Nowhere in TFA were diamonds mentioned. As numerous posts have already pointed out, cubic zirconia is not diamond-like, it's a cheap diamond substitute. The properties of diamonds have nothing to do with the technology in this article. So why was that added to the summary of an article that doesn't mention it?!? I've narrowed the blame down to either Roland Pigpile or the chimps that call themselves "editors" at slashdot. Hard to say. The slashdot janitors^Weditors have a long history of writing outright moronic and/or incorrect headlines for stories submitted by others, so I think it tips towards Scuttlemonkey.
Good thing they don't pay the slashdot editors for what they do, right?
Fear is what keeps us from doing dangerous things. Fear is an important part of our survival system. Targeting contextual fears could be therapeutically useful, but I think "cure" is the wrong word. The ultimate word on fear, though, comes from Jack Handy:
Fear can sometimes be a useful emotion. For instance, say you were an astronaut on the moon and you fear your partner had been turned into Dracula. The next time he goes out for moon pieces, WHAM!, you just slam the door behind him and blast off. He might call you on the radio and say he's not Dracula, but you just say, "Think again, Batman!"
There are other definitions of the term 'guilty' than merely the legal definitions. You'll notice the sentence doesn't even make sense using 'liable.' "True, but on the other hand it's entirely possible she was liable, knew she was liable, and thus saw this as the cheapest way out."
WTF are you talking about? It makes perfect sense.
HFCS you see in soda is a table-sugar substitute blend. It's chemically the same thing, only the molocules are arranged oh-so-slightly differently. In your stomach, where it matters for anything but tastes, there's zero difference. Metabolically it's the same, yes. But the taste is definitely different. The osmotic absorption pressure of a triple-glucose sugar molecule is different from that of a mix of single- and double-glucose molecules. Small differences in taste profile can significantly change the quantity consumed before satiation. Even though it's all the same in the gullet, it sure makes a difference when you feel sated from an 8oz sucrose Coke instead of a 20oz HFCS Coke.
So as far as I can tell the average American meal is enough to feed two people comfortably (as long as they're both non-American). In that case, is it really a surprise that you gain weight? Large portion size is not a US-only phenomenon. Restaurants generally serve large portions, even in Europe. Ever order wiener schnitzel in a restaurant in Germany or Austria? You get two plate-sized fried, breaded veal cutlets, with a mountain of potato salad next to it. Order the bratwurst and you get two giant sausages, with a shovel-full of boiled potatoes and sauerkraut. The only difference between the child portion and the adult is the child portion is one humongous sausage or cutlet. I ran into the same thing in France, Hungary, Slovakia, Italy, and Turkey, even. 4 out of 5 restaurants I went to served large, "celebration-grade" quantities of food. The problem is perceptual: people go to other countries on vacation and eat in restaurants the whole time, so they don't see how people eat at home. For residents, eating in a sit-down restaurant is (ideally) a special occasion, and nothing is more traditionally festive than eating yourself silly. The problem we have in the US has less to do with restaurant portions being too large, and more that people eat too many meals from restaurants.
Just becuase someone's grammar isn't up to your par that doesn't give you the righ to flame them. And on top of this when is the last time you saw a genius with good handwriting? Maybe his ideas are more important then the presentation? Ever think of that?? 1) handwriting != grammar. The former is a physical coordination issue, the latter an education issue
2) spelling and grammar of one's native tongue are remarkably accurate indicators of intelligence and education
3) [to GP poster] low user ID does not indicate anything beyond user account seniority.
Some human-defined canine behaviour is inherited without training. My parents setters showed gun-dog behaviour despite never having been trained or worked with dogs on a shoot. My partner's West Highland terrier is included to hunt rodents without any training (ratting is the main role for Westies when kept as working dogs). Those aren't human defined behaviors. Those are natural hunting instincts that humans have traditionally exploited. The reason those setters showed "gun dog behavior" is that retrieving, flushing, and pointing/setting (the traditional gun dog tasks) are natural parts of the canine hunting instinct. That's why dogs and people are such a good match. Our natural interests are remarkably similar.
I know the dog still needs to be trained, but some dogs, like bloodhounds, have a better sense of smell, there's a genetic aspect which cannot be trained, its either there or its not. They're talking about cloning drug sniffing dogs, not tracking dogs. The former is like looking for an elephant in a barn, while the latter is like looking for a mouse. You can use pretty much any sort of dog for drug sniffing--- and they do. They often just pick pound dogs that have a suitable temprament.
Really, you can use most any dog for tracking as well--- scent hounds are just better suited to it by breeding. But even then, the difference between (say) a Labrador and a Bloodhound is more significant than the difference between any one particular Bloodhound and another.
They know that the specimen has all the genetic traits it needs to be a successful drug sniffing dog. Why take the chance of breeding that out? The only genetic trait necessary to make it a good drug sniffing dog is being a dog. They use everything from beagles to german shepherds. It's more about training than innate ability. All dogs are good sniffers.
And isn't it possible the offspring will actually improve on the parents? Well, even more importantly, why are they even bothering? 95% of the dog's effectiveness as a sniffer is training plus the breed in general. I don't think the abilities of specific dogs vary enough to warrant the expense and difficulty of cloning.
Actually, MLK Jr. was a criminal, according to the laws on the books at the time. That was kind of the whole point of civil disobedience. Most people today believe that what he did was morally right, but legally it most assuredly was not. MLKjr was guilty only of violating a blatantly unconstitutional Alabama anti-boycott law, which was passed in 1921 to fight unions, and even then was only guilty by stretching the definition of "organize". The cracker fuck shit-eating southern Democrats had to pull a big stinking turd out of their inbred retard law books to get him on something, but they did it. If ever there was an example of why the government shouldn't have carte blanche to watch someone merely for being a "criminal", this is it.
Really my wrist hurts as using mouse is obligation on my desktop, and that too for an average of 12 hours a day.
Buy a trackball / TrackMan. I switched to using a Logitech TrackMan about 2 years ago after having wrist pain from too much mousing. The pain went away and it hasn't come back since. I've never met anyone who switched to a trackball and regretted it. Those stupid thumb-balls are absolute garbage. They'll destroy your thumb joints faster than carpal tunnel will ruin your wrist. The only ergonomically decent trackball controller is the MS Trackball Explorer, but in typical fashion, it's no longer made and there is no replacement. Currently they go for 80-100 dollars on ebay...
It's like they can't be bothered to hang their junk two more inches closer to the bowl. Perhaps they do not have an additional 2 inches of junk to hang...
well - intense nationalism, intense militarism and integration of the government and corporate concerns. I'd think that would be a good description of fascism, wouldn't it? Sure, but you won't really find much of that in Starship Troopers. OK, I'll grant the militarism to some degree, but give me a break, it's a book about a war from the point of view of a front line soldier. However, I challenge you to produce anything from the book about the integration of government and business or nationalism. Go ahead. I'll wait. Or did you not read the book and only saw Verhoeven's idiotic movie?
I love the movie Man, any credibility you had built up to that point was completely blown. The movie is utter tripe, even when viewed on its own merits, pretending it has no relation to the book.
Starship Stormtroopers Please. Moorcock is an ass. He went into Starship Troopers looking for fascist, conservative paternalism, and was determined to find it despite the fact that it isn't there. A lot of guys like Moorcock who have a philosophical axe to grind with Heinlein seem to be incabable of separating the man from his characters, or his characters' viewpoints from the "objective" reality of the world within the story, or their own preconceptions on certain subjects (e.g. the military) from the wide variety of attitudes found in real life. When it comes to Starship Troopers, usually the problem is that folks like Moorcock are basically from the anti-establishment, anti-military, anti-authority culture of the 60's--- hippies, some might call them. Folks from that culture are inherently disposed to view the military as utterly evil and immoral, and the belief that voluntary service therein could only be the result of "brainwashing". They cannot possibly imagine a scenario in which the military might be a good thing, and subsequently automatically label any positive portrayal of such as "fascism" and "propaganda". Starship Troopers" is a war novel that explores the notion of civic responsibility from an interesting angle.
You are correct, they did come from Buenos Aires. You sure about that? I don't recall there being any definite indication of exactly where Juan Rico and his parents lived. The only mention of Buenos Aires I recall was the part where his mother was visiting BA when it was hit by the bugs. Yeah, here it is: "...whether she felt that my mother had made a trip to Buenos Aires because I wasn't home where I should have been...Father had planned to go with her, but something had come up and he stayed over to settle it". Definitely indicates BA as a trip destination away from home. I think this is more confusion due to that idiotic movie, which did make his home Buenos Aires. Here is an outstanding analysis of the difference between the book and the movie, with special highlighting of the disingeniousness of the writers of the movie script..
Nowadays we live in a world in which neurologists and psychologists have demonstrated that this is fundamentally flawed, that much of our decision making is unconscious, and that in reality there is rarely such a thing as a free choice. That's not actually true. That analysis depends upon splitting the brain into multiple parts, and arbitrarily labeling some of them "conscious thought" and the rest "deterministic". The classic example trotted out is the observation that the "conscious thought" part of our brain activates after the rest of the brain makes a "decision" to take an action. This is then wilfully misinterpreted to mean that we are slaves to unconscious programmed responses. This is nonsense. The part of the brain where "thinking" happens has influence over the rest of the brain, it just doesn't have direct control. It exerts influence, and expects the rest of the brain to heed that influence later. You don't have to think about moving your legs in order to walk, because you've already trained a semi-autonomous subsystem to take care of those details. The "conscious brain" is only a small part of the system. The reason it activates after the action is taken is that it has long ago set the "non thinking" part to react as it wishes, and at the time of action is merely acting as a sort of "play by play commentator", absorbing the results.
What it comes down to is that "we" is more than just the small part of the brain that engages in complex thought. "We" are the entirety of the brain.
if my nintendo wii can run on 18 watts i'm sure the 'computer things' they carry can operate on that or less. And I'm sure you're neither an electrical engineer nor a soldier. I am nearly the former, and formerly the latter. We don't carry "computer things" in the Army. We carry radios, image intensification night vision systems, and laser designators. All those tasks require significantly more power than your little Wii.
Anyone else think it a bit shady when big government, big military agencies start sponsoring contests such as these? True, its likely cheaper than holding your own DIY projects. Especially when you spread the dev, effort and time costs over X number of "contestants." And true, the consumer application of military technology can at times be beneficial (e.g. GPS, avionics, etc.)...
I swear, it sounds like a duck...
Come on, not everything the DoD does is part of a sinister plot to create a "gay bomb", or build a world-girdling AI system destined to destroy mankind. As a former soldier who hauled many pounds of god damned batteries over ridge and across valley for two years in Afghanistan, I can guarantee there's nothing "shady" about it. Batteries are just too effin' heavy. Small battery for the NVG. Bigger battery for the satcom. Even bigger battery for the PAQ-3 laser. There's no secret project here. They just want grunts like me to be able to carry more ammo or cover more terrain while maintaining the same warfighting capacity.
I don't have the money or time or transportation to get real lessons.
Look at it this way: neither did Jimi Hendrix. Irrelevant. Simply because building the skills was harder in the past, that's no justification for kicking over the ladder of progress. Seriously, you're like an old fogey saying "Dad-gummit, if kerosene lamps and buggy whips were good enough for us, you young'uns ought to be happy with them too!"
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing they don't pay the slashdot editors for what they do, right?
Fear is what keeps us from doing dangerous things. Fear is an important part of our survival system. Targeting contextual fears could be therapeutically useful, but I think "cure" is the wrong word. The ultimate word on fear, though, comes from Jack Handy:
Fear can sometimes be a useful emotion. For instance, say you were an astronaut on the moon and you fear your partner had been turned into Dracula. The next time he goes out for moon pieces, WHAM!, you just slam the door behind him and blast off. He might call you on the radio and say he's not Dracula, but you just say, "Think again, Batman!"
WTF are you talking about? It makes perfect sense.
...meant downloading from BBS systems. So, what do you suppose the 'S' in "BBS" stands for?2) spelling and grammar of one's native tongue are remarkably accurate indicators of intelligence and education
3) [to GP poster] low user ID does not indicate anything beyond user account seniority.
Really, you can use most any dog for tracking as well--- scent hounds are just better suited to it by breeding. But even then, the difference between (say) a Labrador and a Bloodhound is more significant than the difference between any one particular Bloodhound and another.
Buy a trackball / TrackMan. I switched to using a Logitech TrackMan about 2 years ago after having wrist pain from too much mousing. The pain went away and it hasn't come back since. I've never met anyone who switched to a trackball and regretted it.
Those stupid thumb-balls are absolute garbage. They'll destroy your thumb joints faster than carpal tunnel will ruin your wrist. The only ergonomically decent trackball controller is the MS Trackball Explorer, but in typical fashion, it's no longer made and there is no replacement. Currently they go for 80-100 dollars on ebay...
What it comes down to is that "we" is more than just the small part of the brain that engages in complex thought. "We" are the entirety of the brain.
Anyone else think it a bit shady when big government, big military agencies start sponsoring contests such as these? True, its likely cheaper than holding your own DIY projects. Especially when you spread the dev, effort and time costs over X number of "contestants." And true, the consumer application of military technology can at times be beneficial (e.g. GPS, avionics, etc.) ...
I swear, it sounds like a duck...
Come on, not everything the DoD does is part of a sinister plot to create a "gay bomb", or build a world-girdling AI system destined to destroy mankind. As a former soldier who hauled many pounds of god damned batteries over ridge and across valley for two years in Afghanistan, I can guarantee there's nothing "shady" about it. Batteries are just too effin' heavy. Small battery for the NVG. Bigger battery for the satcom. Even bigger battery for the PAQ-3 laser. There's no secret project here. They just want grunts like me to be able to carry more ammo or cover more terrain while maintaining the same warfighting capacity.Look at it this way: neither did Jimi Hendrix.
Irrelevant. Simply because building the skills was harder in the past, that's no justification for kicking over the ladder of progress. Seriously, you're like an old fogey saying "Dad-gummit, if kerosene lamps and buggy whips were good enough for us, you young'uns ought to be happy with them too!"