I have Roku and use it with Amazon Video (among other stuff).
It's pretty easy to use. Just make sure their TV is set to the right video input source and that it stays there. You don't want a late night phone call trying to explain how to switch between HDMI1, HDMI2, AV, TV...
I do web programming on a team, in a business that is not a "tech business". We also have a back-end "mainframe", etc. ASP.NET and JavaScript on the web, VB.NET and other stuff on the back end.
I'm in my forties, and I'm the *youngest* on the team.
There is *one* maniacal manager in the whole company who regularly dreams of outsourcing our functions... and fails like Wile E. Coyote every time:)
Everyone else knows that we do good work, knows that we are cost effective, and doesn't give a #$% about our ages.
Contrast that with what people believe just north of the border [angus-reid.com] - only 22% agree that god created humans within the last 10,000 years. 59% believe in evolution.
So maybe you haven't thought deeply enough about this... are you suggesting genetic differences in intelligence across the border? Or what?
Or maybe, just maybe, the difference in beliefs isn't linked to intelligence...
First of all, I'm not speaking from theory, but from knowledge.
Secondly, think about it. Everything in the sub from the bodies to the machinery makes heat. It has to be transferred out and the only place it can go is into the sea. The only question (and it's not a question, I know how it is done, or was, anyway) is how.
My dad was an engineer for a Naval submarine shipyard. He told me that thermoelectric panels attached to the inside of the hull cooled the submarine silently when a voltage was applied.
Hope that wasn't classified or anything - but then Dad passed away a while back.
Let's just say I doubt it. Especially if it was "a while back". Won't say why, but trust me.
Anyway, the sea is an awesome heat sink - especially if you go down a bit in the right oceans. Just put your soda can on any seawater pipe. It's not that hard to cool a submarine conventionally (with seawater as the heat sink instead of air).
The article's assertion that there's a propaganda machine working on behalf of global warming theorists is outside the bounds of the data, which I think is interesting to note.
Why? Folks who have been pounded on the head with propaganda can't take just a little pleasure in refuting it with valid data? Their pleasure somehow magically invalidates the data?
Still no non-opinion site hits for this on Google News, by the way...
Sure, the blogger did find a Y2K anomaly, but this doesn't discredit global warming the least; it just shows that the US isn't warming quite like the rest of the world.
Now, how can that be, since the US is supposedly GlobalWarningZilla? And the lone holdout against Kyoto-paradise?:)
For example, with bacteria, we can easily prove/disprove aspects of microevolution, and macroevolution ("evolutionary historical theory") just builds on top of microevolution.
You just did it again. You said that we can experimentally test genetic drift under pressure in bacteria (true), and then did some handwaving to imply that this proves something experimentally about the history of life.
Ken Hovind and Ken Ham are two completely different people.
And if I recall correctly (I don't know much about Hovind), they even have very different types of creationism.
So trying to insinuate antisemitism in Ham by vaguely linking the two people is silly. Just like the later thing in the story trying to link some vague "investigation" of Ham with actual tax evasion by Hovind.
It's just stupid. It's like "they're both creationists named Ken! One was convicted of something, so they both must be crooked!"
>The US looks more and more like Iran or the Taliban.
The funny part is that the *actual* Taliban really doesn't bother you guys. Actual, murderous barbarians are just bogeymen that we aren't supposed to be worried about, right? They're not a real threat, right?
Not being from US, I don't wholly understand this attitude of "I am (insert political mindset), therefore I am voting for (insert associated candidate)". Is this a common behavior?
Well, it's not as much fun as jumping up and down in the street and then burning something down, but we get by.
US announced sweeping controls of radiowaves whereby an oligarchy of a dozen media companies will promptly fire anyone who contradicts the official culture by quoting a best selling rap singer.
If you really can't see the difference, then I'm not sure what to say to you.
P.J. O'Rourke is a bit harsh (I would choose a different last word for the quote) but he's pithy:
>When a "man" (a boy by today's standards) was expected to >shoulder a rifle and defend his home, family, or country >when it was time?
Exactly. Pretty much everybody had a gun, and approximately nobody took it to school and shot up their classmates. Something was different. What?
What I'm suggesting is:
A. Parents in the 1800s were (on average) much more vigorous about teaching, directing, and disciplining their children, including regulating what "entertainment" they consumed
and
B. This had salutary effects, rather than producing automatic rebellion as is usually claimed here.
There are plenty of mods who feel "overrated" is there to be used on comments with which they disagree.
So, let's say a post is rated +5 Insightful. Yet, I have mod points, and I do not think it is at all "Insightful". Is it actually wrong for me to mod it "Overrated"?
>WTF people? IF and WHEN something like this happens >to you, you will change your tune VERY quickly.
Yep. Nobody is *really* a relativist. The coolest punk or the smarmiest professor turns positively Puritan when it's *their* stuff stolen, *their* face punched, *their* wife raped.
Slashdot Mirror
So, Amazon then. (I wasn't logged in before ...)
I have Roku and use it with Amazon Video (among other stuff).
It's pretty easy to use. Just make sure their TV is set to the right video input source and that it stays there. You don't want a late night phone call trying to explain how to switch between HDMI1, HDMI2, AV, TV ...
I do web programming on a team, in a business that is not a "tech business". We also have a back-end "mainframe", etc. ASP.NET and JavaScript on the web, VB.NET and other stuff on the back end. I'm in my forties, and I'm the *youngest* on the team. There is *one* maniacal manager in the whole company who regularly dreams of outsourcing our functions ... and fails like Wile E. Coyote every time :)
Everyone else knows that we do good work, knows that we are cost effective, and doesn't give a #$% about our ages.
Readable. Restrained graphics. Actual information amongst the sales talk. Decent navigation.
Oh Internet, I weep for thee! What happened?
Contrast that with what people believe just north of the border [angus-reid.com] - only 22% agree that god created humans within the last 10,000 years. 59% believe in evolution.
... are you suggesting genetic differences in intelligence across the border? Or what?
...
So maybe you haven't thought deeply enough about this
Or maybe, just maybe, the difference in beliefs isn't linked to intelligence
First of all, I'm not speaking from theory, but from knowledge.
Secondly, think about it. Everything in the sub from the bodies to the machinery makes heat. It has to be transferred out and the only place it can go is into the sea. The only question (and it's not a question, I know how it is done, or was, anyway) is how.
My dad was an engineer for a Naval submarine shipyard. He told me that thermoelectric panels attached to the inside of the hull cooled the submarine silently when a voltage was applied.
Hope that wasn't classified or anything - but then Dad passed away a while back.
Let's just say I doubt it. Especially if it was "a while back". Won't say why, but trust me.
Anyway, the sea is an awesome heat sink - especially if you go down a bit in the right oceans. Just put your soda can on any seawater pipe. It's not that hard to cool a submarine conventionally (with seawater as the heat sink instead of air).
>let's say you're in the US on an interstate and the :-)
...
>president is a Republican
Yikes. How many things are wrong with this
1. The President doesn't control funds to repair Interstate bridges.
2. Democrats are controlling Congress, which does control funds to repair Interstate bridges.
3. Neither party has changed anything much, when it comes to funds to repair Interstate bridges.
The article's assertion that there's a propaganda machine working on behalf of global warming theorists is outside the bounds of the data, which I think is interesting to note.
...
Why? Folks who have been pounded on the head with propaganda can't take just a little pleasure in refuting it with valid data? Their pleasure somehow magically invalidates the data?
Still no non-opinion site hits for this on Google News, by the way
Sure, the blogger did find a Y2K anomaly, but this doesn't discredit global warming the least; it just shows that the US isn't warming quite like the rest of the world.
:)
Now, how can that be, since the US is supposedly GlobalWarningZilla? And the lone holdout against Kyoto-paradise?
For example, with bacteria, we can easily prove/disprove aspects of microevolution, and macroevolution ("evolutionary historical theory") just builds on top of microevolution.
You just did it again. You said that we can experimentally test genetic drift under pressure in bacteria (true), and then did some handwaving to imply that this proves something experimentally about the history of life.
It shows how far fundamentalists can go to counter Reason in a
way that hasn't been seen in France for centuries.
True, our farmers just lobby for government support, instead of
rioting. Clearly we have a ways to go to approach French "Reason".
>A "hypothesis" that cannot be proved wrong also cannot be proved
>correct, and therefore isn't a hypothesis.
So you're saying that the evolutionary historical theory
can't be called a hypothesis, right?
Or have you run a few multi-billion year trials with
duplicate Earths?
>Your snark aside, he didn't make that up
Well, yeah, actually he did.
Ken Hovind and Ken Ham are two completely different
people.
And if I recall correctly (I don't know much about Hovind),
they even have very different types of creationism.
So trying to insinuate antisemitism in Ham by vaguely
linking the two people is silly. Just like the later
thing in the story trying to link some vague
"investigation" of Ham with actual tax evasion by Hovind.
It's just stupid. It's like "they're both creationists
named Ken! One was convicted of something, so they both
must be crooked!"
>The US looks more and more like Iran or the Taliban.
The funny part is that the *actual* Taliban really doesn't
bother you guys. Actual, murderous barbarians are
just bogeymen that we aren't supposed to be worried
about, right? They're not a real threat, right?
>For your edification I copied out the central "argument" for you
>to mock (er, I mean discuss.)
So, if there weren't any nasty recessive genes around yet, why
would it be a genetic problem again? Or is your point
something else?
>At least their reactor failed to "off" this time...
It didn't just "fail to off", they manually shut it down. They followed procedures and placed it in a safe condition. No need to sensationalize it.
Not being from US, I don't wholly understand this attitude of "I am (insert political mindset), therefore I am voting for (insert associated candidate)". Is this a common behavior?
Well, it's not as much fun as jumping up and down in the street and then burning something down, but we get by.
US announced sweeping controls of radiowaves whereby an oligarchy of a dozen media companies will promptly fire anyone who contradicts the official culture by quoting a best selling rap singer.
If you really can't see the difference, then I'm not sure what to say to you.
P.J. O'Rourke is a bit harsh (I would choose a different last word for the quote) but he's pithy:
"Life is full of ironies for the stupid".
And then when my tax bill came at last, it would feel like a hardship.
... which is why we have withholding.
And then you might, like, vote to have less money taken from you by the government. Can't be having that
>And, frankly, I don't care if they get "naked
...
>and freaky on their webcams." Here's what I'm
>worried about:
> 2. my kids getting an STD.
> 5. my kids getting pregnant before they're
> ready to take care of a child.
I'm pretty sure there's some overlap between
those sets
>When a "man" (a boy by today's standards) was expected to
>shoulder a rifle and defend his home, family, or country
>when it was time?
Exactly. Pretty much everybody had a gun, and approximately
nobody took it to school and shot up their classmates.
Something was different. What?
What I'm suggesting is:
A. Parents in the 1800s were (on average) much more vigorous
about teaching, directing, and disciplining their children,
including regulating what "entertainment" they consumed
and
B. This had salutary effects, rather than producing automatic
rebellion as is usually claimed here.
Care to deny this?
... I just love the /. meme about how "sheltering" kids and disciplining them means automatic rebellion and automatic worse outcomes.
That explains all those girls gone wild and drive by shootings in the 1800s. I was wondering about that.
There are plenty of mods who feel "overrated" is there to be used on comments with which they disagree.
So, let's say a post is rated +5 Insightful. Yet, I have mod points, and I do not think it is at all "Insightful". Is it actually wrong for me to mod it "Overrated"?
True, I "disagree", but how else could it work?
>WTF people? IF and WHEN something like this happens
>to you, you will change your tune VERY quickly.
Yep. Nobody is *really* a relativist. The coolest punk
or the smarmiest professor turns positively Puritan
when it's *their* stuff stolen, *their* face punched,
*their* wife raped.