He specifically asked for SOFTware. Some people have sensitive behinds.
Also, some of us believe that when you buy a piece of hardware there shouldn't be any anal violence attached to the process. Again, not something iPhone is able to provide.
The mysterious death of the chicken-fat car By: Timothy P. Carney Senior Examiner Columnist May 20, 2009
As President Barack Obama unfurls his fuel-economy standards and Congress takes up global warming regulations, it’s useful to remember that what emerges from environmental policymaking is not necessarily what’s best for the planet, but instead what’s best for special interests.
Consider the epic and somewhat bizarre struggle over clean fuels that ended last week. As usual, special interests were central to the drama. But the antagonists seemed right out of a Monty Python sendup of Washington politics: An oil company, hoping to profit from making trucks run on chicken fat, was thwarted by the soap industry’s lobby.
The chicken-fat story is a cautionary tale about how environmental policy actually gets made.
It began in 2005, when President George W. Bush signed an energy bill including a $1-per-gallon tax credit for “renewable diesel” fuel created through “thermal depolymerization.” Writer Rina Palta reported in the liberal American Prospect that Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., wrote the measure “to benefit a floundering company in his home district that produces boiler fuel from turkey offal, which did not qualify chemically as ‘biodiesel.’ ”
At the time, Congress was eagerly providing subsidies to turn plants and animals into fuel, so it didn’t seem farfetched to boost the cause of fowl entrails. But unintended consequences soon arrived, proving once again that the biggest companies usually find a way to profit from government intervention.
In April 2007, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that Blunt’s tax credit had broader applications. Within two weeks, ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods saw that the IRS had opened the door for a joint venture to melt chicken, cow, and pig fat into diesel fuel. Conoco Chief Executive Officer James Mulva was honest about his unusual undertaking: “It’s not profitable without the $1 per gallon tax credit,” he said at a news conference.
But this renewable fuel had enemies. First, Democrats didn’t like any subsidy that helped an oil company like Conoco. (Blunt, for his part, said he never wanted to help oil companies, and that the law should be changed.)
Second, business lobbyists were also working to kill the subsidy for chicken fat. The obvious opponents were chicken fat’s competitors — the companies that turn vegetables into diesel fuel. The National Biodiesel Board, which spends nearly $1 million a year on lobbying, pushed hard to ensure the $1-per-gallon subsidy for clean diesel didn’t also apply to the Conoco-Tyson operation.
But the issue of “renewable biodiesel” also turned up on the lobbying filings of the Dial Corporation and the Soap and Detergent Association. Just as ethanol subsidies have driven up the price of food, it turned out that fat-to-fuel subsidies boosted the cost of manufacturing soap, which is also made of animal fat. So Dial and the Soap and Detergent Association, displeased that Tyson now had somewhere else to peddle its fat, also lobbied to kill the chicken-fat diesel subsidy.
While their own interests were obvious, the soap and biodiesel lobbies argued that chicken-fat diesel was not good for the environment. But the Environmental Protection Agency ruled this month that “biodiesel or renewable diesel made from animal fat or used cooking oil results in an 80 percent reduction from carbon emissions versus petroleum diesel,” according to Darling International, a company that deals in animal-fat diesel. Darling added in its first-quarter 2009 report, “That is the highest level of carbon reduction available
Ladies and gentlemen, I am not simply going to say 'and now for something completely different' this week, as I do not think it fit. This is a particularly auspicious occasion for us this evening, as we have been told that Her Majesty the Queen will be watching part of the show tonight. We don't know exactly when Her Majesty will be tuning in. We understand that at the moment she is watching 'The Virginian', but we have been promised that we will be informed the moment that she changes channel. Her majesty would like everyone to behave quite normally but her equerry has asked me to request all of you at home to stand when the great moment arrives, although we here in the studio will be carrying on with our humorous vignettes and spoofs in the ordinary way. Thank you. And now without any more ado and completely as normal, here are the opening titles.
There's evolutionary advantage of not being turned into cattle fodder, fishing bait, fertilizer or killed just for fun. Not like we humans really need a REASON to kill something. Now on the other hand, if we are given some kind of a deterrent... Like possible damnation, curse, bad luck...
You know, there is a reason every religion has those "Thou shall not kill, steal, covet your neighbor's wife etc." rules. We tend to act like assholes toward other creatures. Human and otherwise. Particularly otherwise.
Not sure what that article is trying to point out. Of course crabs already have such structures, and of course there is a biological purpose to them.
And pointing out that there are other species that have similar appearance - and then saying the following...
This is not to say that these structures are unaffected by select i o n . ~ h aer~e a s subject to evolutionary pressures as any other feature of a crab. The point here is that these ridges and grooves occur in nearly all members of the crab family Dorippidae, whether they live near Japan or not. As pointed out by the great Japanese carcinologist Tune Sakai, there are at least 17 different species of crabs in two families in the Indo-West Pacific that are similar enough to be called Heikegani by local residents, and there are many related species from other far off waters that bear a likeness to a human face. Many Asian countries have vernacular names to account for the similarity of such crabs to a human face, such as the Chinese name Kuei Lien Hsieh (Ghost or Demon faced crab), and in several countries the crabs play a prominent role in local folklore, sometimes being considered sacred, with the face representing that of a deceased relative.
What is the point of the article? "I don't agree with your theory but here's some more evidence to support it."
And the "coupe-de-gras" argument only makes you suspect that the author went to Imperial Stormtrooper school of logic - he's missing the point entirely.
Furthermore, and most damning to the myth of reincarnated samurai warriors, the fisherman who make their living from the Sea of Japan do not eat any of these crabs.
EXACTLY! They don't eat them! They are PUTTING THEM BACK IN THE WATER IF CAUGHT.
Humans don't eat much gorilla or chimpanzee either. But their hands sure as hell make great ashtrays. Nor do we eat much tiger. Well.. except his dick. Damn nearly got the biggest motherfucking land-living predator nearly extinct cause we felt it was "good sport" to hunt it down and kill it. In fact, there ain't no species on this planet that we didn't try to kill.
And then there are these crabs we put back in the water if we happen to catch them accidentally - based on their looks.
And with all those photos (5-page article, 3 pages of photos) you would think that they could have found one that points out how fossilized crabs "predating man's appearance on earth" look exactly the same as the ones "under dead samurai protection". Instead, we are shown photos of present day crabs that "are similar to, but less distinct than".
But I guess you can't really get as much publicity by yelling "The well-known evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley (grandson of the more famous T. H. Huxley, who was known as Charles Darwin's "bulldog" for his adamant support of Darwin's then-controversial ideas about natural selection, and brother of the novelist Aldous Huxley AND Carl Sagan WERE RIGHT!" - as you can by yelling that they were wrong.
So, maybe I'll stick to my disbelief until I see clear evidence.
Well... Shit son. How d'ya get that much belief in that article then?
but saying "ceremony leads to evolution" is certainly over-stretching it.
Here is a similar story of humans pushing the natural selection of aquatic species in certain direction through religious ceremony. To paraphrase the conclusion in the video above - all this has nothing to do with what the fish might want, selection is imposed from the outside.
Didn't really have the time to argue how he should give up art and take up fishing or horse riding or something, or how this accident could really be an opportunity for him to explore new art-forms and techniques and such.
The troops are accused of setting up camp there, taking down a Costa Rican flag and raising the Nicaraguan flag, doing work to clean up a nearby river, and dumping the sediment in Costa Rican territory.
No viruses from the crew infecting the ship (BSG, Voyager).
Voyager's gel packs were not infected by "crew's viruses". In all cases it was either alien bacteria, (Get the cheese to sickbay.) alien viruses or radiation. Gel packs being clearly new technology - none of that was surprising.
I will grant that a ship with sophisticated self-repair, artificial intelligence and the ability to communicate is very much like a "living ship". It also won't bleed if you shoot it, nor does it have a spongy mass of brain tissue at the controls.
Voyager doesn't have "a spongy mass of brain tissue at the controls" no more than is your computer actually controlled by a series of hourglasses (made out of silicon AND based on telling time). Unless you are referring to Janeway, which I would have to object to as well. She really wasn't THAT bad. She was not Picard, granted, but she really was not that bad either.
What BSG, B5, Farscape and some of the latter additions to Star Wars and Star Trek involve is ships made of living tissue. And that makes no sense whatsoever. It's like the writers somehow got the idea in their heads that flesh can be engineered to extreme levels of durability and regeneration, or without the limitations of conservation of matter and energy. It ties into a fundamental misunderstanding about the capabilities and limitations of evolution and life in general.
You don't like bio-ships/bio-parts being vulnerable "like they should be", you don't like them being super-resistant "because that's impossible" (and here I thought we were discussing SF shows). Hmm...
I believe that I know what's your problem with all these bio-thingies. Gynophilia. You really, really, really want to fuck a robot. Probably because you were molested by a robot as a child. But don't worry. This is Slashdot. You can tell us. What did Optimus Prime made you do?
Cultural Body Size Trend: Japanese Women Getting Curvier
Japanese women aren't usually known for being curvy. The typical Japanese woman in most of our imaginations is stick thin and completely flat with no curves. The only option was for plastic surgery which is very common even for girls as young as twelve. They would get breast enhancements called 'gummi bears.'
But recently more and more younger women are popping out with the natural "bon-kyu-bon" look meaning big breast, small waist and big hips. Now retailers in all major shopping districts rush to replace their clothing to fit a new generation of curvier women.
Not so long ago most Japanese stores didn't even stock large sizes but recently more women have been complaining that the sizes in local stores are too small for them. This has made a big change in the clothing industry of Japan. Juicy Couture, known for its figure-hugging terrycloth tracksuits, opened one of its biggest stores in Tokyo last year. Tokyo's high-end Isetan department store, which used to relegate its bigger sizes to one corner, now prominently features larger items from designers such as Ralph Lauren, Diane von Furstenberg and DKNY.
Before, the bras were the padded types. Now the best-sellers that are new to Japan are called "Love Bras," they show cleavage with less padding, meant for curvier women in their 20s.
This could be good news for most Americans who often go to Japan. Before it was almost impossible to find sizes that fit westernized bodies but now bigger sizes are showing up in stores for people to buy.
In the media more bustier women are popping out too. Before it was all about the cute and innocent look but recently pop stars such as Koda Kumi have been keep up with their fans and the other young adults by wearing sexy metallic bras and not much else.
How do Japanese women physically differ than before? Today, the average Japanese woman's hips, at 35 inches, are around an inch wider than those of women a generation older. Women in their 20s wear a bra at least two sizes larger than that of their mothers. Waist size, meanwhile, has gotten slightly smaller, accentuating many young women's curves. The average 20-year-old is also nearly three inches taller than she was fifty years ago, according to government statistics, and the average foot has grown by nearly a quarter of an inch.
Nutritionist point to the change in diet of women today. Before meals consisted of mostly fish and tofu but these days Japanese women are exposed to westernized foods consisting of red meat and dairy. All this extra protein and calcium has led to longer, stronger and fuller bodies. According to doctors the intake of extra fat tends to go to either breasts or hips in adolescent girls.
Considering the proposed judges, I'm guessing we would be more likely to see an episode (or season even) consisting of nothing but laugh track, drowning out every other sound. With Pedobear as the *Special*Guest*Star*.
Consider this: It's naive to think DRM won't negatively affect legitimate purchasers and will stop piracy but it's incompetent to outlaw breaking DRM and malicious to shut down internet connections based on mere accusations of piracy.
Please. If anyone, RIAA and its cohorts have shown us how truly malicious they can actually be - when they REALLY get into it. Every single one of their acts reeks with incompetence first and foremost. Sure, their final motives can be perceived as malicious when you take any point of view other than "making money for people who employ them" but they are so bad at even sticking to that.
There should be room for discretion and leniency as well as shame and punishment. You might say that that's already a problem as people on the bottom of the financial totem pole get hammered by the law while people on top have their lawyers apologize and they go about their merry ways and I would agree with you.
Oh, the problem's been brewing for a long time now and it is only now that stories about rich people "getting away with it" spread so quickly that the public is getting SOME idea of how all that legal-mumbo-jumbo deal REALLY works. Just as you are now practically illiterate if you don't know your way at least around a word processor and a web browser - it is finally becoming obvious that "legal rights" only apply to those with knowledge of those rights i.e. have money for legal representation or are educated in legal matters AND have the resources to pursue those "rights". And still they are likely to lose unless they have money - as money can pay for more than just lawyers. I.e. You have no rights unless you are willing to fight for them AND KNOW HOW TO DO IT. Anyway, Carlin said it nicely...
Again, fault lies with the people/citizens/voters. They are the ones voting in and keeping voting in people who come up with such laws, and not raising up against such laws to have them overturned.
Sheikh, also rendered as Sheik, Cheikh, Sjeik, Shaykh, Shaikh, Sheekh, Sheyh, eih, ejh, eyh and other variants (Arabic: , shaykh; pl. shuykh), is a word or honorific term in the Arabic language that literally means "elder".
IMHO, those writing "stupid" laws rarely posses the necessary level of stupidity required for creating SUCH levels of fuckup. Laws like that are more often the result of naivete and incompetence/ignorance than stupidity or malice. And it would be rather difficult for a person with such qualities to single-handedly come into position where he/she would be able to create laws.
ALSO, laws tend not to be written or passed by a single person. So, the "stupidity" doesn't have to be the product of one person or even a small group. In the long run, the responsibility for such laws lies with that group of people we refer to as "citizens". Particularly the ones on the right side of the IQ curve. You know... the "smart" and educated ones. Either for letting such laws pass or for not challenging them later - they are the ones responsible.
As for those who enforce such laws, you can't really suggest that they should pick and choose which laws they should enforce and which not, right? Cause it is not just their job to enforce them, but a LEGAL OBLIGATION as well.
Back then, soldiers with PTSD used to be shot or left to die in no-man's-land for cowardice. You will recognize that the world has changed a bit in last 100 years? On AND off the battlefield.
Giving troops their own robot-suits makes each soldier that much more expensive when the drone takes them out.
Good!
Maybe then less soldiers will be sent out there to die for no reason.
If your mission plan requires the troops to carry 200lbs of equipment themselves then whomever wrote that plan needs to be shot.
They are already regularly hauling around 100 pounds of gear. 1/3rd of it being just clothes, basic armor (helmet), weapon and ammo they are wearing.
With exoskeleton, they can move under full gear as they would with only the basic gear while not wearing the exoskeleton. And again... You can't get vehicles to every place where you need soldiers who in turn need increased mobility.
Slashdot Mirror
He specifically asked for SOFTware. Some people have sensitive behinds.
Also, some of us believe that when you buy a piece of hardware there shouldn't be any anal violence attached to the process.
Again, not something iPhone is able to provide.
What's next? 50 Cent becoming the Pope?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/The-mysterious-death-of-the-chicken-fat-car-45445497.html
The mysterious death of the chicken-fat car
By: Timothy P. Carney
Senior Examiner Columnist
May 20, 2009
As President Barack Obama unfurls his fuel-economy standards and Congress takes up global warming regulations, it’s useful to remember that what emerges from environmental policymaking is not necessarily what’s best for the planet, but instead what’s best for special interests.
Consider the epic and somewhat bizarre struggle over clean fuels that ended last week. As usual, special interests were central to the drama. But the antagonists seemed right out of a Monty Python sendup of Washington politics: An oil company, hoping to profit from making trucks run on chicken fat, was thwarted by the soap industry’s lobby.
The chicken-fat story is a cautionary tale about how environmental policy actually gets made.
It began in 2005, when President George W. Bush signed an energy bill including a $1-per-gallon tax credit for “renewable diesel” fuel created through “thermal depolymerization.” Writer Rina Palta reported in the liberal American Prospect that Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., wrote the measure “to benefit a floundering company in his home district that produces boiler fuel from turkey offal, which did not qualify chemically as ‘biodiesel.’ ”
At the time, Congress was eagerly providing subsidies to turn plants and animals into fuel, so it didn’t seem farfetched to boost the cause of fowl entrails. But unintended consequences soon arrived, proving once again that the biggest companies usually find a way to profit from government intervention.
In April 2007, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that Blunt’s tax credit had broader applications. Within two weeks, ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods saw that the IRS had opened the door for a joint venture to melt chicken, cow, and pig fat into diesel fuel. Conoco Chief Executive Officer James Mulva was honest about his unusual undertaking: “It’s not profitable without the $1 per gallon tax credit,” he said at a news conference.
But this renewable fuel had enemies. First, Democrats didn’t like any subsidy that helped an oil company like Conoco. (Blunt, for his part, said he never wanted to help oil companies, and that the law should be changed.)
Second, business lobbyists were also working to kill the subsidy for chicken fat. The obvious opponents were chicken fat’s competitors — the companies that turn vegetables into diesel fuel. The National Biodiesel Board, which spends nearly $1 million a year on lobbying, pushed hard to ensure the $1-per-gallon subsidy for clean diesel didn’t also apply to the Conoco-Tyson operation.
But the issue of “renewable biodiesel” also turned up on the lobbying filings of the Dial Corporation and the Soap and Detergent Association. Just as ethanol subsidies have driven up the price of food, it turned out that fat-to-fuel subsidies boosted the cost of manufacturing soap, which is also made of animal fat. So Dial and the Soap and Detergent Association, displeased that Tyson now had somewhere else to peddle its fat, also lobbied to kill the chicken-fat diesel subsidy.
While their own interests were obvious, the soap and biodiesel lobbies argued that chicken-fat diesel was not good for the environment. But the Environmental Protection Agency ruled this month that “biodiesel or renewable diesel made from animal fat or used cooking oil results in an 80 percent reduction from carbon emissions versus petroleum diesel,” according to Darling International, a company that deals in animal-fat diesel. Darling added in its first-quarter 2009 report, “That is the highest level of carbon reduction available
Ladies and gentlemen, I am not simply going to say 'and now for something completely different' this week, as I do not think it fit.
This is a particularly auspicious occasion for us this evening, as we have been told that Her Majesty the Queen will be watching part of the show tonight.
We don't know exactly when Her Majesty will be tuning in. We understand that at the moment she is watching 'The Virginian', but we have been promised that we will be informed the moment that she changes channel.
Her majesty would like everyone to behave quite normally but her equerry has asked me to request all of you at home to stand when the great moment arrives, although we here in the studio will be carrying on with our humorous vignettes and spoofs in the ordinary way. Thank you.
And now without any more ado and completely as normal, here are the opening titles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSaZ45ow3Q0
And then beat him with a baseball bat. Or a false argument. Whichever comes first.
You know. Like you just did there.
He planned staying for two weeks?
There's evolutionary advantage of not being turned into cattle fodder, fishing bait, fertilizer or killed just for fun.
Not like we humans really need a REASON to kill something.
Now on the other hand, if we are given some kind of a deterrent...
Like possible damnation, curse, bad luck...
You know, there is a reason every religion has those "Thou shall not kill, steal, covet your neighbor's wife etc." rules.
We tend to act like assholes toward other creatures. Human and otherwise.
Particularly otherwise.
Not sure what that article is trying to point out.
Of course crabs already have such structures, and of course there is a biological purpose to them.
And pointing out that there are other species that have similar appearance - and then saying the following...
This is not
to say that these structures are unaffected by select
i o n . ~ h aer~e a s subject to evolutionary pressures
as any other feature of a crab. The point here is that
these ridges and grooves occur in nearly all members
of the crab family Dorippidae, whether they
live near Japan or not. As pointed out by the great
Japanese carcinologist Tune Sakai, there are at least
17 different species of crabs in two families in the
Indo-West Pacific that are similar enough to be
called Heikegani by local residents, and there are
many related species from other far off waters that
bear a likeness to a human face. Many Asian countries
have vernacular names to account for the similarity
of such crabs to a human face, such as the
Chinese name Kuei Lien Hsieh (Ghost or Demon
faced crab), and in several countries the crabs play a
prominent role in local folklore, sometimes being
considered sacred, with the face representing that
of a deceased relative.
What is the point of the article?
"I don't agree with your theory but here's some more evidence to support it."
And the "coupe-de-gras" argument only makes you suspect that the author went to Imperial Stormtrooper school of logic - he's missing the point entirely.
Furthermore,
and most damning to the myth of reincarnated
samurai warriors, the fisherman who make their
living from the Sea of Japan do not eat any of these
crabs.
EXACTLY! They don't eat them!
They are PUTTING THEM BACK IN THE WATER IF CAUGHT.
Humans don't eat much gorilla or chimpanzee either. But their hands sure as hell make great ashtrays.
Nor do we eat much tiger. Well.. except his dick.
Damn nearly got the biggest motherfucking land-living predator nearly extinct cause we felt it was "good sport" to hunt it down and kill it.
In fact, there ain't no species on this planet that we didn't try to kill.
And then there are these crabs we put back in the water if we happen to catch them accidentally - based on their looks.
And with all those photos (5-page article, 3 pages of photos) you would think that they could have found one that points out how fossilized crabs "predating man's appearance on earth" look exactly the same as the ones "under dead samurai protection".
Instead, we are shown photos of present day crabs that "are similar to, but less distinct than".
But I guess you can't really get as much publicity by yelling "The well-known evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley (grandson of the more famous T. H. Huxley, who was known as Charles Darwin's "bulldog" for his adamant support of Darwin's then-controversial ideas about natural selection, and brother of the novelist Aldous Huxley AND Carl Sagan WERE RIGHT!" - as you can by yelling that they were wrong.
So, maybe I'll stick to my disbelief until I see clear evidence.
Well... Shit son.
How d'ya get that much belief in that article then?
but saying "ceremony leads to evolution" is certainly over-stretching it.
Here is a similar story of humans pushing the natural selection of aquatic species in certain direction through religious ceremony.
To paraphrase the conclusion in the video above - all this has nothing to do with what the fish might want, selection is imposed from the outside.
Didn't really have the time to argue how he should give up art and take up fishing or horse riding or something, or how this accident could really be an opportunity for him to explore new art-forms and techniques and such.
Using Google Translate to read about a Google Maps fuckup. Irony ensues.
What's worse, they destroyed forest in a protected area and dumped the waste in to the river. How stupid and destructive can these guys be?
http://searchengineland.com/nicaragua-raids-costa-rica-blames-google-maps-54885
The troops are accused of setting up camp there, taking down a Costa Rican flag and raising the Nicaraguan flag, doing work to clean up a nearby river, and dumping the sediment in Costa Rican territory.
http://the-gadgeteer.com/2000/08/30/cat_eye_finring_review/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/08/genius-ring-mouse-slips-around-your-finger-cues-up-beyonce-jams/
These guys offer various alternative pointing device solutions:
http://www.adapt-it.org.uk/browse_category.asp?id=40&item=Mice
And there are solutions like these out there too:
http://www.fentek-ind.com/nh-mouse.htm
No viruses from the crew infecting the ship (BSG, Voyager).
Voyager's gel packs were not infected by "crew's viruses".
In all cases it was either alien bacteria, (Get the cheese to sickbay.) alien viruses or radiation.
Gel packs being clearly new technology - none of that was surprising.
I will grant that a ship with sophisticated self-repair, artificial intelligence and the ability to communicate is very much like a "living ship". It also won't bleed if you shoot it, nor does it have a spongy mass of brain tissue at the controls.
Voyager doesn't have "a spongy mass of brain tissue at the controls" no more than is your computer actually controlled by a series of hourglasses (made out of silicon AND based on telling time).
Unless you are referring to Janeway, which I would have to object to as well. She really wasn't THAT bad.
She was not Picard, granted, but she really was not that bad either.
What BSG, B5, Farscape and some of the latter additions to Star Wars and Star Trek involve is ships made of living tissue. And that makes no sense whatsoever. It's like the writers somehow got the idea in their heads that flesh can be engineered to extreme levels of durability and regeneration, or without the limitations of conservation of matter and energy. It ties into a fundamental misunderstanding about the capabilities and limitations of evolution and life in general.
You don't like bio-ships/bio-parts being vulnerable "like they should be", you don't like them being super-resistant "because that's impossible" (and here I thought we were discussing SF shows).
Hmm...
I believe that I know what's your problem with all these bio-thingies.
Gynophilia. You really, really, really want to fuck a robot.
Probably because you were molested by a robot as a child.
But don't worry. This is Slashdot. You can tell us.
What did Optimus Prime made you do?
Blame Ronald McDonald.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/246239/cultural_body_size_trend_japanese_women.html?cat=69
Cultural Body Size Trend: Japanese Women Getting Curvier
Japanese women aren't usually known for being curvy. The typical Japanese woman in most of our imaginations is stick thin and completely flat with no curves. The only option was for plastic surgery which is very common even for girls as young as twelve. They would get breast enhancements called 'gummi bears.'
But recently more and more younger women are popping out with the natural "bon-kyu-bon" look meaning big breast, small waist and big hips. Now retailers in all major shopping districts rush to replace their clothing to fit a new generation of curvier women.
Not so long ago most Japanese stores didn't even stock large sizes but recently more women have been complaining that the sizes in local stores are too small for them. This has made a big change in the clothing industry of Japan. Juicy Couture, known for its figure-hugging terrycloth tracksuits, opened one of its biggest stores in Tokyo last year. Tokyo's high-end Isetan department store, which used to relegate its bigger sizes to one corner, now prominently features larger items from designers such as Ralph Lauren, Diane von Furstenberg and DKNY.
Before, the bras were the padded types. Now the best-sellers that are new to Japan are called "Love Bras," they show cleavage with less padding, meant for curvier women in their 20s.
This could be good news for most Americans who often go to Japan. Before it was almost impossible to find sizes that fit westernized bodies but now bigger sizes are showing up in stores for people to buy.
In the media more bustier women are popping out too. Before it was all about the cute and innocent look but recently pop stars such as Koda Kumi have been keep up with their fans and the other young adults by wearing sexy metallic bras and not much else.
How do Japanese women physically differ than before? Today, the average Japanese woman's hips, at 35 inches, are around an inch wider than those of women a generation older. Women in their 20s wear a bra at least two sizes larger than that of their mothers. Waist size, meanwhile, has gotten slightly smaller, accentuating many young women's curves. The average 20-year-old is also nearly three inches taller than she was fifty years ago, according to government statistics, and the average foot has grown by nearly a quarter of an inch.
Nutritionist point to the change in diet of women today. Before meals consisted of mostly fish and tofu but these days Japanese women are exposed to westernized foods consisting of red meat and dairy. All this extra protein and calcium has led to longer, stronger and fuller bodies. According to doctors the intake of extra fat tends to go to either breasts or hips in adolescent girls.
and miniature chiantis?
How many people know that line and have no idea what Chianti is? (an Italian wine, BTW)
Say hello to my little friend!
Considering the proposed judges, I'm guessing we would be more likely to see an episode (or season even) consisting of nothing but laugh track, drowning out every other sound.
With Pedobear as the *Special*Guest*Star*.
That and boobies, naturally.
a storyboard consisting of an elaborate episode-long orgy?
Why do you say that like that is a bad thing?
Sure it would. And all would be just the same. Except a little different.
Consider this: It's naive to think DRM won't negatively affect legitimate purchasers and will stop piracy but it's incompetent to outlaw breaking DRM and malicious to shut down internet connections based on mere accusations of piracy.
Please.
If anyone, RIAA and its cohorts have shown us how truly malicious they can actually be - when they REALLY get into it.
Every single one of their acts reeks with incompetence first and foremost.
Sure, their final motives can be perceived as malicious when you take any point of view other than "making money for people who employ them" but they are so bad at even sticking to that.
There should be room for discretion and leniency as well as shame and punishment.
You might say that that's already a problem as people on the bottom of the financial totem pole get hammered by the law while people on top have their lawyers apologize and they go about their merry ways and I would agree with you.
Oh, the problem's been brewing for a long time now and it is only now that stories about rich people "getting away with it" spread so quickly that the public is getting SOME idea of how all that legal-mumbo-jumbo deal REALLY works.
Just as you are now practically illiterate if you don't know your way at least around a word processor and a web browser - it is finally becoming obvious that "legal rights" only apply to those with knowledge of those rights i.e. have money for legal representation or are educated in legal matters AND have the resources to pursue those "rights".
And still they are likely to lose unless they have money - as money can pay for more than just lawyers.
I.e. You have no rights unless you are willing to fight for them AND KNOW HOW TO DO IT. Anyway, Carlin said it nicely...
Again, fault lies with the people/citizens/voters.
They are the ones voting in and keeping voting in people who come up with such laws, and not raising up against such laws to have them overturned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh
Sheikh, also rendered as Sheik, Cheikh, Sjeik, Shaykh, Shaikh, Sheekh, Sheyh, eih, ejh, eyh and other variants (Arabic: , shaykh; pl. shuykh), is a word or honorific term in the Arabic language that literally means "elder".
Got that? Good!
IMHO, those writing "stupid" laws rarely posses the necessary level of stupidity required for creating SUCH levels of fuckup.
Laws like that are more often the result of naivete and incompetence/ignorance than stupidity or malice.
And it would be rather difficult for a person with such qualities to single-handedly come into position where he/she would be able to create laws.
ALSO, laws tend not to be written or passed by a single person.
So, the "stupidity" doesn't have to be the product of one person or even a small group.
In the long run, the responsibility for such laws lies with that group of people we refer to as "citizens".
Particularly the ones on the right side of the IQ curve. You know... the "smart" and educated ones.
Either for letting such laws pass or for not challenging them later - they are the ones responsible.
As for those who enforce such laws, you can't really suggest that they should pick and choose which laws they should enforce and which not, right?
Cause it is not just their job to enforce them, but a LEGAL OBLIGATION as well.
This new development should have some effect on the reduction of free-roaming individuals mentioned in your sig.
On the other hand, according to mine, actual effects will be purely cosmetic.
She'll calm down once he sends her some shit for her farm.
Back then, soldiers with PTSD used to be shot or left to die in no-man's-land for cowardice.
You will recognize that the world has changed a bit in last 100 years? On AND off the battlefield.
Giving troops their own robot-suits makes each soldier that much more expensive when the drone takes them out.
Good!
Maybe then less soldiers will be sent out there to die for no reason.
If your mission plan requires the troops to carry 200lbs of equipment themselves then whomever wrote that plan needs to be shot.
They are already regularly hauling around 100 pounds of gear.
1/3rd of it being just clothes, basic armor (helmet), weapon and ammo they are wearing.
With exoskeleton, they can move under full gear as they would with only the basic gear while not wearing the exoskeleton.
And again... You can't get vehicles to every place where you need soldiers who in turn need increased mobility.
There's never one around when you need to pull a wounded man out of the battlefield and then carry him to a field hospital.
Also, they can be a bitch to get up a a stairway.