I am being nit picky and I realize it. I think we agree but I am being very anal.
People will only spend money if they have a perceived benefit. You and I both agree that space exploration will provide a benefit, long-term. Therefore we think money should be spent on it.
We won't wander or meander out into space. We will only go for a purpose or a reason. That reason will be very specific and will be very goal oriented. Another space race (think China), an opportunity for significant profits (think tourism or mining), survival (think ELE).
In your original post "the advancement of the species" will not cause any human being to move an inch or spend a buck. There has GOT to be a more practical objective.
If you are looking for "investors" or "funding" you better damn well have an "end game". People don't spend money because "it's a good idea". They spend money because there is a purpose, a goal, a DIRECT benefit, or a DIRECT return.
It's likely that either: 1) The WMDs left the country before we got there 2) They are still buried in the desert somewhere (the place is the size of California).
Did it ever cross your mind that 1) We gave WMDs to him in the past? 2) Other countries did too? 3) He was a MASTER at hiding things in the desert. The place is the size of California. It could be YEARS before they would find them buried there (if we ever do). He was also very good at fooling inspectors by moving them in the front door, and moving the WMD's out the back OR-> 3) He moved them out of the country before we got there?
Also if you remember just before we invaded, N Korea unplugged their cameras in their nuclear reactors. My guess (as well as other peoples' who are more in tune than I) is that Iraq had a bomb but no uranium for it. N Korea needed oil due to sanctions. It is highly likely that Saddam and N Korea were about to make a swap.
If that were the case, Saddam would have a working nuke or two. He might not be able to get it to the US, but he might could get it to Israel. Just before this time Israel made a statement that they would not wait on their allies to defend them if they were attacked and would respond with nukes if provoked.
If Saddam was dumb enough to get a bomb to Israel, they would nuke the entire region in retaliatory actions and wouldn't think twice about it. Bush knew this but couldn't allow that to happen. That is why we went to war.
And yes there were many other foreign intelligence agencies that agreed that Iraq had WMDs.
If it was about oil, then we would've "invaded" Kuwait and called a "protectionairy measure".
Notice we haven't taken any oil from the place yet? Also Bush has repeatedly stated that the US will not take oil from Iraq specifically because he doesn't want to be accused of going to war for oil.
The "war for oil" program doesn't hold water (or oil);-)
But both sides however do have a (small) minority out to "disprove" the other side.
There are a lot of simple-minded Christians who want to ban all science and/or secular teachings and ensure everyone gets an education only from church.
On the other hand there are many biased scienteists and scholars who are devout atheists and absolutely want to erradicate Christianity (and/or other religions) from the planet.
Both should have a more classically liberal open minded attitude about things. Science and faith (notice I didn't say religion) are NOT mutually exclusive. I wish more people would realize this.
She hasn't. She has also never owned a VCR, had cable, doesn't have long distance, or use her dishwasher. She didn't own a mircowave until 5 years ago.
I feel your pain dude....When I play spiderman with my girlfriend I can only get it to cling to her face for a few minutes... Then it usually just drips off. Oh well...;-)
I remember about a year ago Wired had an article about having a GPS and compass integrated with modern day digital cameras. The camera would then embed metadata into each image file which not only had a timestamp, but a lat/long coordinate set as well as a bearing (which way the camera was facing).
The point of this is that you could then begin to organize your archives by time AND location and would make our trillions and trillions of digital photos able to be better indexed.
The eyes have some of the most finely "tuned" muscles in the entire body. That's why whenyou get drunk your vision is the first to go.
I would suspect that the high SPL was probably actually vibrating your eyeballs and/or your controlling muscles.
What you then experienced afterwards was called TTS or Temporary Threshold Shift. Your hearing was probably permanantly damaged to a certain extent whether you realized it or not.
The problem is that unless they know which drivers (speaker/transducers) you are using for sure, then they don't know what the actual dB SPL (sound pressure level) are being generated.
Different speakers have different levels of efficiency. If you pump 1 watt though one it might produce 96dB at 1 ft. However another one might only produce 90dB at 1 ft with the same amount of power.
They know exactly wha the rating of their speakers are, but they dont know about every other pair of headphones out there. So they cannot effectively limit it because doing so would run the risk that using a 3rd party pair of less efficient ears would be underpowered.
When I was in school for audio engineering one of our classes required us to purchase Grados. Freakin $250..grr..
Anyway, they were awesome sounding as long as you were listening to something organic and natural sounding. They were probably the most transparant ears I had ever worn. But when you listened to loud modern music, pop, rock, electronica, etc they didn't to so well in my opinion. They were flat and non-colored which is not what our ears like in those genres. When listening to music of that type I much prefered the Sony MDRs.
Slashdot Mirror
I've tried getting married... but I'm a /.'er so I can't get a date much less a wife.
I am being nit picky and I realize it. I think we agree but I am being very anal.
People will only spend money if they have a perceived benefit. You and I both agree that space exploration will provide a benefit, long-term. Therefore we think money should be spent on it.
We won't wander or meander out into space. We will only go for a purpose or a reason. That reason will be very specific and will be very goal oriented. Another space race (think China), an opportunity for significant profits (think tourism or mining), survival (think ELE).
In your original post "the advancement of the species" will not cause any human being to move an inch or spend a buck. There has GOT to be a more practical objective.
While I agree with what you say, evolution on an island happens much quicker than on a continent.
Therefore we are likely to find life that has evolved much further than life on a continent. Or perhaps it has just evolved differently.
Either way islands force life to deal with limited resources and adapt, or die and become extinct.
If you are looking for "investors" or "funding" you better damn well have an "end game". People don't spend money because "it's a good idea". They spend money because there is a purpose, a goal, a DIRECT benefit, or a DIRECT return.
I don't think it can be proven that he/they lied.
It's likely that either:
1) The WMDs left the country before we got there
2) They are still buried in the desert somewhere (the place is the size of California).
I think underage laws are dumb.
;-)
After all, if it is old enough to bleed, it's old enough to breed.
..."tastes like chicken!" ;-)
Did it ever cross your mind that
1) We gave WMDs to him in the past?
2) Other countries did too?
3) He was a MASTER at hiding things in the desert. The place is the size of California. It could be YEARS before they would find them buried there (if we ever do). He was also very good at fooling inspectors by moving them in the front door, and moving the WMD's out the back OR->
3) He moved them out of the country before we got there?
Also if you remember just before we invaded, N Korea unplugged their cameras in their nuclear reactors. My guess (as well as other peoples' who are more in tune than I) is that Iraq had a bomb but no uranium for it. N Korea needed oil due to sanctions. It is highly likely that Saddam and N Korea were about to make a swap.
If that were the case, Saddam would have a working nuke or two. He might not be able to get it to the US, but he might could get it to Israel. Just before this time Israel made a statement that they would not wait on their allies to defend them if they were attacked and would respond with nukes if provoked.
If Saddam was dumb enough to get a bomb to Israel, they would nuke the entire region in retaliatory actions and wouldn't think twice about it. Bush knew this but couldn't allow that to happen. That is why we went to war.
And yes there were many other foreign intelligence agencies that agreed that Iraq had WMDs.
What did they lie about?
If it was about oil, then we would've "invaded" Kuwait and called a "protectionairy measure".
;-)
Notice we haven't taken any oil from the place yet? Also Bush has repeatedly stated that the US will not take oil from Iraq specifically because he doesn't want to be accused of going to war for oil.
The "war for oil" program doesn't hold water (or oil)
And they have a sexy accent.
Of course so do those from the American South, the UK, and former Soviet Bloc countries in Eastern Europe.
I agree..
But both sides however do have a (small) minority out to "disprove" the other side.
There are a lot of simple-minded Christians who want to ban all science and/or secular teachings and ensure everyone gets an education only from church.
On the other hand there are many biased scienteists and scholars who are devout atheists and absolutely want to erradicate Christianity (and/or other religions) from the planet.
Both should have a more classically liberal open minded attitude about things. Science and faith (notice I didn't say religion) are NOT mutually exclusive. I wish more people would realize this.
Why do people continue to think of the political "spectrum" as simply left/right or one dimensional?
At the minimum it is really two-dimensional?
View this image for a better explination:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php
She hasn't. She has also never owned a VCR, had cable, doesn't have long distance, or use her dishwasher. She didn't own a mircowave until 5 years ago.
She was raised in rural Mississippi. VERY rural.
I feel your pain dude....When I play spiderman with my girlfriend I can only get it to cling to her face for a few minutes... Then it usually just drips off. Oh well... ;-)
I remember about a year ago Wired had an article about having a GPS and compass integrated with modern day digital cameras. The camera would then embed metadata into each image file which not only had a timestamp, but a lat/long coordinate set as well as a bearing (which way the camera was facing).
The point of this is that you could then begin to organize your archives by time AND location and would make our trillions and trillions of digital photos able to be better indexed.
Did anyone else read this?
I am related to him... My grandmother's maiden name was "Booth" and we are from Memphis...
Then it is already too late, you have blown your ear drums.
Which Christian event?
;-)
Check out my website. Chances are I was behind it
Yeah,
;-)
I too bring protection to concerts just in case.... Oh yeah - you mean HEARING protection
The eyes have some of the most finely "tuned" muscles in the entire body. That's why whenyou get drunk your vision is the first to go.
I would suspect that the high SPL was probably actually vibrating your eyeballs and/or your controlling muscles.
What you then experienced afterwards was called TTS or Temporary Threshold Shift. Your hearing was probably permanantly damaged to a certain extent whether you realized it or not.
Could you please explain what you mean here?
I am interested.
The problem is that unless they know which drivers (speaker/transducers) you are using for sure, then they don't know what the actual dB SPL (sound pressure level) are being generated.
Different speakers have different levels of efficiency. If you pump 1 watt though one it might produce 96dB at 1 ft. However another one might only produce 90dB at 1 ft with the same amount of power.
They know exactly wha the rating of their speakers are, but they dont know about every other pair of headphones out there. So they cannot effectively limit it because doing so would run the risk that using a 3rd party pair of less efficient ears would be underpowered.
When I was in school for audio engineering one of our classes required us to purchase Grados. Freakin $250..grr..
Anyway, they were awesome sounding as long as you were listening to something organic and natural sounding. They were probably the most transparant ears I had ever worn. But when you listened to loud modern music, pop, rock, electronica, etc they didn't to so well in my opinion. They were flat and non-colored which is not what our ears like in those genres. When listening to music of that type I much prefered the Sony MDRs.
The name for this that us audio guys use is called "signal to noise ratio" and is usually put in these terms:
As an example let's pretent the signal is 100dB. Ambient noise is 20dB. Therefore the SNR is 80dB.