It's been a while now that I've been hoping for a slashdot poll on this subject. For example...
My views on AGW are:
1) It doesn't exist
2) It does exist, but it's not caused by us so why get all worked up about it?
3) It does exist, but I think that change is a good thing (or the change will be neutral)
4) It does exist, and it's going to kill off millions of plant and animal species
5) It does exist, and it's going to kill off millions of humans
I'm guessing that it's a few loudspoken people on slashdot here who would choose 1-3, whereas the vast majority would choose 4-5.
Land not being arable != land for a potential landfill.
For an example just off the top of my head, how would you turn a mountainside into a landfill?
I'm sure that there are more examples like this...
And let's say, for argument's sake, you turn all non-arable land into landfill. Where do all of the people build their houses? On a landfill? What about the eco-system?
I'm sure we can all agree that the bible definitely doesn't say no to vaccines out-right, since vaccines didn't exist when the bible was written, so this must be an interpretation of a scripture that says something general or vague.
Can anyone give an example of what scripture this might be?
If not, I'm thinking that this "religion" thing is just an excuse that she tells other people, but the real reason is that she just thinks they're bad without any real evidence.
It's got to cost companies in the States more money to manufacture things for Imperial AND Metric, when they're selling both in the States and exporting to other countries. Switching to the metric system would save them on manufacturing costs. Perhaps these savings would be passed on to the consumer. (More likely a company would pocket it, IMHO)
A colleague of mine comments everything and deletes nothing despite the fact that we use version control. This leaves the actual non-commented code difficult to read and understand. Also, there have been times I may need to uncomment the code to use it again, but it takes too long to readapt it to work with the surrounding code that has evolved since the commenting, let along to understand exactly what's going on to make sure there aren't bugs.
For me, I think deleting commented code should be based on the following algorithm:
x = the amount of time to understand and/or adapt commented code for reintroduction
y = the amount of time to rewrite the same piece of code
if (x > y) {
Delete the code
} else {
Leave it
}
according to my parents, there's no eternity in Hell, you're just dead. And while I'm pointlessly defending their beliefs (despite the fact that I no longer share them), I should mention they also don't believe that the 6 days to create the world was literal (usually interpreted as 6000 years because a scripture says that a day for God is like 1000 years), instead they believe that the word "day" in this context is referring to an unspecified period of time (ie, as in the phrase 'back in my day').
But they also believe that we're too complex to evolve, so what do they know...
I'm an atheist, but I can tell you what my parents believe...
To summarize: God gave Satan power as he did all angels. He did remove some power, however, by banishing him to the earth. He isn't just killing him off because he is giving him an opportunity to learn for himself that God is good... And this also is a convenient way he can test the faith of man without bothering his conscience. He's set a time limit where enough is enough, at which point he'll put an end to it.
I don't see how that dictionary reference proves anything either way. It gives three definitions, one supports your side, the other two support the other side. The only reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that this word "America" is ambiguous when describing a region.
Bully's didn't pick on me because they were jealous that I was smarter than them, like some here suggest is always the case. No, they didn't give a shit about their grades, so what difference would the height of my grades make. Instead, they picked on me because I was different than the majority. Once I figured that out, I adjusted my behaviours to be more normal, and they stopped once they forgot who I used to be.
I was diagnosed with a meningioma about 6 years ago, and I agree that for a brain tumor, it's arguably the safest type. But safest does not equal safe. To get rid of my tumour, they still had to do brain surgery, which is always risky.
For me, though I didn't have seizures from the tumor, I began having seizures a few months after my surgery which the doctors said is caused from scar tissue from my surgery. This is not something they can fix by doing more surgery, since more surgery leads to more scar tissue so it is something that I have to live with.
So this number of 0.5% of these tumors cause seizures is not so accurate since it doesn't take into account how often patents get them because of the surgery.
The least interesting tumor? Perhaps, but it's still a freakin' tumor!... And almost guaranteed not to kill you?... That is just wrong.
In fact, if you get an MRI, they make sure that for example your thighs are not touching each other. Because if they are, your flesh forms a loop antenna that can pick up the RF energy in the magnet room...which will cause localized heating and burns.
"-Prepare the patient for the MR procedure by using insulation material (i.e., appropriate padding) to prevent skin-to-skin contact points and the formation of “closed-loops” from touching body parts."
Perhaps the technicians were doing the 7 or 8 MRI's I have had done in the last 6 years wrong, but I have never had anything placed between my legs during an MRI. Also, I should point out that I have never had localized heating or burns.
Appropriately for this article, I had a meningioma, which is why I have had so many MRI's. So, all of my scans have been on my head.
Agreed, if I flip a coin only 100 times, it would be common to not have an exact 50/50 ratio of heads to tails. It's when you take the number of times you flip a coin higher and higher that you see a trend towards 0.5p
Hopefuls see 53% and say that since it's not 50%, so there's proof of "ESP". Skeptics see that it's close to 50% and imagine that it would get closer as the number of trials increased, so there's no proof.
Unfortunately, neither side will be able to convince the other.
To me this is similar to how great color photos are, and yet there are some amazing things that can still only be done with a black and white shot.
Both the industry and the consumers need to figure out which medium is best for each type of film. I'd say that in general, if viewing it in HD makes a difference, than stereoscopic will add that much more. On the other hand if, say, you're renting a romantic comedy, you'll probably skip the HD and thus probably wouldn't need 3D either.
I don't think there's much centripetal force on the rubber band as a result of the rotation of the drum. I think that only happens when the band can't roll at the right speed to maintain its position in the drum.
I'm not saying there isn't centripetal force though. I would expect there to be centripetal force expanding the band because it itself is spinning. Obviously, it's not enough to counteract the other forces.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been a while now that I've been hoping for a slashdot poll on this subject. For example...
My views on AGW are:
1) It doesn't exist
2) It does exist, but it's not caused by us so why get all worked up about it?
3) It does exist, but I think that change is a good thing (or the change will be neutral)
4) It does exist, and it's going to kill off millions of plant and animal species
5) It does exist, and it's going to kill off millions of humans
I'm guessing that it's a few loudspoken people on slashdot here who would choose 1-3, whereas the vast majority would choose 4-5.
Land not being arable != land for a potential landfill.
For an example just off the top of my head, how would you turn a mountainside into a landfill?
I'm sure that there are more examples like this...
And let's say, for argument's sake, you turn all non-arable land into landfill. Where do all of the people build their houses? On a landfill? What about the eco-system?
Agreed, but I should point out that I only specified the bible because the woman in the article mentioned being a Christian.
I'm sure we can all agree that the bible definitely doesn't say no to vaccines out-right, since vaccines didn't exist when the bible was written, so this must be an interpretation of a scripture that says something general or vague.
Can anyone give an example of what scripture this might be?
If not, I'm thinking that this "religion" thing is just an excuse that she tells other people, but the real reason is that she just thinks they're bad without any real evidence.
Here's an, admittedly weak, argument:
It's got to cost companies in the States more money to manufacture things for Imperial AND Metric, when they're selling both in the States and exporting to other countries. Switching to the metric system would save them on manufacturing costs. Perhaps these savings would be passed on to the consumer. (More likely a company would pocket it, IMHO)
A colleague of mine comments everything and deletes nothing despite the fact that we use version control. This leaves the actual non-commented code difficult to read and understand. Also, there have been times I may need to uncomment the code to use it again, but it takes too long to readapt it to work with the surrounding code that has evolved since the commenting, let along to understand exactly what's going on to make sure there aren't bugs. For me, I think deleting commented code should be based on the following algorithm: x = the amount of time to understand and/or adapt commented code for reintroduction y = the amount of time to rewrite the same piece of code if (x > y) { Delete the code } else { Leave it }
Sorry, totally my fault, I was reading too quickly and I didn't read the first part of your sentence - "The metal used to make"
Thanks for the correction, I don't want to mislead anyone.
Yes, you're right, it costs 1.6 cents per penny.
citation: metro news
Having trouble sticking to one topic, are we?
according to my parents, there's no eternity in Hell, you're just dead. And while I'm pointlessly defending their beliefs (despite the fact that I no longer share them), I should mention they also don't believe that the 6 days to create the world was literal (usually interpreted as 6000 years because a scripture says that a day for God is like 1000 years), instead they believe that the word "day" in this context is referring to an unspecified period of time (ie, as in the phrase 'back in my day').
But they also believe that we're too complex to evolve, so what do they know...
I'm an atheist, but I can tell you what my parents believe...
To summarize: God gave Satan power as he did all angels. He did remove some power, however, by banishing him to the earth. He isn't just killing him off because he is giving him an opportunity to learn for himself that God is good... And this also is a convenient way he can test the faith of man without bothering his conscience. He's set a time limit where enough is enough, at which point he'll put an end to it.
Again, not my beliefs.
I don't see how that dictionary reference proves anything either way. It gives three definitions, one supports your side, the other two support the other side. The only reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that this word "America" is ambiguous when describing a region.
Bully's didn't pick on me because they were jealous that I was smarter than them, like some here suggest is always the case. No, they didn't give a shit about their grades, so what difference would the height of my grades make. Instead, they picked on me because I was different than the majority. Once I figured that out, I adjusted my behaviours to be more normal, and they stopped once they forgot who I used to be.
I was diagnosed with a meningioma about 6 years ago, and I agree that for a brain tumor, it's arguably the safest type. But safest does not equal safe. To get rid of my tumour, they still had to do brain surgery, which is always risky.
For me, though I didn't have seizures from the tumor, I began having seizures a few months after my surgery which the doctors said is caused from scar tissue from my surgery. This is not something they can fix by doing more surgery, since more surgery leads to more scar tissue so it is something that I have to live with.
So this number of 0.5% of these tumors cause seizures is not so accurate since it doesn't take into account how often patents get them because of the surgery.
The least interesting tumor? Perhaps, but it's still a freakin' tumor!... And almost guaranteed not to kill you?... That is just wrong.
In fact, if you get an MRI, they make sure that for example your thighs are not touching each other. Because if they are, your flesh forms a loop antenna that can pick up the RF energy in the magnet room...which will cause localized heating and burns.
http://www.mrisafety.com/safety_article.asp?subject=17
"-Prepare the patient for the MR procedure by using insulation material (i.e., appropriate padding) to prevent skin-to-skin contact points and the formation of “closed-loops” from touching body parts."
Perhaps the technicians were doing the 7 or 8 MRI's I have had done in the last 6 years wrong, but I have never had anything placed between my legs during an MRI. Also, I should point out that I have never had localized heating or burns.
Appropriately for this article, I had a meningioma, which is why I have had so many MRI's. So, all of my scans have been on my head.
Kinexxx
+1 hilarious
1/3 has no exact representation.
1/3 WOULD have an exact representation in a different number system.
If we used, say, base 3 instead of base 10, 1/3 would be 0.1
Agreed, if I flip a coin only 100 times, it would be common to not have an exact 50/50 ratio of heads to tails. It's when you take the number of times you flip a coin higher and higher that you see a trend towards 0.5p
Hopefuls see 53% and say that since it's not 50%, so there's proof of "ESP". Skeptics see that it's close to 50% and imagine that it would get closer as the number of trials increased, so there's no proof.
Unfortunately, neither side will be able to convince the other.
3D isn't right for every movie
To me this is similar to how great color photos are, and yet there are some amazing things that can still only be done with a black and white shot.
Both the industry and the consumers need to figure out which medium is best for each type of film. I'd say that in general, if viewing it in HD makes a difference, than stereoscopic will add that much more. On the other hand if, say, you're renting a romantic comedy, you'll probably skip the HD and thus probably wouldn't need 3D either.
4 actually...
Donatello
Raphael
Michaelangelo
Leonardo
You can't do this... you'll be risking a galactic snowball fight!
Thank God I stopped at 13 pictures!
I hate to reply to myself, but...
Along that line of reasoning, he was probably an alien.
I don't think there's much centripetal force on the rubber band as a result of the rotation of the drum. I think that only happens when the band can't roll at the right speed to maintain its position in the drum.
I'm not saying there isn't centripetal force though. I would expect there to be centripetal force expanding the band because it itself is spinning. Obviously, it's not enough to counteract the other forces.
I'm not a Physicist, though, so I could be wrong.