Ah, yes. Two more targets of the MSM and liberals for derision and scorn above and beyond the call of reasonable criticism.
O'Donnell may be a dingbat, but Nancy Pelosi has been making dingbat comments for some 30 years or more in Congress and the left never seems to mind. Or any of dozens of others in the House and Senate who make Sarah Palin sound like a Rhodes scholar...
You need to get out of your liberal echo chamber and learn the truth that not everyone who disagrees with you is either nuts or evil.
Our children is learning... and they will grow up and gather from all 57 states (even those who speak Austrian) to serve their country in the military by becoming corpsemen. And on Memorial Day we will gather around and offer thanks to those fallen members of the military among us. Unless it's above our pay grade, in which case we can treat asthma with a breathalyzer.
I beg to differ. There were a lot of people on the loony right (and the unloony right) who attacked Bush.
And regarding the current President, I find the scariest things about him are not what the loony right charges, but the things that are unquestionably true but ignored, like his 20 years with a racist "church", his unprecedented efforts to suppress his own paper trail, the associations and politics of many of the "czars" and other advisors he surrounds himself with. The list goes on.
Everyone I've ever talked to who thinks the Tea Partiers are nuts know absolutely nothing about them and are just parroting the MSM and each other.
Are there nuts among the Tea Partiers? There are nuts in every political movement, but I'd like to see a comparison of the fringe content of any Tea Party Rally with any similar liberal protest or gathering. In comparison, they are probably very tame.
BDS is real and amazing exercise in mouth-foaming bigotry and childish petulance coming from people who otherwise claim to be tolerant. There's nothing wrong with disliking President Bush and what he did, even strongly. That's not only your right, but your duty as a concerned citizen if you feel that way.
What amazes me on a daily basis is the sheer level of mindless, childish, unchecked rage expressed at the man. I would imagine the hooded thugs at Klan rallies would just shakes their heads sadly at one of their own acting the way too many people act regarding President Bush (along with Sarah Palin and a few others targeted by the left for derision and scorn.)
As strongly as people feel about President Obama, and there is as much _strong_ feelings against him as there ever were for President Bush, I've never heard anyone wish physical harm on him. I've never heard of people in the media fantasizing on the airwaves about his assassination or any of the many other reprehensible things that were directed towards Bush, and seemingly accepted as perfectly reasonable by people I would think are above all that.
Disagreement, dislike, protest, and harsh criticism are all legitimate and honorable actions to take in politics, but the unbridled hatred I've seen directed against President Bush (or any politician, or any _person_ for that matter) has no place in civilized society.
You know what? If a page takes 200 milliseconds longer to run because JS performance isn't quite as fast who cares?
None of these browser speed wars addresses the problem that when I watch Hulu on machines that aren't top-of-the-line state-of-the-art, the video is jumpy often to the point of unwatchability.
My pipe is fat enough and the computers I'm using can do fullscreen video just fine. It's Flash, especially on Linux, that kills performance. Most video sites still use Flash, as do a lot of those fun little games, etc., and the only only alternative to Flash in most cases is to go without the site or functionality. Flash is what makes web browsing slow. Every other performance issue is like line noise in comparison.
Either way, I've never understood how it could be safe to stick mercury in your head.
I understand they use all kinds of new materials nowadays rather than the old mercury amalgams.
Back on the original topic, it's not the gold that matters; you can eat gold. It's nanoparticles themselves. I've read they can do weird things. I understand that nanotubes and similar materials can pose a health risk based on their size, not their chemical properties.
And that's saddening, because I want my space elevator.
Actually I had the same reaction as you. It seemed like the article was going out of its way to paint this as a way to turn trees into streetlights despite giving any explanation as to how that could possibly happen, leaving me at least to wonder what in fact they had actually done. Amazing lack of meaningful content in that article.
I think you are missing that half the posts are talking about splicing, as in grafting one part of a plant on to another plant, and the other half are talking about gene splicing.
Several posters have confused the two on purpose.
Now, I need to go finish my recording project where I'm splicing Silver Maple cuttings onto 1/4" CrO2 2-track.
Well, lacking a good education system, that is the effect, but in order to improve the education system you need to talk to the Democrats.
If you have a good education and are willing to work, there's no reason you can't be at least modestly successful.
A bad education is the best way to keep the working class down. Tell me again why the Democrats resist every notion that could make the situation better, assuming they truly care about the "little guy"?
If you are uneducated and/or unmotivated you are going to be taken advantage of. Nothing can change that.
I didn't say that. I meant to imply that that giving MS a slap on the wrist a failure of government that affected the free market by excusing everything MS did for the previous 20 years and allowing them to continue doing most of it.
Well, "free market" as is commonly accepted in the U.S., meaning open to competitors where no one competitors exerts a monopoly, with certain exceptions such as power companies, etc., where necessary for the functioning of basic infrastructure, as well as common sense legislation to prevent fraud and other forms of "cheating".
I'm not calling for complete anarchy which is the most pure idea of "free market" possible.
Rgarding your second comment, with a minimum wage, you're right. Defenders of minimum wage never want to acknowledge that they contribute to unemployment because by their logic 4 people making X wage and one person unemployed is better than 5 people making 0.8x wage.
Businesses aren't charities and I don't expect them to act that way, but the government likewise isn't a charity either, and too many people are under the illusion that its activities are somehow less morally tainted than those of business even though human nature is universal.
The best you can hope for is that government and business are each held in check by each other (as well as the states and individuals). Government has the unfair advantage of very often not being subject to the rules it enforces on everyone else.
What I'm referring to as "undue influence" is influence that could not be countered by competitors. Could TVTropes find an advertiser that would allow them to continue as they have? (Whether or not they choose to switch is another matter.)
In other words, if Google can shut out competitors, force terms of services that customers don't like, or otherwise do things that the market can _not_ counter, then their influence is "undue".
Of course, Google influences the market, in many ways that are positive even. However, if TVTropes has no other alternative to advertising with Google (that would avoid them shutting down or significantly changing how they operate), then Google's influence is undue. You always have to weigh what is being offered when doing business with someone, but if there is no real choice, then the market isn't free.
You can avoid at least some or most of it with the various privacy plug-ins for Firefox like NoScript, Ghostery and others. But completely avoiding Google's eyes and ears takes more effort than I'm willing to exert.
Of course, you always have the choice to use the other fine online services like Prodigy, CompuServe, GEnie, or in France, Minitel...
The government has been the biggest barrier to the "free market" in decades.
I mean, look at the huge price Microsoft paid when they were convicted of anti-trust violations. Why, they had to... wait, they really didn't get anything noticeable, did they?
Meanwhile, the amount of paperwork, regulations, fees, and the general miasma of bureaucracy and namny-ism that pervades this country is killing small businesses, which are the engine of our economic future. Or is the highest unemployment rate in decades just because people are mean?
If Google failed, there would be plenty of other companies to quickly fill in the holes. It's not like we could no longer search or find advertisers or have trucks driving around sniffing our wireless networks. It would just be someone other than Google doing it.
"Too big to fail" really referred to financial institutions whose failure would not just affect the company (which is bad enough, but the risk of doing business), but all of their investors, bank customers, clients, etc. (as appropriate) and thus adversely affect the whole U.S. economy far beyond what another business of the same size would affect.
It was bad enough when Enron bellied up and took down the pensions, etc, of employees or retirees, but if a bank failed and took _your_ or _my_ life savings/pension/whatever when you or I aren't even employees (and perhaps not even direct customers), that's a whole 'nother matter.
Of course, the solution was just as bad as the problem, in its own way, but that's another topic.
If Google went out of business, it really wouldn't be so bad because its employees would be able to find other employment, its customers would be able find other advertisers and we could all go back to using Yahoo, AltaVista or Lycos (and you thought I was going to mention Bing... we're talking hypotheticals here, not fantasy).
The real issue here is whether Google, by virtue of its size, power and/or market share is able to exert and undue influence on the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes. Two more targets of the MSM and liberals for derision and scorn above and beyond the call of reasonable criticism.
O'Donnell may be a dingbat, but Nancy Pelosi has been making dingbat comments for some 30 years or more in Congress and the left never seems to mind. Or any of dozens of others in the House and Senate who make Sarah Palin sound like a Rhodes scholar...
You need to get out of your liberal echo chamber and learn the truth that not everyone who disagrees with you is either nuts or evil.
Our children is learning... and they will grow up and gather from all 57 states (even those who speak Austrian) to serve their country in the military by becoming corpsemen. And on Memorial Day we will gather around and offer thanks to those fallen members of the military among us. Unless it's above our pay grade, in which case we can treat asthma with a breathalyzer.
I beg to differ. There were a lot of people on the loony right (and the unloony right) who attacked Bush.
And regarding the current President, I find the scariest things about him are not what the loony right charges, but the things that are unquestionably true but ignored, like his 20 years with a racist "church", his unprecedented efforts to suppress his own paper trail, the associations and politics of many of the "czars" and other advisors he surrounds himself with. The list goes on.
Everybody who is disliked by anybody gets compared to Hitler. Get over it.
Everyone I've ever talked to who thinks the Tea Partiers are nuts know absolutely nothing about them and are just parroting the MSM and each other.
Are there nuts among the Tea Partiers? There are nuts in every political movement, but I'd like to see a comparison of the fringe content of any Tea Party Rally with any similar liberal protest or gathering. In comparison, they are probably very tame.
BDS is real and amazing exercise in mouth-foaming bigotry and childish petulance coming from people who otherwise claim to be tolerant. There's nothing wrong with disliking President Bush and what he did, even strongly. That's not only your right, but your duty as a concerned citizen if you feel that way.
What amazes me on a daily basis is the sheer level of mindless, childish, unchecked rage expressed at the man. I would imagine the hooded thugs at Klan rallies would just shakes their heads sadly at one of their own acting the way too many people act regarding President Bush (along with Sarah Palin and a few others targeted by the left for derision and scorn.)
As strongly as people feel about President Obama, and there is as much _strong_ feelings against him as there ever were for President Bush, I've never heard anyone wish physical harm on him. I've never heard of people in the media fantasizing on the airwaves about his assassination or any of the many other reprehensible things that were directed towards Bush, and seemingly accepted as perfectly reasonable by people I would think are above all that.
Disagreement, dislike, protest, and harsh criticism are all legitimate and honorable actions to take in politics, but the unbridled hatred I've seen directed against President Bush (or any politician, or any _person_ for that matter) has no place in civilized society.
I tried it and ended up booting BIFFOS Linux running kernel 3.8.67, copyright 2015.
You know what? If a page takes 200 milliseconds longer to run because JS performance isn't quite as fast who cares?
None of these browser speed wars addresses the problem that when I watch Hulu on machines that aren't top-of-the-line state-of-the-art, the video is jumpy often to the point of unwatchability.
My pipe is fat enough and the computers I'm using can do fullscreen video just fine. It's Flash, especially on Linux, that kills performance. Most video sites still use Flash, as do a lot of those fun little games, etc., and the only only alternative to Flash in most cases is to go without the site or functionality. Flash is what makes web browsing slow. Every other performance issue is like line noise in comparison.
Either way, I've never understood how it could be safe to stick mercury in your head.
I understand they use all kinds of new materials nowadays rather than the old mercury amalgams.
Back on the original topic, it's not the gold that matters; you can eat gold. It's nanoparticles themselves. I've read they can do weird things. I understand that nanotubes and similar materials can pose a health risk based on their size, not their chemical properties.
And that's saddening, because I want my space elevator.
So you're saying you'd mod him up for a good joke or down for the ear worm?
Ugh. Now I've got it too.
A filling is not a crown.
Wrong again, Sherlock!
Actually I had the same reaction as you. It seemed like the article was going out of its way to paint this as a way to turn trees into streetlights despite giving any explanation as to how that could possibly happen, leaving me at least to wonder what in fact they had actually done. Amazing lack of meaningful content in that article.
Yeah, but they'll have the last laugh when the Ent army rends you limb from limb.
I think you are missing that half the posts are talking about splicing, as in grafting one part of a plant on to another plant, and the other half are talking about gene splicing.
Several posters have confused the two on purpose.
Now, I need to go finish my recording project where I'm splicing Silver Maple cuttings onto 1/4" CrO2 2-track.
All I know is that my corn muffins now come pre-jellied, which saves me precious time.
Well, lacking a good education system, that is the effect, but in order to improve the education system you need to talk to the Democrats.
If you have a good education and are willing to work, there's no reason you can't be at least modestly successful.
A bad education is the best way to keep the working class down. Tell me again why the Democrats resist every notion that could make the situation better, assuming they truly care about the "little guy"?
If you are uneducated and/or unmotivated you are going to be taken advantage of. Nothing can change that.
I didn't say that. I meant to imply that that giving MS a slap on the wrist a failure of government that affected the free market by excusing everything MS did for the previous 20 years and allowing them to continue doing most of it.
Well, "free market" as is commonly accepted in the U.S., meaning open to competitors where no one competitors exerts a monopoly, with certain exceptions such as power companies, etc., where necessary for the functioning of basic infrastructure, as well as common sense legislation to prevent fraud and other forms of "cheating".
I'm not calling for complete anarchy which is the most pure idea of "free market" possible.
Rgarding your second comment, with a minimum wage, you're right. Defenders of minimum wage never want to acknowledge that they contribute to unemployment because by their logic 4 people making X wage and one person unemployed is better than 5 people making 0.8x wage.
Businesses aren't charities and I don't expect them to act that way, but the government likewise isn't a charity either, and too many people are under the illusion that its activities are somehow less morally tainted than those of business even though human nature is universal.
The best you can hope for is that government and business are each held in check by each other (as well as the states and individuals). Government has the unfair advantage of very often not being subject to the rules it enforces on everyone else.
What I'm referring to as "undue influence" is influence that could not be countered by competitors. Could TVTropes find an advertiser that would allow them to continue as they have? (Whether or not they choose to switch is another matter.)
In other words, if Google can shut out competitors, force terms of services that customers don't like, or otherwise do things that the market can _not_ counter, then their influence is "undue".
Of course, Google influences the market, in many ways that are positive even. However, if TVTropes has no other alternative to advertising with Google (that would avoid them shutting down or significantly changing how they operate), then Google's influence is undue. You always have to weigh what is being offered when doing business with someone, but if there is no real choice, then the market isn't free.
You can avoid at least some or most of it with the various privacy plug-ins for Firefox like NoScript, Ghostery and others. But completely avoiding Google's eyes and ears takes more effort than I'm willing to exert.
Of course, you always have the choice to use the other fine online services like Prodigy, CompuServe, GEnie, or in France, Minitel...
The government has been the biggest barrier to the "free market" in decades.
I mean, look at the huge price Microsoft paid when they were convicted of anti-trust violations. Why, they had to... wait, they really didn't get anything noticeable, did they?
Meanwhile, the amount of paperwork, regulations, fees, and the general miasma of bureaucracy and namny-ism that pervades this country is killing small businesses, which are the engine of our economic future. Or is the highest unemployment rate in decades just because people are mean?
+1 informative to Anonymous.
If Google failed, there would be plenty of other companies to quickly fill in the holes. It's not like we could no longer search or find advertisers or have trucks driving around sniffing our wireless networks. It would just be someone other than Google doing it.
"Too big to fail" really referred to financial institutions whose failure would not just affect the company (which is bad enough, but the risk of doing business), but all of their investors, bank customers, clients, etc. (as appropriate) and thus adversely affect the whole U.S. economy far beyond what another business of the same size would affect.
It was bad enough when Enron bellied up and took down the pensions, etc, of employees or retirees, but if a bank failed and took _your_ or _my_ life savings/pension/whatever when you or I aren't even employees (and perhaps not even direct customers), that's a whole 'nother matter.
Of course, the solution was just as bad as the problem, in its own way, but that's another topic.
If Google went out of business, it really wouldn't be so bad because its employees would be able to find other employment, its customers would be able find other advertisers and we could all go back to using Yahoo, AltaVista or Lycos (and you thought I was going to mention Bing... we're talking hypotheticals here, not fantasy).
The real issue here is whether Google, by virtue of its size, power and/or market share is able to exert and undue influence on the market.
But wait, they found Microsoft guilty of anti-trust practices and really... um, yeah, you're right. Asleep at the wheel.
Well, they have the option of not doing business with Google. Of course, the m-word raises its ugly head.
Yeah, but I have to wonder how well it integrates with C, since together they make the "devil's tritone".