Okay, I know that "Saccharomyces cerevisiae" MUST mean something like "sugar eater found in wheat" but why, in that first instant of seeing the post, did my mind flash read "sweet cervix"?
If only there were something I could consume that would slow down my intuitive thinking to the point that reading could catch up...
In the Sudan, for instance, it was originally african animists everywhere, now there are arabs fighting for the resources and comprising the majority government in the north.
Prior to about 650 AD islam did not exist anywhere, by 700 AD muslims were invading Europe through the Iberian peninsula and at the borders of the Byzantine Empire. By 1000 AD or so, they owned western Europe and were enough of a threat at the borders of the Byzantine Empire that the first crusade was called. By 1450 or so, they were pushed out of Spain, but had conquered the Byzantine Empire and still hold that land as Turkey.
Indonesia is an entirely muslim country... how do you suppose it got that way? Do you think that the muslim merchants, soldiers and princes of the 12th century simply asked if the original indonesian tribal people wanted to be muslim?
Now, muslims are expanding from Indonesia north into Thailand and east into the Philippines.
I remember an episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" many years ago when an ambassador was advising the show's prime minister and telling him about how you invade without invading; first you send settles, then in an emergency, you send fire crews, then you send police to assist/protect the fire crews, then you send soldiers to help them, then you just don't leave. He was talking about russians into West Berlin, and the futility of a nuclear deterant, but Machivelli said pretty much the same thing in the early 14th century.
First you send settlers, then you demand "your rights" then you fight for your rights, then you are freedom fighters and not invaders.
This is the excuse used in every country by muslims right now. There is only one country that muslims "have a right to" and that is Saudi Arabia... the home of Mecca. Everywhere else is an invasion that occurred since the 7th century or is still occurring.
Still, I feel more secure about my rights of worship (or non-worship) in a modern christian regime than in a modern islamic one.
Ideally, I'd prefer to live in a secular regime, but since the western nations have become more religious in response to a perceived religious threat, that's not likely to happen now.
The christian nations mostly gave up their expansion on religous grounds after the 30 years war (though happily finding other reasons to wage war); islamic nations are still expanding on the basis of religion. They're pushing out in Africa (Chad and Sudan), south (Thailand) and central Asia (that would be the chechin part, right across central Asia up to Mongolia) and Australasia (specifically the southern part of the Philippines). In all western nations, they're pushing out from the inside attempting to get sharia law established in all nations that have a significant islamic minority.
I do not want to live under sharia law. I'm atheist, not anti-theist, but islam as a nation truly does scare me.
Except, again, the christian book does not tell them it's okay to do these things while the islamic one does.
Those christians killing "in the name of God" are going against their religion's teachings (for instance "Those who live by the sword die by the sword" and the requirement to turn one's cheek and offer the other one when slapped), while those muslims doing so are doing so with the blessing of their book which tells them it is okay to lie, cheat, steal and kill non-believers along with those who actively oppose Islam. (I give you Sura 9 if you doubt me, try 9:5 and 9:29 for example.)
Good point, except that the crusades were 800 years ago and this is going on now...
The fact that Sudanese animists, Thai buddhists, and Philippine christians are all currently fighting for their lives against muslim invaders makes the comparison justified.
To be fair, I often laugh before the punchline while watching TBBT myself; it's because the setup writes the punchline and some of us get there a bit faster.
The adage you're looking for is: "It's always easier to apologise than to ask permission."
If noone catches you for not asking permission, then you're free and clear; but if someone does catch you, it's a second opportunity to look good and you've saved all the time from asking permission for all the times you weren't caught.
Absolutely agree. The reason to use greek with greek and not latin is for consistancy, but it sometimes happens that they get mixed in english words anyway. It is, afterall, neither latin or greek, but merely english.
And Daniel Staal's idea (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1957378&cid=34930046) of this leading to a closed resource loop really makes this hard core sci-fi stuff.
So this could potentially lead to colonising Mars or other planets
I'm glad there are others out there who understand the question: "of what use is a baby"?
I'm usually one for going to the source rather than a third party, but the Wikipedia article includes a link to the RFC fairly early on, and has a lot of additional information that was quite enlightening. (For instance, the link to "Victorian Internet" in the see also links.)
I think it was a good thing that the Wikipedia article was linked.
About the only bad thing about going to Wikipedia first was that you got the joke explained to you before you got a chance to experience the ah-ha moment (if you didn't already know what IPoAC was).
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I know that "Saccharomyces cerevisiae" MUST mean something like "sugar eater found in wheat" but why, in that first instant of seeing the post, did my mind flash read "sweet cervix"? If only there were something I could consume that would slow down my intuitive thinking to the point that reading could catch up...
...inhaling!
By the token of depopulation being "green" then wouldn't the Black Plague be the greenest event in human history?
In the Sudan, for instance, it was originally african animists everywhere, now there are arabs fighting for the resources and comprising the majority government in the north.
Prior to about 650 AD islam did not exist anywhere, by 700 AD muslims were invading Europe through the Iberian peninsula and at the borders of the Byzantine Empire. By 1000 AD or so, they owned western Europe and were enough of a threat at the borders of the Byzantine Empire that the first crusade was called. By 1450 or so, they were pushed out of Spain, but had conquered the Byzantine Empire and still hold that land as Turkey.
Indonesia is an entirely muslim country... how do you suppose it got that way? Do you think that the muslim merchants, soldiers and princes of the 12th century simply asked if the original indonesian tribal people wanted to be muslim?
Now, muslims are expanding from Indonesia north into Thailand and east into the Philippines.
I remember an episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" many years ago when an ambassador was advising the show's prime minister and telling him about how you invade without invading; first you send settles, then in an emergency, you send fire crews, then you send police to assist/protect the fire crews, then you send soldiers to help them, then you just don't leave. He was talking about russians into West Berlin, and the futility of a nuclear deterant, but Machivelli said pretty much the same thing in the early 14th century.
First you send settlers, then you demand "your rights" then you fight for your rights, then you are freedom fighters and not invaders.
This is the excuse used in every country by muslims right now. There is only one country that muslims "have a right to" and that is Saudi Arabia... the home of Mecca. Everywhere else is an invasion that occurred since the 7th century or is still occurring.
No wonder I'm an atheist then.
Still, I feel more secure about my rights of worship (or non-worship) in a modern christian regime than in a modern islamic one.
Ideally, I'd prefer to live in a secular regime, but since the western nations have become more religious in response to a perceived religious threat, that's not likely to happen now.
The christian nations mostly gave up their expansion on religous grounds after the 30 years war (though happily finding other reasons to wage war); islamic nations are still expanding on the basis of religion. They're pushing out in Africa (Chad and Sudan), south (Thailand) and central Asia (that would be the chechin part, right across central Asia up to Mongolia) and Australasia (specifically the southern part of the Philippines). In all western nations, they're pushing out from the inside attempting to get sharia law established in all nations that have a significant islamic minority.
I do not want to live under sharia law. I'm atheist, not anti-theist, but islam as a nation truly does scare me.
What is your take on the muslims pushing out the boundries of the islamic nation in Sudan, Chad, Thailand, and the Philippines?
Is it that Islam is a peaceful religion and all these places are traditionally muslim, so the muslims there are merely defending themselves?
So then if the Qur'an refers to certain historical events then why is it used to provide a framework for modern life?
Ammonia's about all it takes.
Are you saying that if one has access to ammonia, one should be investigated more closely?
Do you have access to ammonia?
My only point was that the gp poster said "when some crazy fucker blows himself up" and you said "here's one".
And the new testament specifically states that it supercedes the old testament.
Did you miss the fact that the Oklahoma City bombers didn't blow themselves up?
Except, again, the christian book does not tell them it's okay to do these things while the islamic one does.
Those christians killing "in the name of God" are going against their religion's teachings (for instance "Those who live by the sword die by the sword" and the requirement to turn one's cheek and offer the other one when slapped), while those muslims doing so are doing so with the blessing of their book which tells them it is okay to lie, cheat, steal and kill non-believers along with those who actively oppose Islam. (I give you Sura 9 if you doubt me, try 9:5 and 9:29 for example.)
Good point, except that the crusades were 800 years ago and this is going on now...
The fact that Sudanese animists, Thai buddhists, and Philippine christians are all currently fighting for their lives against muslim invaders makes the comparison justified.
replying to undo mouse wheel moderation.
As a matter of fact, yes... I can always tell when I had Mini-wheats the night before by the scent of wheat wafting up from the morning pee.
Or like one of the other replies, asparagus is well known for carrying its smell through to your urine.
Trained dogs are used to detect cancer in people - so the idea of smelling out disease is not new.
After a really good steak, I smell like prime beef (sweating gravy?). Hence the vegetarians complaining about "meat stink".
It's amazing what a person can observe if one pays attention.
To be fair, I often laugh before the punchline while watching TBBT myself; it's because the setup writes the punchline and some of us get there a bit faster.
The adage you're looking for is: "It's always easier to apologise than to ask permission."
If noone catches you for not asking permission, then you're free and clear; but if someone does catch you, it's a second opportunity to look good and you've saved all the time from asking permission for all the times you weren't caught.
Not only urine, but mere sweat contains uric acid and so the jeans must have developed that distinctive ammonia based "stale urine" scent.
Urine being sterile or not, still stinks. And old urine stinks more.
...When they were scrabbling to find exoplanets one at a time?
I'll say it again: we live in interesting times.
Oh Great, now I've set off the conditions allowing for an avalanche of "dead baby" jokes.
Absolutely agree. The reason to use greek with greek and not latin is for consistancy, but it sometimes happens that they get mixed in english words anyway. It is, afterall, neither latin or greek, but merely english.
See now, that's one use I never thought of...
And Daniel Staal's idea (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1957378&cid=34930046) of this leading to a closed resource loop really makes this hard core sci-fi stuff.
So this could potentially lead to colonising Mars or other planets
I'm glad there are others out there who understand the question: "of what use is a baby"?
Prior art.
I'm usually one for going to the source rather than a third party, but the Wikipedia article includes a link to the RFC fairly early on, and has a lot of additional information that was quite enlightening. (For instance, the link to "Victorian Internet" in the see also links.)
I think it was a good thing that the Wikipedia article was linked.
About the only bad thing about going to Wikipedia first was that you got the joke explained to you before you got a chance to experience the ah-ha moment (if you didn't already know what IPoAC was).
...woosh? You do realise he's talking about plants and gardening, don't you?