Whoever suggested making a house that children never exercised self-control? You certainly are a wizard of reading stuff in to a message that's just not there. Or where you simply constructing a straw-man?
It's my suggestion that without many exceptions, teens are unable to exercise appropriate self-control with cell phones. That type of control comes with greater maturity and absolute responsibility to pay the bill themselves. Which is why I stated that only emancipated persons who are paying for the things themselves should have them...
Cell phones aren't causing those problems, they are just a manifestation of other problems -- some of which are just part of the normal process of growing up/raising kids.
While this is literally true, it doesn't really paint an accurate picture of what's happening. The 'cause' is that the 'youth' isn't mature enough to use the cell phone responsibly.
The trick isn't to ban kids from using cell phones -- the trick is to teach them to use them considerately, responsibly, and at appropriate times.
I would disagree. Ban cell phones from kids -- because the *REAL* trick is gaging when a kid WILL use a cell considerately, responsibly and at appropriate times. Most kids can be TAUGHT the rules but not necessarily to follow them.
Again, I believe a valid solution is to keep cell phones out of the hands of kids. There's a reason why we put the cookie jar on the top shelf. Self control isn't an instinct.
Why not just lock out all numbers except 'home' and '$parentsoffice' during proscribed times? Allow general use during the time they are allowed to watch TV -- then they can choose between the two.
Easier said than done. There aren't a lot of cell phones which allow the customer to do that. The 'FireFly" I listed above is a perfect phone for a teen, in my opinion -- if a parent were inclined to get their teen a phone.
Or have I truly already let my best chance for entry pass me by"
While my career timing in life seems to mirror yours, my circumstances were quite different. Long story short: I entered my "current" field at age 28. (Homeless for a while, and taking 8 years to get a 4-year degree -- switched majors a few times. Phil, math, CS)
I decided to I worked as a private contractor and took sub-contract jobs for minor network installs (Doctors offices, dental offices, law and accounting offices). I did that for about 5 years. One of my clients, a smallish lab, offered me a full time job. Over the years, that smallish lab has grown to around 200 workstations, 5 servers, 3 remote offices, etc. I went from a department of one to being a manager of 8 (both IT and Data processing departments).
Advice: Find a small or medium sized privately owned company. Learn to do a lot... SQL, networking, admin, support, word, excel (show some pivot table magic), etc. Forget working for anyone or anything with stock-holders. You'll enjoy the work, probably like the owner/boss and add a few years to your life.
The 'bad lighting conditions' mentioned refer to the conditions under which the photo was taken, not the conditions under which it was edited. Both of these operations are not uncommon for a film negative being transferred into digital format
You need to re-read my post -- and TFA. Key phrase to look for: "...and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under...".
I think you are mistaken.
I think it's fairly obvious that he didn't clone entire buildings accidentally trying to remove dust. Or change the smoke around making it look like SEVERAL buildings were on fire rather than one... and I'm damn certain that "removing dust" didn't make him accidentally claim in his caption that several buildings were burning -- rather than only one in the un-edited original.
I think ALL sources are "good" sources -- but I also believe they all suffer from bias. CBCWatch most likely wouldn't exist of if there wasn't bias. Although, CBCWatch looks like a loonie fringe site... I'll table my opinion for a while.
Whether you're a CNN fan, or a FoxNEWS fan, you have to wonder how much of what we see is fake, or exaggerated.
Fake? I'm fairly sure these are the exceptions rather than the rule -- but exaggerated?
Virtually EVERY news report from ANY source is either exaggerated (to reflect the reporters bias) or softened (to likewise reflect the reporters bias). Add to this equation the pressure for ratings and simple stories can quickly and easily become "sensational".
True 'unbiased' reporting is a myth.
If you want an idea of whats going on, read/view as much as you can -- from as many sources as you can. From Fox to CNN, from the far left Pacifica to convervative talk radio. From The Standard to the NY Times. From LGF to DailyKos. My limited experience has suggested to me that the 'real story' is usually somewhere in the middle.
That said, I'd like to address this statement from TFA:
Hajj, who has freelanced for Reuters since 1993 and has been suspended pending an internal inquiry, "denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," according to the Reuters statement.
(sneeze)BULLSHIT(/sneeze)
Bad lighting conditions? Remove dust? Come on. Last I checked CRT and LCDs glow... unless he was working from memory alone without the aid of a monitor, he's a flipping liar.
You're right. It was a 20/30 meg drive. It was made to RLL standards (i.e. higher quality media, iirc -- we're talking over 20 years ago now and I haven't had to deal with MFM or RLL in a meaningful way for decades). However, I used an MFM controller -- which means I got 20 megs.
btw -- I love how often people put "gig" for meg in this thread.
Sadly, I still have my first hard drive. A 20 meg RLL monster I purchased some 20 odd years ago. I can't just throw it away. I had to finance that sucker -- it ran me nearly $900 (more like $1400 after interest). And it STILL works.
So it sits on my shelf, collects dust and I complain about not being able to throw it away... And my belly-aching about it started when I picked up my first video card which had more memory than my first hard drive. I'm sure those two events aren't unrelated.
Some unfortunate people are irresistible to mosquitoes, while the scent of some lucky individuals drives the blood-suckers away. ... A key chemical identified by Logan as a repellent is also "a natural food additive, so has proven safety", he says. "And because it can be made by plants, it may one day be possible to mass produce it cheaply."
Great. So lets breed mosquitoes which aren't repelled by us lucky few. Wonderful.
This conversation has outlived it's usefulness. You are a troll. And a lazy one at that. If you are qualified to argue the merits of Carter's papers, head over to your college library and read them. If you are truly INTERESTED, you can find them on the Internet (at least most of them).
Citing that I have the right to post AC is meaningless. I make the claim that you are a troll. Probably one that is known to me. Prove me wrong.
Why not check out graphs of average temperatures over the last 400,000 years? Many of these "graphs" Carter's techniques helped produce. Look at where we are now and look at the PATTERNS of temperature ranges. It's really meaningless to look at graphs over the last 400 years... or my god, the last 100 years.
So if you add up the time 3:28pm + 17 mins = 3:45 pm. The time when I made my call was at 3:44 pm. This reoccurs several times.
This can occur if your plan has call waiting or 3 way calling. I speak from the experience of an elder monitoring the cell phone usage of teenagers (who should NEVER EVER EVER have cell phones in my opinion).
If you've got T-Mobile, the bill should break down WHICH phone is receiving the call (either yours or your partners). If it's happening on your partner's bill, I would suggest it's more likely that your partner is lying to you than the phone was cloned (just statistically speaking -- nothing against your partner).
Another possibility is that the entry on your bill is "bogus". The result of a computer glitch and you'll need T-Mobiles help to resolve the problem.
You haven't listened to the entire audio. "John" was over the line as a CSR. Vincent expressed he wasn't interested in any offers or anything and just wanted a quick resolution to the call and to cancel the account to which "John" said: "If you want me to cancel this account, you going to let me speak... but you are going to listen to me if you want this turned off". He was more than a bit sarcastic.
Yes, it's nothing new. I went through something similar about 8 years ago (but not quite AS bad). What is interesting is the exchange was recorded and I found effing funny.
Are you stupid? It's not my job to do your work and win you your argument. You are trying to saying his papers dont exist. He's written quite a bit on climate, glaciation, sea level, etc -- over the ages. And I'm not asking for your NAME. I'd be happy with your slashdot ID to see if you are a typical troll -- you *DO* have my ID. Carter's stuff is quite easily accessible. Use google. Took me all of about 5 mins to find out a relevant history of work.
As for peer review papers which have been "trashed due to basic scientific flaws being exposed", I'd suggest that Carter *IS* a PEER who is justified in "trashing" the work of others due to "basic scientific flaws". Thats part of the FUNCTION of PEER REVIEW JOURNALS.
Hint: Start at James Cook university. They have an area on publications by school staff. It also lists conferences they've attended and topics on which they spoke.
Here's a bone. Check out one of his peer review journal publications: The Geological Society of America - 32, 1005-1008. It deals with drill core samples illustrating historical variations in climate by using proxies (ocean current temperatures determined by the types of sediments found, for example). Or check out another one published in International Journal of Marine Geology, Geochemistry and Geophysics (205 29-58) which deals with Glacial/interglacial migrations of the Subtropical Front.
To suggest he's not qualified to make the comments and observations he has is just idiotic. Which is why I assume you post as AC. So you can make outragous unsupported claims you can't possibilty defined.
Step out from behind the AC, take some time and check out Carter's publications. He has a number of papers in a number of journals world wide dealing with climate and glaciation over time. If you weren't as lazy as you are dismissive, you would see this.
Aside from his extensive publications (peer and otherwise) numbers conferences It's painfully obvious to even a half-wit that Carter is a "PEER" -- quite qualified to critique others on this subject. Well... maybe you don't qualify as a half-wit. Is there such a thing as a one-third-wit? Maybe a quarter-wit?
Oh great, another one of you "living language" morons, who try and use the evolution of language as an excuse for illiteracy and general laziness. Just because a handful of idiots don't know how to use a phrase properly doesn't mean it has "evolved" into a new meaning. It just means there are lots of pretentious idiots.
Oh great, another one of you "name calling" morons, who try to blame changes in language on illiteracy and general laziness. Just because a handful of linquistic purist idiots don't want to accept that usage changes over time doesn't change the fact that it does. It just means they are a bunch of pretentious idiots.
Blah
You think there hasn't been discussions on the usage of "Gentleman" over the last few centuries? Or more recently "aint"? Hell, it's the "bastard" contraction that we still love to hate. "Don't" bacame accepted as 'standard' a long time ago. "Aint" is still listed mostly as "non-standard" but widely used.
The meaning of such words as "anon" went from meaning "NOW" to "LATER" -- and as actually fallen out of common usage.
Things don't change overnight. You later argue that you don't speak middle english, but modern english. Can't you grasp that there were "in between" times? Somebody didn't flip a switch one day ane went from speaking/writing like Beowulf to The Old Man and the Sea. There were bits in between.
Piece of advice: What you are doing didn't work for Don Quixote. I doubt the windmills will fall for you. At least lose the attitude.
Um. Those are errors in grammar. Maybe not 'loose/lose', but certainly the others. An entirely different class of animal. Rules of grammar take much longer to change/evolve.
Loose/Lose? Spelling mistakes. Again, a different class of animal -- and they take longer to change/evolve.
So is it OK? Certainly not.
"above" used to mean "better". "sad" used to mean "serious". "anon" used to mean "NOW". "male" used to be a "bag". "heed" used to mean "head". "toon" used to mean "toes". "wood" used to mean "crazy". "moot" meant "must".
So -- what? We should do what? Words and phrases change over time in english. Get used to it.
Unless you aren't 100% that you know exactly what you are talking about you should probably never speak.
Then again, there is a side to every issue. As a one-time Phil major, I don't like the new usage. I just dont try to clobber my linquistic preferences over the heads of others. Your comment to the GP was way out of line.
Because our we have an inflated sense of self-importance?
We better HOPE we can effect the climate. Because if we can't, we're doomed to mass starvation during the next ice age/tropical periods. A minor shift it weather patterns could devastate current agricultural zones.
We've GOT to effect the climate. We BETTER be "self-important".
Look him up. Don't be lazy. I found pleanty of stuff. Carter has a numerous articles on climate, cycles, and glaciation. Besides, he's a PEER of these PEER REVIEW JOURNALS. He's part of the target audience to CRITIQUE such published research.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoever suggested making a house that children never exercised self-control? You certainly are a wizard of reading stuff in to a message that's just not there. Or where you simply constructing a straw-man?
It's my suggestion that without many exceptions, teens are unable to exercise appropriate self-control with cell phones. That type of control comes with greater maturity and absolute responsibility to pay the bill themselves. Which is why I stated that only emancipated persons who are paying for the things themselves should have them...
How silly of me to have forgotten that you have no common sense and lack the ability to read!
Again, I believe a valid solution is to keep cell phones out of the hands of kids. There's a reason why we put the cookie jar on the top shelf. Self control isn't an instinct.Easier said than done. There aren't a lot of cell phones which allow the customer to do that. The 'FireFly" I listed above is a perfect phone for a teen, in my opinion -- if a parent were inclined to get their teen a phone.
Easy. Anyone under the age of 18 -- with virtually no exception.
In my experience, many problems with family harmony can be either traced back to cell phone use -- or cell phones helped compound the problem.
I don't think ANYONE should have a cell phone until they are emancipated *AND* pay for the damn thing themselves.
That said: I've seen the FireFly -- and T-Mobile's new "kidconnect plan". Both look very interesting and may force me to rethink my position.
I decided to I worked as a private contractor and took sub-contract jobs for minor network installs (Doctors offices, dental offices, law and accounting offices). I did that for about 5 years. One of my clients, a smallish lab, offered me a full time job. Over the years, that smallish lab has grown to around 200 workstations, 5 servers, 3 remote offices, etc. I went from a department of one to being a manager of 8 (both IT and Data processing departments).
Advice: Find a small or medium sized privately owned company. Learn to do a lot... SQL, networking, admin, support, word, excel (show some pivot table magic), etc. Forget working for anyone or anything with stock-holders. You'll enjoy the work, probably like the owner/boss and add a few years to your life.
I think you are mistaken.
I think it's fairly obvious that he didn't clone entire buildings accidentally trying to remove dust. Or change the smoke around making it look like SEVERAL buildings were on fire rather than one... and I'm damn certain that "removing dust" didn't make him accidentally claim in his caption that several buildings were burning -- rather than only one in the un-edited original.
I think ALL sources are "good" sources -- but I also believe they all suffer from bias. CBCWatch most likely wouldn't exist of if there wasn't bias. Although, CBCWatch looks like a loonie fringe site... I'll table my opinion for a while.
Virtually EVERY news report from ANY source is either exaggerated (to reflect the reporters bias) or softened (to likewise reflect the reporters bias). Add to this equation the pressure for ratings and simple stories can quickly and easily become "sensational".
True 'unbiased' reporting is a myth.
If you want an idea of whats going on, read/view as much as you can -- from as many sources as you can. From Fox to CNN, from the far left Pacifica to convervative talk radio. From The Standard to the NY Times. From LGF to DailyKos. My limited experience has suggested to me that the 'real story' is usually somewhere in the middle.
That said, I'd like to address this statement from TFA:(sneeze)BULLSHIT(/sneeze)
Bad lighting conditions? Remove dust? Come on. Last I checked CRT and LCDs glow... unless he was working from memory alone without the aid of a monitor, he's a flipping liar.
You're right. It was a 20/30 meg drive. It was made to RLL standards (i.e. higher quality media, iirc -- we're talking over 20 years ago now and I haven't had to deal with MFM or RLL in a meaningful way for decades). However, I used an MFM controller -- which means I got 20 megs.
btw -- I love how often people put "gig" for meg in this thread.
Sadly, I still have my first hard drive. A 20 meg RLL monster I purchased some 20 odd years ago. I can't just throw it away. I had to finance that sucker -- it ran me nearly $900 (more like $1400 after interest). And it STILL works.
So it sits on my shelf, collects dust and I complain about not being able to throw it away... And my belly-aching about it started when I picked up my first video card which had more memory than my first hard drive. I'm sure those two events aren't unrelated.
No surgery necessary. He killed Tim Conway and is taking his place.
Well it looks nice. But will it explode?
This conversation has outlived it's usefulness. You are a troll. And a lazy one at that. If you are qualified to argue the merits of Carter's papers, head over to your college library and read them. If you are truly INTERESTED, you can find them on the Internet (at least most of them).
Citing that I have the right to post AC is meaningless. I make the claim that you are a troll. Probably one that is known to me. Prove me wrong.
Why not check out graphs of average temperatures over the last 400,000 years? Many of these "graphs" Carter's techniques helped produce. Look at where we are now and look at the PATTERNS of temperature ranges. It's really meaningless to look at graphs over the last 400 years... or my god, the last 100 years.
If you've got T-Mobile, the bill should break down WHICH phone is receiving the call (either yours or your partners). If it's happening on your partner's bill, I would suggest it's more likely that your partner is lying to you than the phone was cloned (just statistically speaking -- nothing against your partner).
Another possibility is that the entry on your bill is "bogus". The result of a computer glitch and you'll need T-Mobiles help to resolve the problem.
You haven't listened to the entire audio. "John" was over the line as a CSR. Vincent expressed he wasn't interested in any offers or anything and just wanted a quick resolution to the call and to cancel the account to which "John" said: "If you want me to cancel this account, you going to let me speak ... but you are going to listen to me if you want this turned off". He was more than a bit sarcastic.
Yes, it's nothing new. I went through something similar about 8 years ago (but not quite AS bad). What is interesting is the exchange was recorded and I found effing funny.
Are you stupid? It's not my job to do your work and win you your argument. You are trying to saying his papers dont exist. He's written quite a bit on climate, glaciation, sea level, etc -- over the ages. And I'm not asking for your NAME. I'd be happy with your slashdot ID to see if you are a typical troll -- you *DO* have my ID. Carter's stuff is quite easily accessible. Use google. Took me all of about 5 mins to find out a relevant history of work.
As for peer review papers which have been "trashed due to basic scientific flaws being exposed", I'd suggest that Carter *IS* a PEER who is justified in "trashing" the work of others due to "basic scientific flaws". Thats part of the FUNCTION of PEER REVIEW JOURNALS .
Hint: Start at James Cook university. They have an area on publications by school staff. It also lists conferences they've attended and topics on which they spoke.
Here's a bone. Check out one of his peer review journal publications: The Geological Society of America - 32, 1005-1008. It deals with drill core samples illustrating historical variations in climate by using proxies (ocean current temperatures determined by the types of sediments found, for example). Or check out another one published in International Journal of Marine Geology, Geochemistry and Geophysics (205 29-58) which deals with Glacial/interglacial migrations of the Subtropical Front.
To suggest he's not qualified to make the comments and observations he has is just idiotic. Which is why I assume you post as AC. So you can make outragous unsupported claims you can't possibilty defined.
Step out from behind the AC, take some time and check out Carter's publications. He has a number of papers in a number of journals world wide dealing with climate and glaciation over time. If you weren't as lazy as you are dismissive, you would see this.
Aside from his extensive publications (peer and otherwise) numbers conferences It's painfully obvious to even a half-wit that Carter is a "PEER" -- quite qualified to critique others on this subject. Well... maybe you don't qualify as a half-wit. Is there such a thing as a one-third-wit? Maybe a quarter-wit?
Blah
You think there hasn't been discussions on the usage of "Gentleman" over the last few centuries? Or more recently "aint"? Hell, it's the "bastard" contraction that we still love to hate. "Don't" bacame accepted as 'standard' a long time ago. "Aint" is still listed mostly as "non-standard" but widely used.
The meaning of such words as "anon" went from meaning "NOW" to "LATER" -- and as actually fallen out of common usage.
Things don't change overnight. You later argue that you don't speak middle english, but modern english. Can't you grasp that there were "in between" times? Somebody didn't flip a switch one day ane went from speaking/writing like Beowulf to The Old Man and the Sea. There were bits in between.
Piece of advice: What you are doing didn't work for Don Quixote. I doubt the windmills will fall for you. At least lose the attitude.
Um. Those are errors in grammar. Maybe not 'loose/lose', but certainly the others. An entirely different class of animal. Rules of grammar take much longer to change/evolve.
Loose/Lose? Spelling mistakes. Again, a different class of animal -- and they take longer to change/evolve.
So is it OK? Certainly not.
"above" used to mean "better".
"sad" used to mean "serious".
"anon" used to mean "NOW".
"male" used to be a "bag".
"heed" used to mean "head".
"toon" used to mean "toes".
"wood" used to mean "crazy".
"moot" meant "must".
So -- what? We should do what? Words and phrases change over time in english. Get used to it.
Well, the New Oxford Dictionary of English says it's "widely accepted in modern standard English" to be used as "raising the question".
See, we speak English. It's a rapidly evolving living language. Word usage has changed enormously over the centuries. If you want to use words that don't change their meaning, try latin. Here's a phrase for you in particular: "Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare"
Unless you aren't 100% that you know exactly what you are talking about you should probably never speak.
Then again, there is a side to every issue. As a one-time Phil major, I don't like the new usage. I just dont try to clobber my linquistic preferences over the heads of others. Your comment to the GP was way out of line.
We've GOT to effect the climate. We BETTER be "self-important".
The climate WILL change. It is a certainty.
Look him up. Don't be lazy. I found pleanty of stuff. Carter has a numerous articles on climate, cycles, and glaciation. Besides, he's a PEER of these PEER REVIEW JOURNALS. He's part of the target audience to CRITIQUE such published research.