The editors didn't add that comment, that comment was added by the submitter (Cuyamava) of the article. The editor added whatever was outside the quotes.
He misread the article; the article said that the Americas would eventually crash into what had already become of Asia/Europe/Africa when they're combined.
Even if such things are NOT the result of human intervention (which is doubtful); we still need to be prepared to deal with them.
The Earth is getting warmer, the effects that this may or may not have on the climate, ocean currents, and many other things could dramatically impact life.
Would you also tell us that if a large asteroid is coming towards us, well it's happened before, just let it happen again?
Sorry, you can't compare the Internet to a library, unless you library has a bunch of "zines" stuffed in on the bookshelves that look exactly like the book you're looking for so that it could fool even the author until the pages were read.
I'm just curious what is so important and obscure that you have to find on a regular basis that an Internet search engine has been beneficial? Look at Google's zeitgeist. Almost all of the most popular searches revolved around pop culture and consumerism.
Apparently you are too young to remember what the Internet was like before Google came along. Last I checked it wasn't dying, Google just provided a quality search engine without annoying advertisements everywhere. Without Google, we'd still have the Internet, sometime just might have a harder time plagiarizing their homework.
How many people nowadays just have a sheet of bookmarks that they regularly visit online, and save the search engine for when they're traveling or doing some very basic research (any kind of research, such as a consumer)?
Of course the commercialization of a product is an innovation. There are a lot of things which were not much use until made available to public and mass produced or properly marketed. (For some reason, all I can think of at the moment are certain type of alcohol, but there are others like cassettes.)
If they hadn't opened up GPS to the public, I highly doubt a private system would be available yet.
I think the newspapers are taking the wrong approach if they want to survive. I can get national and world news anywhere; but it's not as easy to use the Internet to find out what is happening locally. If they want to give their audience something that they want, give them real local news.
Fat chance with the current people in control of Congress and the White House. Encouraging such developments would be a detriment to the people that paid millions to put them in office.
Several of my friends went right to work for Raytheon out of undergrad this past summer and they all had their clearance within a few months of working there. It costs about $50,000 on the part of the company, so if you're worth the investment to them, they'll go for it.
They "don't want to see" it, because they've been raised that way by their parents, or taught such things are naughty by other people.
I don't think that a general shyness towards sexuality is something that is natural or instinctive.
Which basically comes to the point that it is the parent's responsibility to take care of their child. If they don't their child to see such things on TV, don't let them watch it. If a parent wants their child to see such things on TV, let them watch it. What gets me is that these are the same groups that tell us that teachers shouldn't be teaching our kids morals in school, and then they turn around and tell us that they want to control what morals are displayed on television. How is that not hypocritical?
"For the children" is a common guise used by such groups to push another agenda through. In this case, they're using it to push their moral views onto others via television.
Slashdot Mirror
The side comment he was complaining about was not made by an editor. If you want to complain about the editors, at least use their words to do it.
We're not headed for an ice age, we're still in the processes of emerging from the previous one, and have yet to officially not be in an ice age.
The editors didn't add that comment, that comment was added by the submitter (Cuyamava) of the article. The editor added whatever was outside the quotes.
He misread the article; the article said that the Americas would eventually crash into what had already become of Asia/Europe/Africa when they're combined.
More interesting than watching India crash into Asia.
Glaciers flow. If you lop off the end of the it, it makes it easier for it to flow at a faster rate into the ocean.
Even if such things are NOT the result of human intervention (which is doubtful); we still need to be prepared to deal with them.
The Earth is getting warmer, the effects that this may or may not have on the climate, ocean currents, and many other things could dramatically impact life.
Would you also tell us that if a large asteroid is coming towards us, well it's happened before, just let it happen again?
Sorry, you can't compare the Internet to a library, unless you library has a bunch of "zines" stuffed in on the bookshelves that look exactly like the book you're looking for so that it could fool even the author until the pages were read.
I'm just curious what is so important and obscure that you have to find on a regular basis that an Internet search engine has been beneficial? Look at Google's zeitgeist. Almost all of the most popular searches revolved around pop culture and consumerism.
Apparently you are too young to remember what the Internet was like before Google came along. Last I checked it wasn't dying, Google just provided a quality search engine without annoying advertisements everywhere. Without Google, we'd still have the Internet, sometime just might have a harder time plagiarizing their homework.
How many people nowadays just have a sheet of bookmarks that they regularly visit online, and save the search engine for when they're traveling or doing some very basic research (any kind of research, such as a consumer)?
Of course the commercialization of a product is an innovation. There are a lot of things which were not much use until made available to public and mass produced or properly marketed. (For some reason, all I can think of at the moment are certain type of alcohol, but there are others like cassettes.)
If they hadn't opened up GPS to the public, I highly doubt a private system would be available yet.
That's the time the search took; it took a little bit longer for it to load the page for you than it would for them.
But most are smart enough to use it safely, unlike your average Windows/IE user.
But abstinence (Not using Windows/IE) is the only truly safe way.
The only reason I subscribe to the paper is for the coupons. Except for some local news, the rest of it I already knew before the ink hit the paper.
I think the newspapers are taking the wrong approach if they want to survive. I can get national and world news anywhere; but it's not as easy to use the Internet to find out what is happening locally. If they want to give their audience something that they want, give them real local news.
if you choose the right combination of printer, ink, and paper.
I think everyone here is forgetting one of the most important elements that will affect the quality of your photos. YOUR CAMERA.
6. A good enough camera to produce high enough resolution photos that the picture is worth printing in the first place.
take my photos to CostCo/Sam's Club/Walgreens
See, you discovered the main difference. In your scenario, you have to get out of your home and do something to get your prints.
The only reason we still bother with it is because ...well, even if it produces no tangible benefits for us, it's still the right thing to do.
The main reason we participate in foreign aid is so that we can influence policies around the world.
"Oh, you don't like our plan for abstinence education? No AIDs funding for you!"
It's the same thing the federal government does to the states.
Fat chance with the current people in control of Congress and the White House. Encouraging such developments would be a detriment to the people that paid millions to put them in office.
How far above your land does your ownership extend?
According to English common law, your ownership of your law extends to the center of the Earth and upwards infinitely.
Several of my friends went right to work for Raytheon out of undergrad this past summer and they all had their clearance within a few months of working there. It costs about $50,000 on the part of the company, so if you're worth the investment to them, they'll go for it.
The light pole's shape at the top is slightly different between the before and after photo.
They "don't want to see" it, because they've been raised that way by their parents, or taught such things are naughty by other people.
I don't think that a general shyness towards sexuality is something that is natural or instinctive.
Which basically comes to the point that it is the parent's responsibility to take care of their child. If they don't their child to see such things on TV, don't let them watch it. If a parent wants their child to see such things on TV, let them watch it. What gets me is that these are the same groups that tell us that teachers shouldn't be teaching our kids morals in school, and then they turn around and tell us that they want to control what morals are displayed on television. How is that not hypocritical?
"For the children" is a common guise used by such groups to push another agenda through. In this case, they're using it to push their moral views onto others via television.
I agree with you on the parenting part, for one no one should comment on parenting unless they're parents themselves.
I agree with you on the governing part, for one no one should comment on governing unless they're governers themselves.
Those who are affected by parenting/governing/teaching whatever, are in the best possible position to comment on it.