I'm a programmer and I probably get 8 hours sleep... over a three-day period.
Got nothing to do with my job. When I get off work- my work stays at work... I'm just a natural insomniac and would not be sleeping no matter what my job.
I for one am resisting the "services" model all I can. I will not pay to play a game more than once.
There again, I'm a cheap barsteward who won't spend more then $9.99 on a game anyway. I gain no extra pleasure from playing a $60 game than a $2.99 game that is a few years old.
Rather than paying a $15 subscription- wouldn't it make more sense to buy a "new" cheap older game once a month- surely they're worth more for a month of novelty than it is to play the same old thing month in month out on a subscription game?
As for steam- nothing but added problems... you get whatever bugs the game may naturally have- compounded by the extra bugs that running something through steam adds. I avoid steam when I can.
But how will I prevent my Androids trying to attack my Apples? Surely if you put two androids and two apples on the same ark the androids will attempt to eat the apples!
That's why we have a right to arms people... so we can still speak ASL when our voices are muted by Japanese Speech stopping guns. The founding father's thought of everything.
It would probably be cheaper to move Japan 100 miles west than it would be to install compressed air systems on the homes/offices/schools/ and workplaces of 130 million people.
Attach ropes to Japan and give them to people in South Korea and pay them to pull real hard.
oooh an internet hardman with his panties in a wad. I'm scared.
January 1st has no measurable quantity- there it is for all purposes unreliable as a starting point for a year with no significant meaning. Setting the start of the year to an equinox or a solstice would be fine with me. January 1st is just silly- it has no meaning. It is just one factor amongst many that is arbitrary and meaningless about our calendar.
Personally, I think a solstice would make more sense for start of a year- but following the roman example of the equinox with the agricultural reasoning would be better than Jan 1.
Solstice is significant because it is not an arbitrary day- it is a measurable location on earth's flight. Jan 1 is just arbitrary with no scientific marker. It is very likely when the calendar were first created they intended it to be on the solstice- but human ineptitude made it drift to what is Jan 1 today.
For all the jaded souls who think there is no hope and this will degenerate like the last time. Fatty Kim is a product of Western universities. He attended school in Europe (Switzerland I believe) - he has experienced western lifestyle and no doubt sees his own people not having the same lifestyle.
He's unlikely to want to give up power- but he may just have been infected by enough free-thought whilst in Europe to legitimately want change. There is hope that Fatty Kim is not just a younger, hungrier, clone of his father.
Our whole calendar is messed up. First- Jan 1st is a poor start date.
I suspect the original pioneers intended the year to start on the Winter Solstice- which is more like Dec 21st most years on our calendar.
So- The year should start on Dec21st.
Then- our months are supposed to be based on cycles of the moon (Approx every 28 days)- but because there were 13 and superstitious nitwits didn't like 13 we have 12 months with varying days.
Our current concept of a month is meaningless. The whole 7 day week is rather random too- based on some out-of-date dogma that is probably mistranslated. (the original word in Genesis translated as "day" was more accurately "a period of time" although it was often "day" but not necessarily) - so we force the meaning of "day" onto it and have a 7 day week. Silly number.
Let's make a week 10 days- a much more logical number.
So we have 36 weeks in a year. If we MUST have a bigger break- we can divide these into 9 months of 4 weeks each.
We would then have 5 or 6 days at the end- a "half week" - we would determine if it would be 5 or 6 days depending on how many days it took to reach the winter solstice since that would be the definition of new year.
Not perfect- but based more on logic than our current system and no-silly formulas needed (other than determining the solstice)
Mars has a wide variety of minerals necessary that the moon doesn't. It has water- (so oxygen) and all the elements required to support life.
You could "manufacture" oxygen from water. It would be easier to produce greenhouses on mars- with all the necessary key ingredients to grow certain crops available- this wouldn't be the case on the moon- supplies would need to be shipped up to the moon.
It would be a hostile environment- but it would be much easier to adapt to Mars on a one-way mission than moon- there is room for biological growth without shipping raw-materials from earth.
Plus at over twice the gravity- weather systems- and minimal atmosphere- it is more-similar to earth than the moon. We're less likely to encounter those unexpected hiccups due to the dissimilar environment.
Perhaps the best "alternative fuel" is an alternative to fuel... not using one at all. (or lessening how much is used).
If the government wants to look out for our long-term energy requirements perhaps there should be an incentive to get coorporations to have a larger % of their workforce work remotely from home.
This could be done with tax-reductions for non-on site workers. If we spend less on commuting- that is less money exported overseas to buy fuel (or more fuel that we can save/export). It would mean less money spent on road construction/repairs. Less money spent on policing. Less money spent on traffic problems. Less pollution.
It sounds like there are ways to use non-toxic chemicals (they just choose to use toxic chemicals). The earthquake risk seems minimal. Fracking is probably better than alternative energy sources such as mountain-top removal- but not as good as green sources.
I think currently the whole debate between fracking and not-fracking seems to be between overly sensitive tree-huggers who think we should stop all fossil fuel over night- and those in the energy industry who want to deny that anything they do could be causing the slightest harm.
Like everything else- the truth is probably somewhere in the middle- I don't think people really know yet how bad fracking is- or if it truly is bad. I suspect it is probably nowhere near as bad as the alarmists say- but worse than the energy coorporations claim. Apples to apples- it's better still the cleanest way to get fossil fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude... like... uh... I don't know what your getting at man.... dude... what? I need a brownie. Oh Yo Gabba Gabba is on.
Aye, the free ones I can handle.
Got a little addicted to Puzzle Pirates for a few months. It's just- don't expect me to keep paying over and over for the same thing.
You just sit around drinking coffee at starbucks discussing the Keynes with other economists don't you?
No wonder you can't sleep- too much caffeine. ;)
Hmmmm... ... maybe you can't sleep because you stay up all night trying to perfect looping ocean sound tracks.
I'm a programmer and I probably get 8 hours sleep... over a three-day period.
Got nothing to do with my job. When I get off work- my work stays at work... I'm just a natural insomniac and would not be sleeping no matter what my job.
I for one am resisting the "services" model all I can. I will not pay to play a game more than once.
There again, I'm a cheap barsteward who won't spend more then $9.99 on a game anyway. I gain no extra pleasure from playing a $60 game than a $2.99 game that is a few years old.
Rather than paying a $15 subscription- wouldn't it make more sense to buy a "new" cheap older game once a month- surely they're worth more for a month of novelty than it is to play the same old thing month in month out on a subscription game?
As for steam- nothing but added problems... you get whatever bugs the game may naturally have- compounded by the extra bugs that running something through steam adds. I avoid steam when I can.
But how will I prevent my Androids trying to attack my Apples? Surely if you put two androids and two apples on the same ark the androids will attempt to eat the apples!
Anyone who is anyone knows that real programmers use Speedware.
ugh... I shudder just typing that- even though it was in jest...
Yes. In places outside of Texas this is not yet accepted as a method of ending a casual conversation.
Buy her some treakle toffee... you'll have peace whilst she tries to chew through it.
Yes.
You stand firmly with back straight, legs shoulder width apart. Breath in deep, fill your lungs- then exhale whilst really loudly yelling:
"IN SIGN LANGUAGE"
That's how you scream "in sign language".
That's why we have a right to arms people... so we can still speak ASL when our voices are muted by Japanese Speech stopping guns. The founding father's thought of everything.
Mute button to stop speech on the interent?
That's called the FBI.
Should say when "Liverpool FC are playing" be gone.
Finally a device for Husbands of the world.
The non-talkative will inherit the world. Blabbermouths of the living room when Liverpool FC be gone.
It would probably be cheaper to move Japan 100 miles west than it would be to install compressed air systems on the homes/offices/schools/ and workplaces of 130 million people.
Attach ropes to Japan and give them to people in South Korea and pay them to pull real hard.
oooh an internet hardman with his panties in a wad. I'm scared.
January 1st has no measurable quantity- there it is for all purposes unreliable as a starting point for a year with no significant meaning. Setting the start of the year to an equinox or a solstice would be fine with me. January 1st is just silly- it has no meaning. It is just one factor amongst many that is arbitrary and meaningless about our calendar.
Personally, I think a solstice would make more sense for start of a year- but following the roman example of the equinox with the agricultural reasoning would be better than Jan 1.
Solstice is significant because it is not an arbitrary day- it is a measurable location on earth's flight. Jan 1 is just arbitrary with no scientific marker. It is very likely when the calendar were first created they intended it to be on the solstice- but human ineptitude made it drift to what is Jan 1 today.
For all the jaded souls who think there is no hope and this will degenerate like the last time. Fatty Kim is a product of Western universities. He attended school in Europe (Switzerland I believe) - he has experienced western lifestyle and no doubt sees his own people not having the same lifestyle.
He's unlikely to want to give up power- but he may just have been infected by enough free-thought whilst in Europe to legitimately want change. There is hope that Fatty Kim is not just a younger, hungrier, clone of his father.
Our whole calendar is messed up. First- Jan 1st is a poor start date.
I suspect the original pioneers intended the year to start on the Winter Solstice- which is more like Dec 21st most years on our calendar.
So- The year should start on Dec21st.
Then- our months are supposed to be based on cycles of the moon (Approx every 28 days)- but because there were 13 and superstitious nitwits didn't like 13 we have 12 months with varying days.
Our current concept of a month is meaningless. The whole 7 day week is rather random too- based on some out-of-date dogma that is probably mistranslated. (the original word in Genesis translated as "day" was more accurately "a period of time" although it was often "day" but not necessarily) - so we force the meaning of "day" onto it and have a 7 day week. Silly number.
Let's make a week 10 days- a much more logical number.
So we have 36 weeks in a year. If we MUST have a bigger break- we can divide these into 9 months of 4 weeks each.
We would then have 5 or 6 days at the end- a "half week" - we would determine if it would be 5 or 6 days depending on how many days it took to reach the winter solstice since that would be the definition of new year.
Not perfect- but based more on logic than our current system and no-silly formulas needed (other than determining the solstice)
Yes. The Navigators, being made by Lincoln would decay at a faster rate than the Priuses made by Toyota.
Therefore eventually there would be more Priuses on the road than Navigators.
Mars has a wide variety of minerals necessary that the moon doesn't. It has water- (so oxygen) and all the elements required to support life.
You could "manufacture" oxygen from water. It would be easier to produce greenhouses on mars- with all the necessary key ingredients to grow certain crops available- this wouldn't be the case on the moon- supplies would need to be shipped up to the moon.
It would be a hostile environment- but it would be much easier to adapt to Mars on a one-way mission than moon- there is room for biological growth without shipping raw-materials from earth.
Plus at over twice the gravity- weather systems- and minimal atmosphere- it is more-similar to earth than the moon. We're less likely to encounter those unexpected hiccups due to the dissimilar environment.
Perhaps the best "alternative fuel" is an alternative to fuel... not using one at all. (or lessening how much is used).
If the government wants to look out for our long-term energy requirements perhaps there should be an incentive to get coorporations to have a larger % of their workforce work remotely from home.
This could be done with tax-reductions for non-on site workers. If we spend less on commuting- that is less money exported overseas to buy fuel (or more fuel that we can save/export). It would mean less money spent on road construction/repairs. Less money spent on policing. Less money spent on traffic problems. Less pollution.
Overall it makes a lot of sense.
Should say:
Apples to apples- it's Probably still cleaner than other fossil fuels.
I'm still not convinced fracking need be so bad.
It sounds like there are ways to use non-toxic chemicals (they just choose to use toxic chemicals). The earthquake risk seems minimal. Fracking is probably better than alternative energy sources such as mountain-top removal- but not as good as green sources.
I think currently the whole debate between fracking and not-fracking seems to be between overly sensitive tree-huggers who think we should stop all fossil fuel over night- and those in the energy industry who want to deny that anything they do could be causing the slightest harm.
Like everything else- the truth is probably somewhere in the middle- I don't think people really know yet how bad fracking is- or if it truly is bad. I suspect it is probably nowhere near as bad as the alarmists say- but worse than the energy coorporations claim. Apples to apples- it's better still the cleanest way to get fossil fuel.