancers are actually fatal, and the enormity of the expense, if society should even pay for aggressive lung cancer -at all-. If you don't want lung cancer, don't smoke.
The big problem is that confidential response section. At casual inspection, you might want to think that each question is pretty independent and Google is trying to be above board, but have some company confidential stuff inside that one question. But, this is corporate law and the most logical thing is to assume that the whole response might well be designed to deceive with the operative part being in the part that was redacted. I would almost never trust a redacted document as anything meant to do anything other than to deceive. If you are not providing the full information, you are not telling the truth. To withhold is to lie.
First off I wouldn't give the Onion too much credit for "foretelling the blade count war", because, every teenager and pre-teen has been making 22 blade razor jokes probably since they first made twin blade razors. It's not a big deal
Secondly, five bladed razors are better. The five blade Gilette Fusion is a wonderful razor. Having to use an old twin blade compared to the fusion is just terrible. In fact, my wife routinely steals mine (and a fresh blade), in order to do her legs. Lady's twin blade razors in cute little pink and white packages do not work as well as a good old five blade ultra sharp kick butt razor.
Bottom line is, if Gillette's research arm comes up with diamond tipped blades, or some sort of a ten bladed razor, then they've got my interest. Paying extra for a razor may seem like a waste to some, but after twenty or thirty years of shaving with crappy razors, those few extra bucks are money well spent. A good razor is worth it, and honestly, I could see a good mouse being worth it too.
You may not like most of it, but I think every reasonable person who is familiar with American Constitutional History should agree with this:
"The Constitution does not give the Congress the right to regulate guns, the Congress has no right to do so, regardless of whether there is a 2nd amendment or not. Nor does the Congress have the right to regulate speech, or religion, because there is no power granted to it by the Constitution. And, because the Constitution does not give the Congress the right to regulate the environment, the Congress has no right do do so. Since the Constitution does not give the Congress the right to regulate employment, education or any of many other things, it cannot. Conservatives, take note: The Constitution does not give the government the right to regulate marriage, either. The most constitutional opinion that there is, the one that correctly recognizes the Constitution for the treaty that is, is the one that holds that the citizens can have guns, be gay and be married, build whatever factory they want - within the confines of their state, can possess any item and say anything. That is freedom for the people."
Perhaps you should look into it, instead of reaching for dogma like "self-evident."
I should invite you to learn the history of the enlightenment and the idea that as human beings we have innate rights because we are sorta all children of the Almighty.. but Jefferson summed it up best in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident... We are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
The idea of the Decl of Independence, and the Constitution, is that governments are instituted by the people and are given limited powers by them to secure everyone's rights. The idea of the Constitution is that, if the Constitution does not give the government a right, the government does not have that power.
Indeed, in Jefferson Madison's letters, many people were actually irate that a Bill of Rights existed, because, they were correctly afraid that it would be taken to mean the Bill of Rights were the only "rights" we had. The fact is, if we ripped up the bill of rights, we would still have freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of everything else, from gay marriage to owning guns, simply because the federal government has absolutely no right to make any of those laws whatsover.
Right, like how the Soviet Union kicked our asses in the 1960s and 70s, because they weren't hobbled by safety and health regulations, and could use nuclear power to its full potential...
I would rather prefer to think of the end of the Cold War as not so much a victory for the United States but a triumph for all involved. I'm quite sure there were as many Russians wondering why they should blow themselves up in a nuclear holocaust over Warsaw as we did wondering why we should blow ourselves up over Berlin.
If the Russians had focused on the strategy of building ever smaller electronics, building computers rather than titanium hulled submarines, mach 3 fighters, space stations, robots on the moon and all the other things they did that they we did only much later or not at all, then, the cold war could have turned out very differently.
As it is, you have to view the Cold War as a rather remarkable feat that the Russians were able to make a go of it as long as they did. Imagine if the Germans had killed as many Americans as they had Russians during World War II, the Cold War could have turned out very differently.
Hell, the Russians had more people killed in the first months of World War II than the USA has had killed in all of its wars combined. Do you think Americans are that tough? I would like to think we are but I do not ever want to have to find out and I would much rather give the Russians the credit and respect they deserve as allies in World War II, and as a worthy adversary today, and as probably the most important power in continental Europe today.
In the case of Enron, you are confusing ISOs/RTOs with end customers. In the case of California blackouts and manipulation, they didn't do anything wrong. Where they were wrong is they stated they had this big bandwidth business they were building, but they couldn't get it to work, so they just made everything up.
The scenario that you describe tends not to happen because most people that big have industrial agreements with fixed prices for power. I've seen electric bills for guys like steel mills that use up 3MW to well, melt metal with. Or, an oil refinery. Those guys get bills based on a tariff which has a fixed demand price coupled with a fixed price per kw consumed.. so, any spot pricing fluctuations they are insulated from. There are minimum usage requirements that most of these guys meet.
All of our inhibitions about nuclear power is why we are doomed. Actually even wrote about this previously... the real danger to the west is not nuclear proliferation from atomic bombs, but from third world countries adopting nuclear mining, nuclear aircraft, nuclear ships, and nuclear spacecraft and pretty much leaving the west behind in a windmill driven green feel good stone ages.
Electricity costs are something you measure based on tariffs. If you have a load curve of a pattern, one particular place is the best place to be, so you can just move your building there.
Reminds me of the Tasha Yar memorial video they played on ST:TNG after she got killed. After watching that thing, I decided that I was pretty happy that she got whacked.
Slashdot Mirror
We're humans, we'd install it even more....
The whole reason we have industrial farming is because meat tastes good and everyone wants some slightly worse tasting meat more often than some premium stuff less often. Sausage in the morning, beef at lunch and dinner and maybe even a midnight snack, the world is a meat eater's paradise. Yum yum.
I think vegetables fricking suck donkey dick. The only vegetables that don't suck are green beans and corn, and maybe potatoes - if you have some sort of butter and meat gravy to go with the potatoes, or fry them in beef fat. But eating alfafa and cauliflower and trying to pretend a bunch of mashed up sprouts is some kind of a hamburger, that sucks.
Knowing that an animal is self aware is part of the fun of killing it and eating it. You don't see lions or sharks waxing sentimental when they hunt and devour their prey do you? If the theory of man is that we are not so far from the animals that we think, then, why wouldn't we enjoy killing? Certainly the enjoyment of killing is a predictable response to evolution.
Sure, you can tell me that humans don't like it. Really, they don't like themselves being killed. But, I bet you could put a person on a train driving past a bunch of Buffalo and shoot them until they are almost extinct for no more purpose than the killing. Oh wait, we already did that!
I asked the Flying Spaghetti Monster if it was wrong to eat cows. He did not say so, so I'm chopping away!
I refuse to concede that any mere man has the right to tell me what is right vs what is wrong. Anyone else that believes in the ethicist as an arbiter of morality is a retard.
16 million visits a day...man, all you had to do is flash an occasional link to your site, what, 1 in a 1000 times? Man oh man...
Spark CPUs
Hey Sun Expert! Sparc is spelled with a C, not a K
Just, uh, throwing that out there.
Three ex-sun developers didn't have Oracle kiss their rears and so they left and tried to get a little hype for themselves by saying their former masters are dying. Regardless of whether or not its true, the whole way they tried to get some press is pathetic. If they want to make news, make a product release with cool features.
I think it is fair to say that manned programs push the boundaries of engineering and with it, science. Just because we got a person to hang out in orbit or walk on the moon means that we are masters of it. There is a lot to learn.
Space science is a strategic priority for the United States or at least should be treated like one. If you need to have basic research and exploration, and I want my manned exploration, then let us geeks stand up for this one, double NASA's budget, and chop something else. Surely we can find 10B out of 150B a year of people that aren't really needing social security disability
What about the lung cancer not caused by smoking?
There's actually -not- that much, in the grand scheme of things. Lung cancer was a rare disease until the advent of smoking.
Just from a species survival standpoint, it will be a LONG time before we have a self-sustaining base off-earth.
Not necessarily. The whole reason space is so expensive right now is because weight it is so absolutely critical, and that's only because space flight is at the very upper limit of what can be achieved through the use of chemical reactions. If we make a few breakthroughs in nuclear fusion, space flight becomes a lot easier, because you won't have to spend literally millions of dollars trying to balance saving a kilogram here or there among so many different priorities.
I swear Democrats just can't stand NASA and I have no idea why. The party has been consumed by this cancer of a Walter Mondale wing that says that any federal dime not being spent on the poor is just being wasted, and we see all of these people crawling out of the woodworks to rip one of the few government agencies that actually accomplished something.
I'm just drawing a blank at private companies that managed to break the sound barrier, explorer hypersonic flight, put people in orbit and then on the moon. I mean, it just doesn't exist.
Outsourcing as a form of magic for cost containment was a great and wonderful idea in the early 1990s, but that's pushing 20 years ago, and we have a federal budget that is bigger than it ever was. Give it a rest already. If outsourcing was so great, the F-22 would have been on time and budget, and the Navy's multiple procurement programs would also be working as planned. If you ask me, I'd be more amenable to actually putting the Navy back into the shipbuilding business, and the air force into the plane building business, and keeping NASA in the space business simply because the needs of these agencies are so incredibly specialized.
Asshole. No seriously, you might be a nice person, but harboring that value system makes you an asshole. Thankfully (hopefully?) your values are becoming the minority. Hell, five years ago, I would have been 100% with you buddy. But I've seen the light. Your line of thinking (and formerly mine) is not only inhumane, but honestly it is just logically unsound.
I think it is easy enough to say all that, that, we should all just chip in and pay, but, that somehow this socialized nonsense is morally better, but is it? The lion's share of all cancers are caused by voluntary exposures to carcinogens. What's really fair, asking society to pay $1,000,000 for one guy who smoked for fourty years, didn't pay a dime forward for his own obviously pending cancer expense, or, taking that money and, jeez, perhaps investing it in fusion research, space research, maybe college tuition for 20 people, k-12 school level education for 100 kids, or so on. I mean, health care costs -a lot- and it costs so much that you can't just wave "the you don't care" around like you are some kind of a goddamned pope. Frankly, if it were in my hands, I think you could make the argument that, given that 90% of all lung cancers are actually fatal, and the enormity of the expense, if society should even pay for aggressive lung cancer -at all-. If you don't want lung cancer, don't smoke.
The big problem is that confidential response section. At casual inspection, you might want to think that each question is pretty independent and Google is trying to be above board, but have some company confidential stuff inside that one question. But, this is corporate law and the most logical thing is to assume that the whole response might well be designed to deceive with the operative part being in the part that was redacted. I would almost never trust a redacted document as anything meant to do anything other than to deceive. If you are not providing the full information, you are not telling the truth. To withhold is to lie.
First off I wouldn't give the Onion too much credit for "foretelling the blade count war", because, every teenager and pre-teen has been making 22 blade razor jokes probably since they first made twin blade razors. It's not a big deal
Secondly, five bladed razors are better. The five blade Gilette Fusion is a wonderful razor. Having to use an old twin blade compared to the fusion is just terrible. In fact, my wife routinely steals mine (and a fresh blade), in order to do her legs. Lady's twin blade razors in cute little pink and white packages do not work as well as a good old five blade ultra sharp kick butt razor.
Bottom line is, if Gillette's research arm comes up with diamond tipped blades, or some sort of a ten bladed razor, then they've got my interest. Paying extra for a razor may seem like a waste to some, but after twenty or thirty years of shaving with crappy razors, those few extra bucks are money well spent. A good razor is worth it, and honestly, I could see a good mouse being worth it too.
Perhaps you should look into it, instead of reaching for dogma like "self-evident."
You mean, like Thomas Jefferson did?
I put it all into context. Today's conservatives and liberals both have it wrong. The people give government limited powers, not the other way around.
http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/onjudicialactivism.aspx
You may not like most of it, but I think every reasonable person who is familiar with American Constitutional History should agree with this:
"The Constitution does not give the Congress the right to regulate guns, the Congress has no right to do so, regardless of whether there is a 2nd amendment or not. Nor does the Congress have the right to regulate speech, or religion, because there is no power granted to it by the Constitution. And, because the Constitution does not give the Congress the right to regulate the environment, the Congress has no right do do so. Since the Constitution does not give the Congress the right to regulate employment, education or any of many other things, it cannot. Conservatives, take note: The Constitution does not give the government the right to regulate marriage, either. The most constitutional opinion that there is, the one that correctly recognizes the Constitution for the treaty that is, is the one that holds that the citizens can have guns, be gay and be married, build whatever factory they want - within the confines of their state, can possess any item and say anything. That is freedom for the people."
Perhaps you should look into it, instead of reaching for dogma like "self-evident."
I should invite you to learn the history of the enlightenment and the idea that as human beings we have innate rights because we are sorta all children of the Almighty.. but Jefferson summed it up best in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident... We are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
The idea of the Decl of Independence, and the Constitution, is that governments are instituted by the people and are given limited powers by them to secure everyone's rights. The idea of the Constitution is that, if the Constitution does not give the government a right, the government does not have that power.
Indeed, in Jefferson Madison's letters, many people were actually irate that a Bill of Rights existed, because, they were correctly afraid that it would be taken to mean the Bill of Rights were the only "rights" we had. The fact is, if we ripped up the bill of rights, we would still have freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of everything else, from gay marriage to owning guns, simply because the federal government has absolutely no right to make any of those laws whatsover.
Right, like how the Soviet Union kicked our asses in the 1960s and 70s, because they weren't hobbled by safety and health regulations, and could use nuclear power to its full potential...
I would rather prefer to think of the end of the Cold War as not so much a victory for the United States but a triumph for all involved. I'm quite sure there were as many Russians wondering why they should blow themselves up in a nuclear holocaust over Warsaw as we did wondering why we should blow ourselves up over Berlin.
If the Russians had focused on the strategy of building ever smaller electronics, building computers rather than titanium hulled submarines, mach 3 fighters, space stations, robots on the moon and all the other things they did that they we did only much later or not at all, then, the cold war could have turned out very differently.
As it is, you have to view the Cold War as a rather remarkable feat that the Russians were able to make a go of it as long as they did. Imagine if the Germans had killed as many Americans as they had Russians during World War II, the Cold War could have turned out very differently.
Hell, the Russians had more people killed in the first months of World War II than the USA has had killed in all of its wars combined. Do you think Americans are that tough? I would like to think we are but I do not ever want to have to find out and I would much rather give the Russians the credit and respect they deserve as allies in World War II, and as a worthy adversary today, and as probably the most important power in continental Europe today.
In the case of Enron, you are confusing ISOs/RTOs with end customers. In the case of California blackouts and manipulation, they didn't do anything wrong. Where they were wrong is they stated they had this big bandwidth business they were building, but they couldn't get it to work, so they just made everything up.
The scenario that you describe tends not to happen because most people that big have industrial agreements with fixed prices for power. I've seen electric bills for guys like steel mills that use up 3MW to well, melt metal with. Or, an oil refinery. Those guys get bills based on a tariff which has a fixed demand price coupled with a fixed price per kw consumed.. so, any spot pricing fluctuations they are insulated from. There are minimum usage requirements that most of these guys meet.
All of our inhibitions about nuclear power is why we are doomed. Actually even wrote about this previously... the real danger to the west is not nuclear proliferation from atomic bombs, but from third world countries adopting nuclear mining, nuclear aircraft, nuclear ships, and nuclear spacecraft and pretty much leaving the west behind in a windmill driven green feel good stone ages.
Electricity costs are something you measure based on tariffs. If you have a load curve of a pattern, one particular place is the best place to be, so you can just move your building there.
Facebook announces that it will open up a new data center in Ontario.
It is unpatriotic to question a president during health care reform. Payback's a bitch, isn't it?
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism....
[yes, it sure is]
Wrong. It doesnt apply to everyone. It does not apply to public servants, nor does it apply to people who put themselves in the public eye
That's ridiculous. Rights are self-evident things that we all have.
If you don't like, we'll be happy to throw you up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Reminds me of the Tasha Yar memorial video they played on ST:TNG after she got killed. After watching that thing, I decided that I was pretty happy that she got whacked.