Anybody notice how closely this parallels Orson Scott Card's future in "Ender's Game"? I'm talking about the part where the French (rough quote) "don't start teaching Standard until the French language patterns are already set". Scary... and probably an example of why Americans haven't liked the French (except for their food) for a while.
Can't remember who said this, or exact quote, but:
"Running is the only true sport, everything else is just a game"
Too true, running is the only sport which measures pure physical ability and will to win, without outside interference (bad calls, home field advantage, etc.)
You could even go so far as DISTANCE running is the last true sport as even sprinting is affected by speed suits and track material (surface).
Re:South Park episode display classic irony
on
Isn't It Ironic?
·
· Score: 1
Commonly accepted difference (I believe) is sarcasm is intended to hurt someone (ex: THAT was a good idea!) but irony doesn't have to be, it can simply be an interesting twist of fate. I didn't read the article, but there are a few different types of irony that I won't get into now, but sarcasm doesn't even fit into the definiton of some of the subsets.
1) Fly enough and some stuff has to be instinctive... most of the pilots airlines have on their payrolls are retired Navy/ Airforce pilots. Phenomenal pilots with thousands of hours of experience. I'd hope they can react to most emergency situations correctly and instantly. (Read "The Right Stuff" by Tom Wolfe).
2) My best guess for the time it takes my hand to move 2.5 feet is between.1 and.2 seconds. That leaves you over a second to decide the turbine has to be shut off. Given enough time in an aircraft I have confidence a pilot would make the correct decision quickly enough to save the plane.
If you haven't noticed, that whole "impending food shortage" problem from the early 90s didn't disappear when they stopped making documentaries about it.
Ummm... you're kidding about the impending foot shortage, right? Or you should be. We pay people NOT to grow food and farmers are still regularly forced to sell land because their crop simply isn't needed. The thought of a food shortage (in the US) is utterly ridiculous.
What liberty is being sacrificed? I SUPPOSE your liberty to read documents, but then why aren't you/we/people campaigning for the release of these documents years ago? I believe Jefferson was referring to invasions of personal privacy, not the government's witholding of documents which they believe may hurt our interests.
(BTW, "If I'm wrong, please keep it to yourself." is my sig, meant to be facetious(sp?))
Not necessarily... stuff is actually declassified then RE-classified when circumstances warrant... I imagine somebody decided this could in some way help our enemies and made a decision that may or may not have been an overreaction. I prefer we overreact and keep info out of the hands of the public (read historians who travel to the National Archives) for a little longer then run a security risk, however slight.
In all probability it's stuff that's entirely mundane (they NEVER release the stuff they really don't want you to see, the latest date where you can get an almost complete understanding of what actually happened is the 40s/ 50s) but in any case the only people who are likely to see it are historians, we'll only see the conclusions they draw from the data.
You do realize that "jove" is short for "Jupiter"? So when you say "By jove" you're really using an a really old form of "By God!" (Cursing/ swearing/ whatever to God).
Anyway, what caught my eye was Europa is swearing to Jupiter using Jupiter's name. That seemed much funnier before I wrote this post...
Actually it's because Mario stayed in the middle of the screen when you were running forward... you naturally looked to the middle of your TV and hence where he was gonna land.
People wouldn't need to vote for it. Bush is adding WAY over that to the Pentagon's budget over the next few years, if we (Bush) decided this was a good idea we could sign the money over tomorrow.
This is not to say that any politician would WANT to do this, but public opinion isn't really a factor if the government wants to spend money.
"My understanding of evolution, is that it is simply a change in the frequency of particular traits within a species (or subset of the species), carried of course in the dna of the creature."
That ignores the big changes, like moving from single cell organisms to complex organisms (like us). While small changes can occur in the form of an organism there are no major changes that occur on a timescale as short as a few thousand years. (And when I say major changes I mean MAJOR, not just the enhancement of a feature or something, I mean moving from the ocean to land, or single celled organism to multicelled organism etc.)
What I meant was evolution is supposed to take MILLIONS- not thousands- of years. So it would be impossible to believe in a strict interpretation of the Old Testament and in an unaltered theory of evolution.
"What does evolution have to do with any of that? The truth of evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God."
Yeah, but if you're a Christian and believe in the Old Testament it does. Of course you have the middle ground where people say "Oh, God created the universe and then just let it go" but to me that's just someone who can't come to grips with the fact that they only have X more years and then they're done for good.
Just to play devil's advocate, how does evolution meet these criteria?
You can't test it, at least not on an acceptable timeframe. Sure there are the odd example of butterflies changing color over the course of a few years, but how does that explain how a monkey turned into me?
Your second point is wrong, creationism is applicable to the problem at hand, our origins. If you deny out of hand that it is not applicable because it doesn't meet your notion of "scientific" then you're not meeting your idea of "scientific".
AFAIK, Hypotheses make predictions and theories are the results of testing these hypotheses through many experiments.
The Pythagorean Theorem isn't a theory, you can test it and it's always true. (I believe "Theorem" is another for "Law" in this case, but it's been a couple years since I was taking Latin so I can't remember if that's what it means... I mean I think it equates to Law not Theory).
Anyway I guess I could be wrong, but it looks to me that if you take evolution as a theory you should take creationism as a theory.
Because Hubble isn't powerful enough to show the lander. There's a picture you can find of the telescope POINTING AT ONE OF THE LANDING SPOTS and not being able to see anything. It's online somewhere but I'm too lazy to find it now.
Creationism is based on FAITH, so evidence is not going to change people's opinions. That being said, just because somebody believes something different than you doesn't make them wrong, especially since evolution is still just as much a theory as creationism.
Because the EU doesn't really want the US in it. They were created to create another economic superpower to compete with the US economically. If the US is in the EU that kinda kills the fun for them.
I believe the point is that he's NOT an expert on technology. If he was a technological expert the reaction would be, "Oh? Another one? *Yawn*" Because he's a Regular Guy (who happens to be able to write his opinions in the NYT) it means that Linux is starting to infiltrate the NON-tech oriented community which is a Good Thing for Linux because I think the technologically savvy demographic is fairly well saturated with Linux users.
And BTW, a lot of people care what the editor of a newspaper thinks. About a lot of things. You don't become editor of the NYT by being a moron. He's probably at least as smart (however you want to define it) as you and his education is greater than yours in probably a multitude of areas (he does read the NYT everday which can be fairly informative on occasion). Admittedly he's not a technological expert, but I've already explained why I think that's a good thing.
If all the switches do is light-up that's probably a fairly accurate representation of the space shuttle's cockpit. Afterall, unless you build the ENTIRE SHUTTLE there's not much they can do now is there?
I'm not sure how this got modded "Insightful", because this guy is just playing the "What if..." game. If you start inventing specific situations that may/ may not exist you'll NEVER be wrong.
Of course, in your situation it would be legal. You own the copyrighted material, he owns the material, you're not doing anything wrong... here's where your scenario breaks down- This is NOT what's happening. Not at all, not even close. Instead of a friend it's a stranger. Instead of owning the CD he doesn't own it (I'm categorically stating this and I mean too, nobody would bother to download poor quality tracks from a CD they own, and if you say you do I'm going to call you an idiot or a liar, take your pick). And instead of this happening once it's happening an untold number of times a day.
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody notice how closely this parallels Orson Scott Card's future in "Ender's Game"? I'm talking about the part where the French (rough quote) "don't start teaching Standard until the French language patterns are already set". Scary... and probably an example of why Americans haven't liked the French (except for their food) for a while.
Can't remember who said this, or exact quote, but:
"Running is the only true sport, everything else is just a game"
Too true, running is the only sport which measures pure physical ability and will to win, without outside interference (bad calls, home field advantage, etc.)
You could even go so far as DISTANCE running is the last true sport as even sprinting is affected by speed suits and track material (surface).
Commonly accepted difference (I believe) is sarcasm is intended to hurt someone (ex: THAT was a good idea!) but irony doesn't have to be, it can simply be an interesting twist of fate. I didn't read the article, but there are a few different types of irony that I won't get into now, but sarcasm doesn't even fit into the definiton of some of the subsets.
Apparently FAQ needs to be updated... lots of my Karma came from +Funny. Or maybe I'm SO funny that my Funny stuff counts and everyone else's doesn't.
I don't know all that much about flying, but:
.1 and .2 seconds. That leaves you over a second to decide the turbine has to be shut off. Given enough time in an aircraft I have confidence a pilot would make the correct decision quickly enough to save the plane.
1) Fly enough and some stuff has to be instinctive... most of the pilots airlines have on their payrolls are retired Navy/ Airforce pilots. Phenomenal pilots with thousands of hours of experience. I'd hope they can react to most emergency situations correctly and instantly. (Read "The Right Stuff" by Tom Wolfe).
2) My best guess for the time it takes my hand to move 2.5 feet is between
If you haven't noticed, that whole "impending food shortage" problem from the early 90s didn't disappear when they stopped making documentaries about it.
Ummm... you're kidding about the impending foot shortage, right? Or you should be. We pay people NOT to grow food and farmers are still regularly forced to sell land because their crop simply isn't needed. The thought of a food shortage (in the US) is utterly ridiculous.
What liberty is being sacrificed? I SUPPOSE your liberty to read documents, but then why aren't you/we/people campaigning for the release of these documents years ago? I believe Jefferson was referring to invasions of personal privacy, not the government's witholding of documents which they believe may hurt our interests.
(BTW, "If I'm wrong, please keep it to yourself." is my sig, meant to be facetious(sp?))
Not necessarily... stuff is actually declassified then RE-classified when circumstances warrant... I imagine somebody decided this could in some way help our enemies and made a decision that may or may not have been an overreaction. I prefer we overreact and keep info out of the hands of the public (read historians who travel to the National Archives) for a little longer then run a security risk, however slight.
In all probability it's stuff that's entirely mundane (they NEVER release the stuff they really don't want you to see, the latest date where you can get an almost complete understanding of what actually happened is the 40s/ 50s) but in any case the only people who are likely to see it are historians, we'll only see the conclusions they draw from the data.
You do realize that "jove" is short for "Jupiter"? So when you say "By jove" you're really using an a really old form of "By God!" (Cursing/ swearing/ whatever to God).
Anyway, what caught my eye was Europa is swearing to Jupiter using Jupiter's name. That seemed much funnier before I wrote this post...
Actually it's because Mario stayed in the middle of the screen when you were running forward... you naturally looked to the middle of your TV and hence where he was gonna land.
"wore a hat with a KGB symbol on it"
Contrary to what most people think, the KGB do NOT, repeat, NOT wear hats advertising their presence.
People wouldn't need to vote for it. Bush is adding WAY over that to the Pentagon's budget over the next few years, if we (Bush) decided this was a good idea we could sign the money over tomorrow.
This is not to say that any politician would WANT to do this, but public opinion isn't really a factor if the government wants to spend money.
Not necessarily nuclear reactors that produce the plutonium and what not necessary to make weapons.. those are the ones Bush is worried about.
"My understanding of evolution, is that it is simply a change in the frequency of particular traits within a species (or subset of the species), carried of course in the dna of the creature."
That ignores the big changes, like moving from single cell organisms to complex organisms (like us). While small changes can occur in the form of an organism there are no major changes that occur on a timescale as short as a few thousand years. (And when I say major changes I mean MAJOR, not just the enhancement of a feature or something, I mean moving from the ocean to land, or single celled organism to multicelled organism etc.)
What I meant was evolution is supposed to take MILLIONS- not thousands- of years. So it would be impossible to believe in a strict interpretation of the Old Testament and in an unaltered theory of evolution.
But creationism says the world (and universe) began at, I think, 4004 B.C. Evolution says the universe began a few years earlier IIRC.
"What does evolution have to do with any of that? The truth of evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God."
Yeah, but if you're a Christian and believe in the Old Testament it does. Of course you have the middle ground where people say "Oh, God created the universe and then just let it go" but to me that's just someone who can't come to grips with the fact that they only have X more years and then they're done for good.
Just to play devil's advocate, how does evolution meet these criteria?
You can't test it, at least not on an acceptable timeframe. Sure there are the odd example of butterflies changing color over the course of a few years, but how does that explain how a monkey turned into me?
Your second point is wrong, creationism is applicable to the problem at hand, our origins. If you deny out of hand that it is not applicable because it doesn't meet your notion of "scientific" then you're not meeting your idea of "scientific".
AFAIK, Hypotheses make predictions and theories are the results of testing these hypotheses through many experiments.
The Pythagorean Theorem isn't a theory, you can test it and it's always true. (I believe "Theorem" is another for "Law" in this case, but it's been a couple years since I was taking Latin so I can't remember if that's what it means... I mean I think it equates to Law not Theory).
Anyway I guess I could be wrong, but it looks to me that if you take evolution as a theory you should take creationism as a theory.
Because Hubble isn't powerful enough to show the lander. There's a picture you can find of the telescope POINTING AT ONE OF THE LANDING SPOTS and not being able to see anything. It's online somewhere but I'm too lazy to find it now.
Creationism is based on FAITH, so evidence is not going to change people's opinions. That being said, just because somebody believes something different than you doesn't make them wrong, especially since evolution is still just as much a theory as creationism.
I imagine that his extremely old looking monitor hasn't been on in well over a week.
Because the EU doesn't really want the US in it. They were created to create another economic superpower to compete with the US economically. If the US is in the EU that kinda kills the fun for them.
I believe the point is that he's NOT an expert on technology. If he was a technological expert the reaction would be, "Oh? Another one? *Yawn*" Because he's a Regular Guy (who happens to be able to write his opinions in the NYT) it means that Linux is starting to infiltrate the NON-tech oriented community which is a Good Thing for Linux because I think the technologically savvy demographic is fairly well saturated with Linux users.
And BTW, a lot of people care what the editor of a newspaper thinks. About a lot of things. You don't become editor of the NYT by being a moron. He's probably at least as smart (however you want to define it) as you and his education is greater than yours in probably a multitude of areas (he does read the NYT everday which can be fairly informative on occasion). Admittedly he's not a technological expert, but I've already explained why I think that's a good thing.
If all the switches do is light-up that's probably a fairly accurate representation of the space shuttle's cockpit. Afterall, unless you build the ENTIRE SHUTTLE there's not much they can do now is there?
I'm not sure how this got modded "Insightful", because this guy is just playing the "What if..." game. If you start inventing specific situations that may/ may not exist you'll NEVER be wrong.
Of course, in your situation it would be legal. You own the copyrighted material, he owns the material, you're not doing anything wrong... here's where your scenario breaks down- This is NOT what's happening. Not at all, not even close. Instead of a friend it's a stranger. Instead of owning the CD he doesn't own it (I'm categorically stating this and I mean too, nobody would bother to download poor quality tracks from a CD they own, and if you say you do I'm going to call you an idiot or a liar, take your pick). And instead of this happening once it's happening an untold number of times a day.