How well does this thing work with child callers, or those with developmental disabilities who do not respond 'normally' to emergency situations?
Or how does it work with people who just don't flip out easily? As an ex firefighter, I don't stress out easily. Panicking or stressing out is for AFTER the emergency when you have time. When I have to make an emergency call, I'm not enormously stressed at all - I'm just focusing on getting across the required information as clearly as possible.
I think it's incredible how safe their reactors are and when you consider what has happened, I think this should calm many people's fear of nuclear energy.
Now, the disposal of the waste....
Especially when one considers that this is at an OLD plant. The new reactors being developed in China literally cannot melt down. Even if you stop the coolant completely.
Oooooh yeah! So how exactly is a human being supposed to shift to energy and shoot down the phoneline again? It must be those new-fangled computers with magic powers again!!!
Treating them like an adult ("why do you say that Windows is a load of pigs' livers?") will maybe get them to respond to the question in an adult-sense (come back, Eric Berne...) but life's too short.
Just don't respond, add them to your ignore list and do something more productive.
I agree. The approach in the article might work for some trolls, but only those who have an agenda related to the topic being discussed in some way. Goatse trolls. How do you respond to that? "Yes, it's ok you like stretched arseholes and bowel lining. Thank you for sharing?!?!" Or anti-semitic/racist comments? Seriously, 'don't feed the trolls' is still the best advice in most cases.
I still remember the nightmares I had after trying to get the stupid winmodem to work.. FFFFUUU!!
Sheesh. It could take hours to get one of those f****ing things to work! Even now that dial-up is largely a thing of the past in wealthier Western nations, it's commonly used in Eastern Europe and poorer nations around the world - and winmodem support is still crap.
I would recommend trying Arch. I started at Ubuntu but due to PPA hell I just installed Arch instead of adding repositories left and right just to get the latest software.
PPA certainly dull in comparison to the AUR! I also recommend Arch wholeheartedly for those who are a bit more advanced.
Over the past 2 years the government printed off a trillion dollars and sold the debt to itself. If it really wanted to it could *buy* the 800 billion that China owns pretty easy. Not to mention the fact that if America goes into that big a depression the effect on the rest of the world will be extremely ugly. Food riots would be much more common, among other things
This is probably why the rest of the world has been distancing itself from the US economy. You forgetting however that the more money the US gov prints, the less it is worth. Even if they buy the debt themselves. How do they do that? By selling government bonds. To Japan and China. So no, they can't buy themselves out of debt that way. Germany tried paying debts by just printing money in the early 30's and destroyed what was left of their economy after WW1. In fact that's one of the things that created the opening for Hitler to gain power.
If a US court had any rights to judge over what happened on foreign soil, perhaps. It doesn't. It's a stupid case and a waste of money on the side of the plaintiff. China was kind enough to actually acknowledge it with a letter. It needn't have.
The absurdity of claiming $2.3B in any copyright suit aside...
It would be hilarious if we reneged on our foreign debts by using RIAA math to value the IP "stolen" from the US in the trillions, and seize foreign capital as "compensation."
This does happen in the case of tangible assets such as oil, so I guess the fact we don't do the same for intellectual property is a tacit admission of some distinction between them vs other types of property.
Hilarious? If China didn't hold the upper hand so completely perhaps. Currently though, all China has to do is put all it's US gov bonds on the market at once to plunge the USA into a depression like it's never seen before. It won't do that however as long as the US is buying Chinese products - protecting China's export economy. That's the only reason China has kept the US going.
With the power that China currently has over the US though, it was nice of them to even send a letter. I don't think that the USA is in any position to be threatening anything.
I use vim because it's nice and easy while being powerful - as well as the fact that it's already installed on pretty much every Linux and Unix (Macs too for memory) system out there. I use vi for most text files and config files, but use gedit for coding - it has nice tag colouring and I can have many files open at once in tabs.
I must admit that I haven't used emacs more than once or twice. A mate of mine used to prefer emacs for working with LaTex.
The IIe wasn't released until 1983. It would have been the Apple II, which was still a cool little machine. (Ok, I've still got two of them in the shed...)
Ridiculous. The negative side of China's rise to power is not the color of their skin, but the dismissal of human rights by their federal government.
and what respect for human rights has the US government shown? Iraq war crimes, Afghanistan, Guantanimo, water-boarding of POW's, not to mention the level of spying on it's own citizens as well as now the mainstream humiliation of it's own citizens by the TSA and agent provocateur methods used by the FBI against muslim citizens. AK Marc is right. The elephant in the room is just a mix of xenophobia, rabid nationalism and a hatred of opposing political ideals.
The USA has nothing and never has had any right to boast about it's human rights record. It's bathed in the blood of other nations from it's birth. Sheesh the country can't even get it together enough to care for it's own poor, sick and elderly.
Yes, but let's not lump the sarcastic one-liners of Skeptic's Annotated Bible [skepticsan...dbible.com] in the same category as, for instance, errancy.org [errancy.org], who makes a genuine attempt to analyze biblical errors in the proper context.
I had a look at errancy.org. Sorry. Whoever writes this site, while he's got a few points, so often misses the point of the Scripture he is criticising and makes his own interpretation which is OUT of context.
I myself have a few points where I question the Bible. I'm not however going to throw the whole away for a couple of lines.
And actually it's not hard to believe in God creating the universe while being in line with science: After all, the big bang theory is scientific consensus at this point.
Science being the exploration of the physical realm should not bring it into conflict with the exploration of the non-physical realms under most circumstances. Personally I find that creation of the universe by a divine being makes a lot more sense.
Sorry I haven't been able to get back to you before.
But by an large criticism of evolution as a science is uninformed.
Fully agree.
On the other hand most of the critics of Christianity that I'm am familiar with are more familiar with the tenets of Christianity and the text of the Christian Bible(s) than the supporters of Christianity are.
I must say that you must get around with far more sophisticated critics of Christianity. The majority of what I've ever heard or read is recycled and poorly understood trash based on late 19th and 20th century materialists. Ie. those who refuse to believe in the supernatural anyway and will do any kind of mental back-flip to try and disprove it. Ie. they have some ideas that are generally based on poor exegesis of the texts or loose (generally anachronistic) comparisons between Christian beliefs and those of other ancient religions.
They are usually more aware of where we get specific dogma (such as literal interpretation of the creation myths
A literal interpretation of the Creation account isn't just dogma. It's well borne out in the later Scriptures and has been generally followed through most of Church history.
where the YEC estimate for the age of the earth comes from
I'd ask most most supporters of evolution and the 'big bang' to substantiate their claims for the age of the Earth or the Universe. Most will have a vague notion of 4 billion years, most won't know if that is for the Earth or the Universe or will say 'both'. All they are generally doing is spouting modern scientific dogma - for notions that are held rigidly without known proof just because your scientific 'seniors' (the Discovery channel) told you so is just plain old dogma.People should really try and understand what they believe.
how old the concept of the Rapture is
While there are varying understandings of the Rapture, the basic belief is based quite solidly on Scripture. I must say however that I do find popular interpretations, such as portrayed in the 'Left Behind' stuff to be a bit strange and not perhaps as true to the Scriptural origin of the ideas as they could be.
In fact it is often deep understanding the history and writings of the Christian religion that initially leads people to the conclusion that it's not the least bit consistent or believable.
That's strange. You see, it was a study of the Scriptures that led me to the opposite conclusion, but I studied them in more depth than most people do including studying Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew at university level. I also did quite a bit of study in exegetical tools ie. critical analysis tools. Textual, historical and propositional analysis etc. and became quite convinced of the authenticity of the Scriptures.
At the risk of opening the proverbial can of worms, some of the basic ideas often associated with young Earth creationism that I've seen on/. would be; the idea that God created, the role of assumptions (worldview) in interpretation of evidence, unprovable assumptions in the application of some radiation dating methods and of course the idea that the Earth itself could be much younger that theorised. These are some basic ideas that I've read in comments on/.
Personally I don't have a problem with proper debate, so I don't mind if people disagree with me. I do prefer however that if people are going to try and argue with me they actually try and understand what they are arguing instead of just regurgitating what they saw on the Discovery Channel. On the other hand as someone with some years of theological study behind me, the usual anti-religion and anti-bible rants bore me to tears with their general lack of rational study or often even reasonable intelligence. Christians who argue without understanding also annoy me.
I think that whatever people choose to believe and whatever they choose to argue, they should actually do their best to know what they believe and WHY they believe it. Each person has a responsibility to choose, at least to some degree, their own destiny. Making an informed decision on what we believe to be true is a basic start to that end.
I am a young earth creationist, but have some manners. I don't flame. I don't even bother arguing with people who refuse to debate properly or examine the many sides of the argument. For those who believe in an old Earth and evolution (whichever version) by their own choice and after examining the issues, then good for them. Many people choose just to follow what they were taught in school and on TV. I have no time for these ignorant people who have not considered things for themselves.
There are also young Earth creationists who have not examined the issues on both sides. Sheesh. Not fond of them either. I came to be a young Earth creationist through studying the arguments each way, studying as much of the evidence as I could (I continue to read up on new theories or discoveries) and then making the best decision that I could. I've noticed quite a few people here on/. who quietly support young Earth ideas. Sometimes they get flamed, but they all seem to be intelligent people who have considered what they believe and know why they believe it. Gotta respect that. Now I predict that no-one will flame me... Haha. Some chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm. Backing up booby porn?
How well does this thing work with child callers, or those with developmental disabilities who do not respond 'normally' to emergency situations?
Or how does it work with people who just don't flip out easily? As an ex firefighter, I don't stress out easily. Panicking or stressing out is for AFTER the emergency when you have time. When I have to make an emergency call, I'm not enormously stressed at all - I'm just focusing on getting across the required information as clearly as possible.
I think it's incredible how safe their reactors are and when you consider what has happened, I think this should calm many people's fear of nuclear energy.
Now, the disposal of the waste ....
Especially when one considers that this is at an OLD plant. The new reactors being developed in China literally cannot melt down. Even if you stop the coolant completely.
Basically the whole movie.
Oooooh yeah! So how exactly is a human being supposed to shift to energy and shoot down the phoneline again? It must be those new-fangled computers with magic powers again!!!
Treating them like an adult ("why do you say that Windows is a load of pigs' livers?") will maybe get them to respond to the question in an adult-sense (come back, Eric Berne...) but life's too short.
Just don't respond, add them to your ignore list and do something more productive.
I agree. The approach in the article might work for some trolls, but only those who have an agenda related to the topic being discussed in some way. Goatse trolls. How do you respond to that? "Yes, it's ok you like stretched arseholes and bowel lining. Thank you for sharing?!?!" Or anti-semitic/racist comments? Seriously, 'don't feed the trolls' is still the best advice in most cases.
I still remember the nightmares I had after trying to get the stupid winmodem to work.. FFFFUUU!!
Sheesh. It could take hours to get one of those f****ing things to work! Even now that dial-up is largely a thing of the past in wealthier Western nations, it's commonly used in Eastern Europe and poorer nations around the world - and winmodem support is still crap.
I would recommend trying Arch. I started at Ubuntu but due to PPA hell I just installed Arch instead of adding repositories left and right just to get the latest software.
PPA certainly dull in comparison to the AUR! I also recommend Arch wholeheartedly for those who are a bit more advanced.
Over the past 2 years the government printed off a trillion dollars and sold the debt to itself. If it really wanted to it could *buy* the 800 billion that China owns pretty easy. Not to mention the fact that if America goes into that big a depression the effect on the rest of the world will be extremely ugly. Food riots would be much more common, among other things
This is probably why the rest of the world has been distancing itself from the US economy. You forgetting however that the more money the US gov prints, the less it is worth. Even if they buy the debt themselves. How do they do that? By selling government bonds. To Japan and China. So no, they can't buy themselves out of debt that way. Germany tried paying debts by just printing money in the early 30's and destroyed what was left of their economy after WW1. In fact that's one of the things that created the opening for Hitler to gain power.
If a US court had any rights to judge over what happened on foreign soil, perhaps. It doesn't. It's a stupid case and a waste of money on the side of the plaintiff. China was kind enough to actually acknowledge it with a letter. It needn't have.
The absurdity of claiming $2.3B in any copyright suit aside...
It would be hilarious if we reneged on our foreign debts by using RIAA math to value the IP "stolen" from the US in the trillions, and seize foreign capital as "compensation."
This does happen in the case of tangible assets such as oil, so I guess the fact we don't do the same for intellectual property is a tacit admission of some distinction between them vs other types of property.
Hilarious? If China didn't hold the upper hand so completely perhaps. Currently though, all China has to do is put all it's US gov bonds on the market at once to plunge the USA into a depression like it's never seen before. It won't do that however as long as the US is buying Chinese products - protecting China's export economy. That's the only reason China has kept the US going.
With the power that China currently has over the US though, it was nice of them to even send a letter. I don't think that the USA is in any position to be threatening anything.
I use vim because it's nice and easy while being powerful - as well as the fact that it's already installed on pretty much every Linux and Unix (Macs too for memory) system out there. I use vi for most text files and config files, but use gedit for coding - it has nice tag colouring and I can have many files open at once in tabs.
I must admit that I haven't used emacs more than once or twice. A mate of mine used to prefer emacs for working with LaTex.
I use telnet for configuring my routers. That's about it. For my server I use SSH.
The IIe wasn't released until 1983. It would have been the Apple II, which was still a cool little machine. (Ok, I've still got two of them in the shed...)
This v3 seems a bit faster than the not-missed v2. Still slower than it could be.
Ridiculous. The negative side of China's rise to power is not the color of their skin, but the dismissal of human rights by their federal government.
and what respect for human rights has the US government shown? Iraq war crimes, Afghanistan, Guantanimo, water-boarding of POW's, not to mention the level of spying on it's own citizens as well as now the mainstream humiliation of it's own citizens by the TSA and agent provocateur methods used by the FBI against muslim citizens. AK Marc is right. The elephant in the room is just a mix of xenophobia, rabid nationalism and a hatred of opposing political ideals.
The USA has nothing and never has had any right to boast about it's human rights record. It's bathed in the blood of other nations from it's birth. Sheesh the country can't even get it together enough to care for it's own poor, sick and elderly.
Yes, but let's not lump the sarcastic one-liners of Skeptic's Annotated Bible [skepticsan...dbible.com] in the same category as, for instance, errancy.org [errancy.org], who makes a genuine attempt to analyze biblical errors in the proper context.
I had a look at errancy.org. Sorry. Whoever writes this site, while he's got a few points, so often misses the point of the Scripture he is criticising and makes his own interpretation which is OUT of context.
I myself have a few points where I question the Bible. I'm not however going to throw the whole away for a couple of lines.
And actually it's not hard to believe in God creating the universe while being in line with science: After all, the big bang theory is scientific consensus at this point.
Science being the exploration of the physical realm should not bring it into conflict with the exploration of the non-physical realms under most circumstances. Personally I find that creation of the universe by a divine being makes a lot more sense.
Sorry I haven't been able to get back to you before.
But by an large criticism of evolution as a science is uninformed.
Fully agree.
On the other hand most of the critics of Christianity that I'm am familiar with are more familiar with the tenets of Christianity and the text of the Christian Bible(s) than the supporters of Christianity are.
I must say that you must get around with far more sophisticated critics of Christianity. The majority of what I've ever heard or read is recycled and poorly understood trash based on late 19th and 20th century materialists. Ie. those who refuse to believe in the supernatural anyway and will do any kind of mental back-flip to try and disprove it. Ie. they have some ideas that are generally based on poor exegesis of the texts or loose (generally anachronistic) comparisons between Christian beliefs and those of other ancient religions.
They are usually more aware of where we get specific dogma (such as literal interpretation of the creation myths
A literal interpretation of the Creation account isn't just dogma. It's well borne out in the later Scriptures and has been generally followed through most of Church history.
where the YEC estimate for the age of the earth comes from
I'd ask most most supporters of evolution and the 'big bang' to substantiate their claims for the age of the Earth or the Universe. Most will have a vague notion of 4 billion years, most won't know if that is for the Earth or the Universe or will say 'both'. All they are generally doing is spouting modern scientific dogma - for notions that are held rigidly without known proof just because your scientific 'seniors' (the Discovery channel) told you so is just plain old dogma.People should really try and understand what they believe.
how old the concept of the Rapture is
While there are varying understandings of the Rapture, the basic belief is based quite solidly on Scripture. I must say however that I do find popular interpretations, such as portrayed in the 'Left Behind' stuff to be a bit strange and not perhaps as true to the Scriptural origin of the ideas as they could be.
In fact it is often deep understanding the history and writings of the Christian religion that initially leads people to the conclusion that it's not the least bit consistent or believable.
That's strange. You see, it was a study of the Scriptures that led me to the opposite conclusion, but I studied them in more depth than most people do including studying Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew at university level. I also did quite a bit of study in exegetical tools ie. critical analysis tools. Textual, historical and propositional analysis etc. and became quite convinced of the authenticity of the Scriptures.
By the way. Great sig.
At the risk of opening the proverbial can of worms, some of the basic ideas often associated with young Earth creationism that I've seen on /. would be; the idea that God created, the role of assumptions (worldview) in interpretation of evidence, unprovable assumptions in the application of some radiation dating methods and of course the idea that the Earth itself could be much younger that theorised. These are some basic ideas that I've read in comments on /.
Personally I don't have a problem with proper debate, so I don't mind if people disagree with me. I do prefer however that if people are going to try and argue with me they actually try and understand what they are arguing instead of just regurgitating what they saw on the Discovery Channel. On the other hand as someone with some years of theological study behind me, the usual anti-religion and anti-bible rants bore me to tears with their general lack of rational study or often even reasonable intelligence. Christians who argue without understanding also annoy me.
I think that whatever people choose to believe and whatever they choose to argue, they should actually do their best to know what they believe and WHY they believe it. Each person has a responsibility to choose, at least to some degree, their own destiny. Making an informed decision on what we believe to be true is a basic start to that end.
I am a young earth creationist, but have some manners. I don't flame. I don't even bother arguing with people who refuse to debate properly or examine the many sides of the argument. For those who believe in an old Earth and evolution (whichever version) by their own choice and after examining the issues, then good for them. Many people choose just to follow what they were taught in school and on TV. I have no time for these ignorant people who have not considered things for themselves. There are also young Earth creationists who have not examined the issues on both sides. Sheesh. Not fond of them either. I came to be a young Earth creationist through studying the arguments each way, studying as much of the evidence as I could (I continue to read up on new theories or discoveries) and then making the best decision that I could. I've noticed quite a few people here on /. who quietly support young Earth ideas. Sometimes they get flamed, but they all seem to be intelligent people who have considered what they believe and know why they believe it. Gotta respect that. Now I predict that no-one will flame me... Haha. Some chance.
Apparently Komodo Dragons are capable of Parthenogenesis as well.
Komodo Dragons can also reproduce by parthenogenesis.
Komodo dragons are capable of parthenogenesis as well apparently.
Komodo Dragons are capable of parthenogenesis as well apparently.