Yup. There's other research that shows that the distinction totally breaks down if you track people through different contexts. Or at least claims to show that. Sorry I don't have the reference at hand. But there are contexts where I'm extremely one way or the other. I both have a handful of very-long-term friends and at time enjoy chatting up total strangers. People who are just one way or the other -- wonder if they can learn to switch modes (or contexts) to advantage, there being unique values to gain from each.
In NY its three without cause, but any number for cause, and the judge can also remove anyone, and generally will if for instance you or someone you know have ever been a victim of a remotely similar crime. Having been passed over every time in severl stints in the jury pool, and watched who else was passed over, I can confirm that the don't want anyone with independent opinions on anything.
Yup, confusing. Does that mean it's spinning round an axis which is aligned with its direction of motion?
Also, why is having the cones overlap effective? I suspect there's logic to that that a layman _could_ understand, but it's left unstated. Is it related to the interference patterns of ripples from two stones in water?
I've read that air-source heat pumps don't work below about 40 degrees - so they're great for down south where you're using them for cooling half the time, but useless in a northern winter, where they only work by kicking in their supplemental conventional heating coil.
Chips will be manufactured anyway. The question is what the useful lifetime of the chips that are manufactured is, and what the power consumption of those chips over their lifetime will be, in ratio to the work they perform.
Sparc's strength in the early Internet days was always throughput - even under load - rather than speed. Sun also built more reliable hardware. I switched from Sun to AMD/Linux for Webservers early on, but with energy costs rising quickly, I'll be taking another look at Sun. Where these probably can matter most is for large Web farms, which currently tend to be commodity Linux boxen. But those are throw-away machines - chips headed onward to the landfill after just a couple years.
Have you seen the worst high-rise housing projects outside Paris? They've very similar to the worst projects in Chicago; worse than the worst in New York City. When thousands of Algerians moved to France after WWII (because Algeria was still French territory then), the French government place them in these projects.
Okay, so let's say that you, and a bunch of people of your culture (whatever that is) were displaced to, say, China. The Chinese government built a high-rise ghetto for you all. Schools would not tolerate your children speaking English, and the only jobs available, if any, for you and your children were the most menial. You could not wear the symbols of your religion. The Chinese police would randomly detain and beat your children on the street. When you went into Chinese stores, you'd hear nasty comments, and sometimes the store employees would refuse to even serve you. (Hell, I've had that experience in France merely for being American, years back when they still officially liked us.)
But the Chinese give you enough noodles to stay alive, and even enough cash to buy a cheap TV. The TV shows are all in Chinese, and have no characters who look at all like you. But you should feel so lucky to be in China being treated so generously to housing and noodles and TV. After all, once the Chinese got tired of lending America's immense trade surplus back to us so we could continue to buy cheap Chinese goods, our economy collapsed. Yes, it's 100 years from now, and where you used to live in America is, by modern Chinese standards, a slum.
So when your children riot, you understand why the Chinese don't give you a break. And why conservative in Thailand post to their neoblogs about how your children are "witless adolescents feeling sorry for themselves."
SPYvSPY must be thinking like, "France is liberal. Liberals like multicultural dogma. Therefore France must embrace multicultural dogma." Yet SPYvSPY's conclusion is wrong. France tolerates only one culture: the traditional French one. That's why France is about the only place on Earth where Muslim women can't wear headscarves. That's why all schools in France and its overseas territories teach exactly the same approved curriculum; if it's December the sixth grade class will spend the second week of the month on snow, even in French Tahiti. Depite the Liberty, Equality, Fraternity stuff, France is officially and socially committed to a vision of traditional French culture being better than anything else on Earth, and certainly the only culture to be officially embraced and encouraged within French territory. After all, the culture that invented the phrase Liberty, Equality, Fraternity must be better than any other, right? They even have an official government body dedicated to keeping English and other foreign words out of their language.
The riots are happening in France rather than in Britain or the Netherlands or the US precisely because France has the approach to single-cultural dogma that American and Dutch and British conservatives are so frustrated that our own societies and governments fail to fully embrace. Multicultural appreciation and tolerance is precisely what France lacks the most. For comparable intolerance of other cultures, you'd have to go someplace like Saudi Arabia.
Curious. So the "rich liberals" want sustainable, but that's "expensive." Then the "rich conservatives" want cheap, throw-away shit? Sure they do, but not for themselves (except for maybe their wives). Here in New England, I know a lot of poor liberals who are serious about sustainable stuff, and really concerned about the effect of all that throw-away, cheap stuff made in near-slave conditions in China and sold by Wal-Mart, quite possibly with the end result that rich conservatives in China can afford themselves arcologies to move into when the oil dries up and their air gets even worse than at present, since they have abundant dirty coal to burn after that to keep making cheap, throw-away junk for both the poor conservative here and their own barely-paid labor force. Meanwhile I can show you locations in rural New England where our own rich conservatives are buying up real estate for their own retreat, pending our own economy's likely deep depression whenever the Chinese finally get tired of lending us back so much of the money we've spent on their disposable junk, and our markets collapse.
The US courts are coming increasingly to be filled by "original intent" judges, where that's a label for what is actually an outrageous mod to the functions intended by the original manufacturer. It's a "clear skies initiative" sort of thing. For prime example: It was the original intent of the manufacturer to preserve all rights not enumerated to the people; but the "original intent" judges believe that all rights except those enumerated (see: privacy) are preserved for the government. It was the original intent of the manufacturer to give the federal goverment the power to regulate "commerce" between the states, at a time when that word meant all interactions, not just what we call "commercial" ones; the "original intent" judges believe that the more recent, narrower meaning of "commerce" is the one that should apply.
It's as if the product called a subroutine or function labelled "original intent," and these clever modders have hacked in a replacement function that subverts the whole device to act as they wish it too, keeping the old function name to avoid tripping safeguards elsewhere in the product.
Interesting premise if religious injunctions work as advertised. Recent research in the US shows that the most religious regions have the highest divorce rates and the highest rates of teen pregnancy. Religiously-based "abstinence education" leads to a slight delay in initiating sex, but just as many sex partners in the end, and much less use of protective measures for both STDs and pregnancies. What something claims to do, or asks its followers to do, may not actually be what it does or effectively encourages.
Religion, it seems, is like snake oil that claims it will make you healthier, but actually contains poison. (Then again, these findings may not turn out to generalize beyond the current varieties of American fundamentalism.)
Spoken discourse is not hard-wired linear in the brain. It's wired as branching paths. This is easily observable. When you're listening to a sentence, there can be more than one way to expect it to go. There have been scores of experiments that show that brains prepare for and expect each of these multiple paths, only "collapsing" on the one it actually takes once it becomes evident. There tends to also be forgetting of the expectancies pruned by the actual experience, so that in retrospect our foresight appears better -- and more linear -- than it was. Preparing to speak is largely a use of the same brain areas that comprehend the speech of others. Our preparation also interacts with what we expect ourselves to say, and of course with the cloud of expectable reactions by our listeners. What we end up saying is again one path "collapsed" from a cloud of possibilities we had (largely but not entirely unconsciously) before us. That's part of why we often say something different than our best expectancy of what we would have said.
Music works with the same swarm of expectancy. Good music often sets up one set of expectancies as most probable, then takes a less-expected turn to surprise us and challenge us to listen.
Compare quantum physics, where multiple possible paths also finally collapse to one in the instant. The physicist Henry Stapp, in DARPA-funded research, suggests this is more than coincidence: that it demonstrates that consciousness is itself based in quantum processes. Be that as it may, language is only linear in the way that the path you walk is linear -- you only end up taking one path at a time. But in its possibilities -- possibilities which are integral to its use and meaning -- language is a branching-paths structure (just like roads in the real world form), and even critically depends on viewing somewhat parallel paths simultaneously to produce metaphor and analogy. The "linearity" is something of an illusion, presenting itself after the facts of language and thought.
There are tape decks that can make a copy that's as good as any digital copy. We all know that audiofiles prefer high-end vinyl to CD's, right? Well, the source for all the historic high-end vinyl was tape. The best tape decks are that good. And a good analog tape of a good vinyl disk which itself is sourced from good master tapes will be higher fidelity than any current consumer digital product.
People who say "Digital is better" must be comparing it to their memory of an old 8-track or the cassette that was built into their childhood Sears All-in-One Music Center along with the ceramic-cartridge turntable. High-end tape equipment with high-end tape is better than almost all digital rigs. There are enough artifacts in both that discerning listerners can tell live music from reproduction, but just barely.
It's well-known through research that memory is best for things which you experienced when in a similar state. So you remember sad things better when you're sad, happy when you're happy, stoned when you're stoned, straight when you're straight, tired when you're tired, and so on. This makes biological sense: You're most likely to have use for the lessons of a part of the past when you're next in a most similar situation.
It's also part of how we are able to key our personalities for different functions: That morning cup of coffee; the happy hour drink after work.
This is a separate effect from that which can be occassioned by heavy drinking or (perhaps) really heavy pot smoking, where the circuits for laying down long-term memory appear to be interrupted so that even going back to a similar state won't retrieve the memories. But it's a confounding factor in reports about pot. Someone who's normally a bit depressed, but becomes happy when stoned, will remember things from the time when stoned just fine -- when they're stoned again. However, in their accustomed depressive state, not so much.
If you'd known guys like the guys I've known who've built and operated nuclear plants, you'd realize how lucky we've been there haven't been numerous meltdowns. And nuclear waste disposal is a problem; looked around Hanford lately? But it was simple economics that stalled the nuclear power program. Hydro is cheap. Coal is cheap. And most especially virtually all new power plants built in the past couple decades in the US have been natural gas -- because we've put in a whole bunch of new wells and it has been both cheap and relatively clean-burning (although extraction can really ruin water resources in, say, Wyoming). Nuclear plants can be built more safely now than in the 50s and 60s, but up until just now they haven't been economically competitive with natural gas-fired plants. Industry makes its investments where it can make the best return.
The destruction of natural gas wells and pipelines in the Gulf has now changed that. Yes, there could have been more nuclear plants built meanwhile, if nobody had cared about safety (which is expensive to build in), either in terms of potential catastrophe or radioactive releases. You can call the people who care about standards for such things "environmentalists" -- although in reality most of the restrictions are put there by our government because it by law covers the insurance for nuclear plants, and it doesn't want to be over-exposed to catastrophic loss (either to the plants, or cities downwind). Of course, if the government were sane it would have invested more in levees....
No need to run from those lions. There have always been lions.
But... those look like really hungry lions.
Yes, they've gotten hungrier since we cut most of the jungle down. But there have always been lions.
Gee... if we cut the rest of the jungle won't they be really, really hungry and especially dangerous?
Who taught you that big word, "especially"? I bet I know who you've been listening to! Please don't worry, child. There have always been lions. Our Gods told us to cut down the evil jungle so that we might prosper. Our Gods told us that we are sheep who may safely lie down with the lions. Our Gods told us that only the unworthy will be eaten. So it is only if you are scared of the lions, and doubting of our Gods, that you will be eaten.
You could just as well say, "The utopianists believe that necessary energy technologies will always arrive in time to ensure our civilization's smooth path to utopia. They believe that either some hidden natural law or divine being assures this. They also believe that this law or being requires faith, or it won't come through. According to them, showing any caution in the rate at which we burn through our current energy resources would demonstrate a lack of faith. Such a lack of faith, if demonstrated, will cause the natural law/divine being to withhold the otherwise promised new energy technologies, and we'll enter a state of extreme planetary entropy instead of the promised utopia.
"Similarly, these utopians believe that if your car will go at 100 mph, it is good and necessary to do so. They hate all speed limits and traffic cops."
Can I take it as a given you are totally against humans living in space. Comets and depressurization happen.
Or would you consider that living in space may be worth it both for the economic opportunities and the beauty? New Orleans was built where it was because of the economic opportunities of being near the mouth of a river that's major transportation for a large chunk of America. You don't choose to build major port cities where it's safest; you by definition have to build them by the ocean. When a river's as big as the Mississippi you have to build them in the muddy delta.
So people shouldn't live where there's the economic opportunity of a port (or, likewise, of the Lagrange Points)? And all those upstream, or down the gravity well, should also do without the economic advantage of a good port?
What about the people in the New Orleans area working the Gulf oil and natural gas industries. That's dangerous. Man, we shouldn't mine asteroids either, right? Everyone can just do without the energy, or the minerals, if the alternative is someone risking their lives in an inherently dangerous place.
I really just want to know. It's hard to understand the new America, where people just shouldn't take risks -- even if those risks can serve to benefit a large part of the society and economy -- so when the risk goes bad the society, despite all the benefits its got from, in this instance New Orleans as a port and as a unique cultural incubator -- without which we wouldn't have either jazz or rock and roll, by the way -- why, let the poor fools drown. What were they thinking, living there?
The European Enlightenment is widely considered to have started when God destroyed Lisbon's churches on All Saints Day. Smarter Europeans decided we'd have to start taking responsibility for finding truth, and no longer putting faith in such a beast.
New Orleans, by the way, being 70% black and 40% illiterate, has always had a very high church attendance rate -- and those churches have pitched their message towards congregations many of whom cannot read, which tends to keep the preaching basic and simple. Boy has God (and His prophet, Bush) had fun with that!
Flood insurance is provided by the federal government. You still have to buy it, but private insurers won't touch it. So if the feds stopped providing it large sections of, for instance, the Florida coast would cease to be attractive to development - you can't get a mortgage on something you can't get flood insurance on if it's anywhere that can flood at all.
So, yes, the government should stop providing flood insurance. Except then there would be millions of people in houses suddenly without much value since they can't sell them for much since the new owners couldn't get mortgages. And the banks holding the current mortgages wouldn't be too happy either. And Florida would be in a terrible way, which would be a hell of a repayment for the favor its government did for W back in 2000.
The point from the recent London bombings would be that the cameras allowed the police to quickly identify the perps and zero in on their accomplices -- and an innocent Brazilian electrician.
The way to balance this stuff is to make a whole lot of stuff no longer criminal. Yes, go after the real terrorists. No, don't use these cameras to stop kids from selling pot to each other. Yes, catch muggers with them. No, don't bust people for drinking a cola where you don't want them to. If you get rid of the laws which provide for all sorts of silly and wasteful reasons for busting people, then cameras aren't on balance a bad thing. Unless the person watching you through them just happens to know the person you're kissing passionately on the platform is not your spouse, and uses the facial-features database to ring your cell phone to demand payment for silence.
But really, do the sort of people who'd do that live in New York City??
Is there "inexpensive GPS"? GPS stand-alone shirt-pocket devices are at least a couple hundred dollars. To get the basic functionality without the display (or using the phone's display) would still jack the price of the phone by how much. A hundred bucks?
Look, if you have a cell phone, it just might work if you've broken your leg on the top of a mountain. But Wi-Fi? What, you've brought your Pringles-can antenna along in your day pack? If you're using a Wi-Fi phone, you're in the middle of civilization, and can read the street signs or whatever to the 911 dispatcher. For that matter, GPS doesn't work inside many buildings either.
Mapping every access point, on the other hand, could only be achieved by requiring licenses for access points. Yeah, that would be a good thing.
Can a state require that the lines be shared, or is the only regulation of this at the federal level now?
My DSL ISP is a big fish in a small pond, using in my case a Verizon line - where Verizon doesn't even offer DSL as an option. So it looks like under this ruling (which I see elsewhere they've now put into effect) Verizon can shut my DSL down, force me to dial-up, and cripple my broadband-dependent business.
So can my state legislature stop them if it wants to? I imagine they will if they can; I'm not the only small business threatened by this obscene ruling.
Google currently has a wildly-inflated stock price that's in large part been supported by a fawning press. Therefore severe discipline of the press is called for when it doesn't fawn, in order to maintain and build further the unrealistic market valuation that will allow CEO Schmidt to increase his personal wealth beyond a mere 1.5 billion.
The other stockholders also depend on Google to "earn" them more by manipulating the press. Thus it would be a breach of Google's fiduciary responsibility to fail to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
degree depends on situation
Yup. There's other research that shows that the distinction totally breaks down if you track people through different contexts. Or at least claims to show that. Sorry I don't have the reference at hand. But there are contexts where I'm extremely one way or the other. I both have a handful of very-long-term friends and at time enjoy chatting up total strangers. People who are just one way or the other -- wonder if they can learn to switch modes (or contexts) to advantage, there being unique values to gain from each.
In NY its three without cause, but any number for cause, and the judge can also remove anyone, and generally will if for instance you or someone you know have ever been a victim of a remotely similar crime. Having been passed over every time in severl stints in the jury pool, and watched who else was passed over, I can confirm that the don't want anyone with independent opinions on anything.
Yup, confusing. Does that mean it's spinning round an axis which is aligned with its direction of motion?
Also, why is having the cones overlap effective? I suspect there's logic to that that a layman _could_ understand, but it's left unstated. Is it related to the interference patterns of ripples from two stones in water?
I've read that air-source heat pumps don't work below about 40 degrees - so they're great for down south where you're using them for cooling half the time, but useless in a northern winter, where they only work by kicking in their supplemental conventional heating coil.
Chips will be manufactured anyway. The question is what the useful lifetime of the chips that are manufactured is, and what the power consumption of those chips over their lifetime will be, in ratio to the work they perform.
Sparc's strength in the early Internet days was always throughput - even under load - rather than speed. Sun also built more reliable hardware. I switched from Sun to AMD/Linux for Webservers early on, but with energy costs rising quickly, I'll be taking another look at Sun. Where these probably can matter most is for large Web farms, which currently tend to be commodity Linux boxen. But those are throw-away machines - chips headed onward to the landfill after just a couple years.
Have you seen the worst high-rise housing projects outside Paris? They've very similar to the worst projects in Chicago; worse than the worst in New York City. When thousands of Algerians moved to France after WWII (because Algeria was still French territory then), the French government place them in these projects.
Okay, so let's say that you, and a bunch of people of your culture (whatever that is) were displaced to, say, China. The Chinese government built a high-rise ghetto for you all. Schools would not tolerate your children speaking English, and the only jobs available, if any, for you and your children were the most menial. You could not wear the symbols of your religion. The Chinese police would randomly detain and beat your children on the street. When you went into Chinese stores, you'd hear nasty comments, and sometimes the store employees would refuse to even serve you. (Hell, I've had that experience in France merely for being American, years back when they still officially liked us.)
But the Chinese give you enough noodles to stay alive, and even enough cash to buy a cheap TV. The TV shows are all in Chinese, and have no characters who look at all like you. But you should feel so lucky to be in China being treated so generously to housing and noodles and TV. After all, once the Chinese got tired of lending America's immense trade surplus back to us so we could continue to buy cheap Chinese goods, our economy collapsed. Yes, it's 100 years from now, and where you used to live in America is, by modern Chinese standards, a slum.
So when your children riot, you understand why the Chinese don't give you a break. And why conservative in Thailand post to their neoblogs about how your children are "witless adolescents feeling sorry for themselves."
SPYvSPY must be thinking like, "France is liberal. Liberals like multicultural dogma. Therefore France must embrace multicultural dogma." Yet SPYvSPY's conclusion is wrong. France tolerates only one culture: the traditional French one. That's why France is about the only place on Earth where Muslim women can't wear headscarves. That's why all schools in France and its overseas territories teach exactly the same approved curriculum; if it's December the sixth grade class will spend the second week of the month on snow, even in French Tahiti. Depite the Liberty, Equality, Fraternity stuff, France is officially and socially committed to a vision of traditional French culture being better than anything else on Earth, and certainly the only culture to be officially embraced and encouraged within French territory. After all, the culture that invented the phrase Liberty, Equality, Fraternity must be better than any other, right? They even have an official government body dedicated to keeping English and other foreign words out of their language.
The riots are happening in France rather than in Britain or the Netherlands or the US precisely because France has the approach to single-cultural dogma that American and Dutch and British conservatives are so frustrated that our own societies and governments fail to fully embrace. Multicultural appreciation and tolerance is precisely what France lacks the most. For comparable intolerance of other cultures, you'd have to go someplace like Saudi Arabia.
Curious. So the "rich liberals" want sustainable, but that's "expensive." Then the "rich conservatives" want cheap, throw-away shit? Sure they do, but not for themselves (except for maybe their wives). Here in New England, I know a lot of poor liberals who are serious about sustainable stuff, and really concerned about the effect of all that throw-away, cheap stuff made in near-slave conditions in China and sold by Wal-Mart, quite possibly with the end result that rich conservatives in China can afford themselves arcologies to move into when the oil dries up and their air gets even worse than at present, since they have abundant dirty coal to burn after that to keep making cheap, throw-away junk for both the poor conservative here and their own barely-paid labor force. Meanwhile I can show you locations in rural New England where our own rich conservatives are buying up real estate for their own retreat, pending our own economy's likely deep depression whenever the Chinese finally get tired of lending us back so much of the money we've spent on their disposable junk, and our markets collapse.
Well, you know ...
The US courts are coming increasingly to be filled by "original intent" judges, where that's a label for what is actually an outrageous mod to the functions intended by the original manufacturer. It's a "clear skies initiative" sort of thing. For prime example: It was the original intent of the manufacturer to preserve all rights not enumerated to the people; but the "original intent" judges believe that all rights except those enumerated (see: privacy) are preserved for the government. It was the original intent of the manufacturer to give the federal goverment the power to regulate "commerce" between the states, at a time when that word meant all interactions, not just what we call "commercial" ones; the "original intent" judges believe that the more recent, narrower meaning of "commerce" is the one that should apply.
It's as if the product called a subroutine or function labelled "original intent," and these clever modders have hacked in a replacement function that subverts the whole device to act as they wish it too, keeping the old function name to avoid tripping safeguards elsewhere in the product.
Interesting premise if religious injunctions work as advertised. Recent research in the US shows that the most religious regions have the highest divorce rates and the highest rates of teen pregnancy. Religiously-based "abstinence education" leads to a slight delay in initiating sex, but just as many sex partners in the end, and much less use of protective measures for both STDs and pregnancies. What something claims to do, or asks its followers to do, may not actually be what it does or effectively encourages.
Religion, it seems, is like snake oil that claims it will make you healthier, but actually contains poison. (Then again, these findings may not turn out to generalize beyond the current varieties of American fundamentalism.)
Spoken discourse is not hard-wired linear in the brain. It's wired as branching paths. This is easily observable. When you're listening to a sentence, there can be more than one way to expect it to go. There have been scores of experiments that show that brains prepare for and expect each of these multiple paths, only "collapsing" on the one it actually takes once it becomes evident. There tends to also be forgetting of the expectancies pruned by the actual experience, so that in retrospect our foresight appears better -- and more linear -- than it was. Preparing to speak is largely a use of the same brain areas that comprehend the speech of others. Our preparation also interacts with what we expect ourselves to say, and of course with the cloud of expectable reactions by our listeners. What we end up saying is again one path "collapsed" from a cloud of possibilities we had (largely but not entirely unconsciously) before us. That's part of why we often say something different than our best expectancy of what we would have said.
Music works with the same swarm of expectancy. Good music often sets up one set of expectancies as most probable, then takes a less-expected turn to surprise us and challenge us to listen.
Compare quantum physics, where multiple possible paths also finally collapse to one in the instant. The physicist Henry Stapp, in DARPA-funded research, suggests this is more than coincidence: that it demonstrates that consciousness is itself based in quantum processes. Be that as it may, language is only linear in the way that the path you walk is linear -- you only end up taking one path at a time. But in its possibilities -- possibilities which are integral to its use and meaning -- language is a branching-paths structure (just like roads in the real world form), and even critically depends on viewing somewhat parallel paths simultaneously to produce metaphor and analogy. The "linearity" is something of an illusion, presenting itself after the facts of language and thought.
There are tape decks that can make a copy that's as good as any digital copy. We all know that audiofiles prefer high-end vinyl to CD's, right? Well, the source for all the historic high-end vinyl was tape. The best tape decks are that good. And a good analog tape of a good vinyl disk which itself is sourced from good master tapes will be higher fidelity than any current consumer digital product.
People who say "Digital is better" must be comparing it to their memory of an old 8-track or the cassette that was built into their childhood Sears All-in-One Music Center along with the ceramic-cartridge turntable. High-end tape equipment with high-end tape is better than almost all digital rigs. There are enough artifacts in both that discerning listerners can tell live music from reproduction, but just barely.
Tried that phrase, and it asked me
[Go up] [Go right] [Go down] [Go left] [Return to the last result]
[Zoom In] [Zoom Out]
[Drag to zoom]
©2005 Google - Map data ©2005 NAVTEQ(TM) - Terms of Use
Map
Satellite
Hybrid
500 mi
500 km
Did you mean:
restaurants near Vermont Close, Enfield, Greater London, EN2, UK
restaurants near Vermont Road, Croydon, Greater London, SE19, UK
restaurants near Vermont Road, Wandsworth, Greater London, SW18, UK
restaurants near Vermont Woods, Finchampstead, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG40, UK
restaurants near Vermont Road, Colnbrook with Poyle, Slough, Buckinghamshire, SL2, UK
restaurants near Vermont Grove, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE3, UK
restaurants near Vermont Close, Great Sankey, Warrington, Cheshire, WA5, UK
restaurants near Vermont Drive, Derby, Derbyshire, DE21, UK
restaurants near Vermont Way, Hastings, East Sussex, TN37, UK
restaurants near Vermont Close, Basildon, Essex, SS13, UK
This despite that it's showing me a map of North America?
It's well-known through research that memory is best for things which you experienced when in a similar state. So you remember sad things better when you're sad, happy when you're happy, stoned when you're stoned, straight when you're straight, tired when you're tired, and so on. This makes biological sense: You're most likely to have use for the lessons of a part of the past when you're next in a most similar situation.
It's also part of how we are able to key our personalities for different functions: That morning cup of coffee; the happy hour drink after work.
This is a separate effect from that which can be occassioned by heavy drinking or (perhaps) really heavy pot smoking, where the circuits for laying down long-term memory appear to be interrupted so that even going back to a similar state won't retrieve the memories. But it's a confounding factor in reports about pot. Someone who's normally a bit depressed, but becomes happy when stoned, will remember things from the time when stoned just fine -- when they're stoned again. However, in their accustomed depressive state, not so much.
If you'd known guys like the guys I've known who've built and operated nuclear plants, you'd realize how lucky we've been there haven't been numerous meltdowns. And nuclear waste disposal is a problem; looked around Hanford lately? But it was simple economics that stalled the nuclear power program. Hydro is cheap. Coal is cheap. And most especially virtually all new power plants built in the past couple decades in the US have been natural gas -- because we've put in a whole bunch of new wells and it has been both cheap and relatively clean-burning (although extraction can really ruin water resources in, say, Wyoming). Nuclear plants can be built more safely now than in the 50s and 60s, but up until just now they haven't been economically competitive with natural gas-fired plants. Industry makes its investments where it can make the best return.
The destruction of natural gas wells and pipelines in the Gulf has now changed that. Yes, there could have been more nuclear plants built meanwhile, if nobody had cared about safety (which is expensive to build in), either in terms of potential catastrophe or radioactive releases. You can call the people who care about standards for such things "environmentalists" -- although in reality most of the restrictions are put there by our government because it by law covers the insurance for nuclear plants, and it doesn't want to be over-exposed to catastrophic loss (either to the plants, or cities downwind). Of course, if the government were sane it would have invested more in levees....
No need to run from those lions. There have always been lions.
... those look like really hungry lions.
... if we cut the rest of the jungle won't they be really, really hungry and especially dangerous?
... they look so hungry!.
But
Yes, they've gotten hungrier since we cut most of the jungle down. But there have always been lions.
Gee
Who taught you that big word, "especially"? I bet I know who you've been listening to! Please don't worry, child. There have always been lions. Our Gods told us to cut down the evil jungle so that we might prosper. Our Gods told us that we are sheep who may safely lie down with the lions. Our Gods told us that only the unworthy will be eaten. So it is only if you are scared of the lions, and doubting of our Gods, that you will be eaten.
But
King Tut was right. The sun is Ra -- the one and only God.
That's why Bush couldn't break away earlier from his five-week worship session on the ranch. Then Ra would have been really angry.
You could just as well say, "The utopianists believe that necessary energy technologies will always arrive in time to ensure our civilization's smooth path to utopia. They believe that either some hidden natural law or divine being assures this. They also believe that this law or being requires faith, or it won't come through. According to them, showing any caution in the rate at which we burn through our current energy resources would demonstrate a lack of faith. Such a lack of faith, if demonstrated, will cause the natural law/divine being to withhold the otherwise promised new energy technologies, and we'll enter a state of extreme planetary entropy instead of the promised utopia.
"Similarly, these utopians believe that if your car will go at 100 mph, it is good and necessary to do so. They hate all speed limits and traffic cops."
Can I take it as a given you are totally against humans living in space. Comets and depressurization happen.
Or would you consider that living in space may be worth it both for the economic opportunities and the beauty? New Orleans was built where it was because of the economic opportunities of being near the mouth of a river that's major transportation for a large chunk of America. You don't choose to build major port cities where it's safest; you by definition have to build them by the ocean. When a river's as big as the Mississippi you have to build them in the muddy delta.
So people shouldn't live where there's the economic opportunity of a port (or, likewise, of the Lagrange Points)? And all those upstream, or down the gravity well, should also do without the economic advantage of a good port?
What about the people in the New Orleans area working the Gulf oil and natural gas industries. That's dangerous. Man, we shouldn't mine asteroids either, right? Everyone can just do without the energy, or the minerals, if the alternative is someone risking their lives in an inherently dangerous place.
I really just want to know. It's hard to understand the new America, where people just shouldn't take risks -- even if those risks can serve to benefit a large part of the society and economy -- so when the risk goes bad the society, despite all the benefits its got from, in this instance New Orleans as a port and as a unique cultural incubator -- without which we wouldn't have either jazz or rock and roll, by the way -- why, let the poor fools drown. What were they thinking, living there?
Well said.
The European Enlightenment is widely considered to have started when God destroyed Lisbon's churches on All Saints Day. Smarter Europeans decided we'd have to start taking responsibility for finding truth, and no longer putting faith in such a beast.
New Orleans, by the way, being 70% black and 40% illiterate, has always had a very high church attendance rate -- and those churches have pitched their message towards congregations many of whom cannot read, which tends to keep the preaching basic and simple. Boy has God (and His prophet, Bush) had fun with that!
Flood insurance is provided by the federal government. You still have to buy it, but private insurers won't touch it. So if the feds stopped providing it large sections of, for instance, the Florida coast would cease to be attractive to development - you can't get a mortgage on something you can't get flood insurance on if it's anywhere that can flood at all.
So, yes, the government should stop providing flood insurance. Except then there would be millions of people in houses suddenly without much value since they can't sell them for much since the new owners couldn't get mortgages. And the banks holding the current mortgages wouldn't be too happy either. And Florida would be in a terrible way, which would be a hell of a repayment for the favor its government did for W back in 2000.
The point from the recent London bombings would be that the cameras allowed the police to quickly identify the perps and zero in on their accomplices -- and an innocent Brazilian electrician.
The way to balance this stuff is to make a whole lot of stuff no longer criminal. Yes, go after the real terrorists. No, don't use these cameras to stop kids from selling pot to each other. Yes, catch muggers with them. No, don't bust people for drinking a cola where you don't want them to. If you get rid of the laws which provide for all sorts of silly and wasteful reasons for busting people, then cameras aren't on balance a bad thing. Unless the person watching you through them just happens to know the person you're kissing passionately on the platform is not your spouse, and uses the facial-features database to ring your cell phone to demand payment for silence.
But really, do the sort of people who'd do that live in New York City??
Is there "inexpensive GPS"? GPS stand-alone shirt-pocket devices are at least a couple hundred dollars. To get the basic functionality without the display (or using the phone's display) would still jack the price of the phone by how much. A hundred bucks?
Look, if you have a cell phone, it just might work if you've broken your leg on the top of a mountain. But Wi-Fi? What, you've brought your Pringles-can antenna along in your day pack? If you're using a Wi-Fi phone, you're in the middle of civilization, and can read the street signs or whatever to the 911 dispatcher. For that matter, GPS doesn't work inside many buildings either.
Mapping every access point, on the other hand, could only be achieved by requiring licenses for access points. Yeah, that would be a good thing.
Can a state require that the lines be shared, or is the only regulation of this at the federal level now?
My DSL ISP is a big fish in a small pond, using in my case a Verizon line - where Verizon doesn't even offer DSL as an option. So it looks like under this ruling (which I see elsewhere they've now put into effect) Verizon can shut my DSL down, force me to dial-up, and cripple my broadband-dependent business.
So can my state legislature stop them if it wants to? I imagine they will if they can; I'm not the only small business threatened by this obscene ruling.
Google currently has a wildly-inflated stock price that's in large part been supported by a fawning press. Therefore severe discipline of the press is called for when it doesn't fawn, in order to maintain and build further the unrealistic market valuation that will allow CEO Schmidt to increase his personal wealth beyond a mere 1.5 billion.
The other stockholders also depend on Google to "earn" them more by manipulating the press. Thus it would be a breach of Google's fiduciary responsibility to fail to do so.