it wasn't a real mech, it was a suit, with a very strong weightlifter type stuntman moving stuff about.
I have to admit i've read in quite official sounding sources that it was a mech with external hydrolics etc... Often the same people think that the dropship was designed by BAe or a US military aerospace engineer. (it's just a kitbashed apache, designed by jim cameron, and polished off by ron cobb).
Sadly, it wasn't real. the only bits that worked were the front claw grips. Alien quadrilogy puts it all into context really. aliens was made on a far lower budget than you'd think looking at it.
THC does have to be burnt or at least heated to work, eating loads of weed won't get you very high. you need to smoke it, or make a tea from it, to activate it properly.
Hash cookies usually don't have actual direct buds/leaves from cannabis in them, they have 'hash' in them, which is cannabis resin. I'm pretty sure the thc is boiled out of the cannabis and reduced down. This means hash has already had the thc 'activated'.
I don't think you're right there. the comparison is totally valid. Firstly, it's not about the amount, but the percentage of the donators total funds, and thus how much they are going without.
Secondly however, theres a point where by you have more than enough money to live beyond any standards, which makes any more money pretty much worthless to the individual apart from as some differnet numbers in roughly the same scale.
Someone Earning $50,000 and making a $200 donation may still feel it a little, maybe it means they don't go out one week or something. Trivial, but still there. The cost of living leaves less overall for the lower earner,
If Bill gates donated the majority of his net worth, leaving himself say a 'measly' $2 billion to live on, then you could begin to apply the word generous. Whilst it's great he wants to donate money, at his level of wealth, 100 million is like me giving someone 10 cents.
Finally, we'll get to see fighting robots with samauri swords that fire highpower beam weapons out of their chests, and transform into jets.
Also, they host gameshows in peace time
Re:Humans are also ill-suited for the ocean...
on
The Return of Apollo?
·
· Score: 1
the analogy used is fine. The point is, there are things that are hard or impossible to do with certain levels of technology.
At sea, with a wind powered boat, as used in the columbus analogy, you are in an environment that degrades your physiology, namely lack of food, scurvy. It's a risky 6 month trip because the technology of the time is so low
The same applies to space, a 6 month trip to mars say, brings with it it's own similar environmental issues, weightlessness, radiation etc. Just as we've mitigated many of the perils of ocean crossing, these dangerous things can have their degrading effect reduced.
It's quite sad to see so many supposedly tech-savvy people here being so closed minded. displaying the same sort of lack of imagination someone in columbus' time would if you explained a long haul passenger jet to him.
Right now, our tech makes space hard to reach. Just as America was for columbus. It's not going to be like that forever. The only way it will is if people continue to forever try to claim intellectual authority by telling everyone else how some things will never happen. Like flight, moon landings and a computer small enough to put in your pocket. It's actually a safer intellectual bet to keep an open mind and leave the way open for these technologies.
There are people working on theories for all kinds of exotic science fiction style technologies right now. most of them will lead no where. Stastistically one or two will bear fruit one day.
Maybe not this century, or next century, but, in the scale of humanities existence, it's right around the corner. Thats ignoring any social singularity theories.
This reminds me of the recent slashdot article questioning the popularity of science fiction, people seem really keen on keeping a closed mind and assuming that humanity now understands everything, so if we think it's not doable now, it's not doable ever.
the given reason was that because you aren't able to smoke in the planes, smokers will be dying to light up the second they step off the plane and into the first environment that allows them to smoke. If you don't allow them to take a lighter they can't light up as easily.
Sure they could buy a new lighter, or ask for a light from a stranger, but i think the idea here was that the tobacco industry would rather have it that there was never any barrier between an addict and the drug. Maybe they were worried that the inconvenience might trigger a reality check in some people, that hits home how dependent they really are.
who knows, thats the given explaination in any case.
Ignoring the argument is fine for as long as their are alternatives or you really aren't that bothered. However when hte issue moves up to mainstream computing and stuff, it's going to be valid to everyone, unless they stay with ever outdated hardware. icrosoft make a pretty big loss on the xbox at the moment, here in the UK they've reduced the price again to less than the Gamecube now. Buying one actually hurts MS if you don't buy games or sign upto their live service, which is probably the reason they make it hard for you to buy one standalone.
Really, the dreamcast isn't as good an option for someone who wants to hack a console, no hdd, etc make it less versitile. Why should people continue to have their options and basic statatory rights curtailed and just accept it.
Not buying something isn't really a protest against the DMCA, rather total acceptance of it. you're basically saying "ok, i accept, i won't buy anything where i might be tempted to contravine the rules". It's fine when it's a console, and the main aim is trivial games playing. If however we're talking about mainstream 'trusted' computing, then that stance over time , will basically mean opting out from modern computer use all together (at least thats the fear)
I sort of see what you are saying. The big problem with the left/right view of things, is that it's increadibly Bipolar, and lots of different idealogies get lumped together, Liberalism and communism both are considered 'left wing' yet, in practice they are often diametrically opposed. the left/right thing is nothing more than a 'dumbing down' tool to simplify this stuff, it's the specifics thats important, not what label we give it.
your apprasal of the scandinavian countries is laughable... so they aren't cranking out automobiles ?
oh, apart from,
Volvo
Saab
Skoda
of whice the first two are popular imports in the USA.
They also make aircraft, Ships, etc, so don't go around thinking they don't have heavy industries.
their big name corporations aren't the exception at all, more so considering their relative size and such like.
Not only are they rich comfortable safe nations to live in, they don't feel the need to sacrifice everyone one of their personal freedoms to the altar of big business.
the fact is, countries with gigantic heavy industries are usually pretty awful to live in. Who makes most of the worlds cars and technology. it's poorly paid workers in tiger economies and poor regions.
If being a 'global player', means you have to live with reduced freedoms, for the benifit of the nation overall... doesn't that sound a bit like communism ?
unchecked, freemarket Capitalism has a tendency to end up being a collection of communistic organisations (businesses) working in a free market. To the individual eventually the isn't much difference, they are still working for a greater whole for a set reward, expected to put an organisation before themselves. It's not that bad yet in places like the states and the UK,
but check places like the intel Fabs in the tiger economies, and you get an idea of where this sort of blind corporatism leads you.
still, i guess it's sort of cool for those of use who want to live in a neuromancer/snow crash style world:P
I'm a bit amazed at peoples lack of vision concerning this. What happened to building starships, colonising new worlds, building Dyson spheres, wormholes... all that stuff.. and that should just in the next few thousand years.
If the human race hasn't been annihilated by the myriad dangers of space, or by itself, by the time this happens, I'd be pretty disapointed if it hadn't spread all over the galaxy. i'd expect us to be able to *make* planets and stars by then.
it's one or the other, either we are destroyed eons before the sun dies, or we've colonised the universe / evolved into something far greater, and so it's just a trivial event.
It's a bit depressing to read that so many people just think we're going to go the way of the dinosaurs, and it's a just a matter of time. I'm sure we should be trying to survive a little harder than that.
wow, you can actually do that?
Presumably the retailer has to verify the RMA before accepting it in blind faith... and like, i bet a lot of them wouldn't go out of their way to help you. From what has been said on here, most shops in the US don't even want to replace faulty goods they've sold themselves, let alone another store.
In the UK, it would be covered for the year long guarantee period by teh vendor, as part of your consumer rights... surely most states have something similar to that?!?
if something breaks, you take it back to the place you got it, thats who your deal is with.
I sure hope the unfortunate 'few' are getting a free game or something to make up for having to wait such stupid times to get replacements.
Ironically, in the case of the minks it was eco-terrorism in a literal sense. it completely decimated the local ecosystem, the minks tipping the delicate scales of predator/prey.
The fact remains that these eco-groups become 'something bad' when they start going around doing stuff beliving they are right, based on quite frankly, really shakey knowledge.
Inciting fear in someone only breeds hatred. not compliance with an abstract point of view... it's insane, this is the sort of stuff you are supposed to learn at school in the playground.
It goes both ways, i'm sure you could pick out quite a few corporations that act against the good of society to the point of being deemed terrorists. (oil companies with their own private armies in 3rd world nations for example).
it's because Atheism is in itself a belief system. You specifically belive that there is no god. A lot of people call themselves atheists, when they aren't strictly atheists, for example they'll belive in some 'force' or universal intelligence from which we are all created or something like that. all of which exempts them from true atheism.
However, 'None' means you have no belief system at all, possibly the most logical, in that you don't bother beliving in stuff you can't prove, and so don't care about the question. More commonly known as an agnostic.
Slashdot Mirror
it wasn't a real mech, it was a suit, with a very strong weightlifter type stuntman moving stuff about.
I have to admit i've read in quite official sounding sources that it was a mech with external hydrolics etc... Often the same people think that the dropship was designed by BAe or a US military aerospace engineer. (it's just a kitbashed apache, designed by jim cameron, and polished off by ron cobb).
Sadly, it wasn't real. the only bits that worked were the front claw grips. Alien quadrilogy puts it all into context really. aliens was made on a far lower budget than you'd think looking at it.
Actually he's right enough to make you wrong.
THC does have to be burnt or at least heated to work, eating loads of weed won't get you very high. you need to smoke it, or make a tea from it, to activate it properly.
Hash cookies usually don't have actual direct buds/leaves from cannabis in them, they have 'hash' in them, which is cannabis resin. I'm pretty sure the thc is boiled out of the cannabis and reduced down. This means hash has already had the thc 'activated'.
The cookie making process also heats the THC up.
I don't think you're right there. the comparison is totally valid. Firstly, it's not about the amount, but the percentage of the donators total funds, and thus how much they are going without.
Secondly however, theres a point where by you have more than enough money to live beyond any standards, which makes any more money pretty much worthless to the individual apart from as some differnet numbers in roughly the same scale.
Someone Earning $50,000 and making a $200 donation may still feel it a little, maybe it means they don't go out one week or something. Trivial, but still there. The cost of living leaves less overall for the lower earner,
If Bill gates donated the majority of his net worth, leaving himself say a 'measly' $2 billion to live on, then you could begin to apply the word generous. Whilst it's great he wants to donate money, at his level of wealth, 100 million is like me giving someone 10 cents.
Finally, we'll get to see fighting robots with samauri swords that fire highpower beam weapons out of their chests, and transform into jets.
Also, they host gameshows in peace time
the analogy used is fine. The point is, there are things that are hard or impossible to do with certain levels of technology.
At sea, with a wind powered boat, as used in the columbus analogy, you are in an environment that degrades your physiology, namely lack of food, scurvy. It's a risky 6 month trip because the technology of the time is so low
The same applies to space, a 6 month trip to mars say, brings with it it's own similar environmental issues, weightlessness, radiation etc. Just as we've mitigated many of the perils of ocean crossing, these dangerous things can have their degrading effect reduced.
It's quite sad to see so many supposedly tech-savvy people here being so closed minded. displaying the same sort of lack of imagination someone in columbus' time would if you explained a long haul passenger jet to him.
Right now, our tech makes space hard to reach. Just as America was for columbus. It's not going to be like that forever. The only way it will is if people continue to forever try to claim intellectual authority by telling everyone else how some things will never happen. Like flight, moon landings and a computer small enough to put in your pocket. It's actually a safer intellectual bet to keep an open mind and leave the way open for these technologies.
There are people working on theories for all kinds of exotic science fiction style technologies right now. most of them will lead no where. Stastistically one or two will bear fruit one day.
Maybe not this century, or next century, but, in the scale of humanities existence, it's right around the corner. Thats ignoring any social singularity theories.
This reminds me of the recent slashdot article questioning the popularity of science fiction, people seem really keen on keeping a closed mind and assuming that humanity now understands everything, so if we think it's not doable now, it's not doable ever.
the given reason was that because you aren't able to smoke in the planes, smokers will be dying to light up the second they step off the plane and into the first environment that allows them to smoke. If you don't allow them to take a lighter they can't light up as easily.
Sure they could buy a new lighter, or ask for a light from a stranger, but i think the idea here was that the tobacco industry would rather have it that there was never any barrier between an addict and the drug. Maybe they were worried that the inconvenience might trigger a reality check in some people, that hits home how dependent they really are.
who knows, thats the given explaination in any case.
Ignoring the argument is fine for as long as their are alternatives or you really aren't that bothered. However when hte issue moves up to mainstream computing and stuff, it's going to be valid to everyone, unless they stay with ever outdated hardware. icrosoft make a pretty big loss on the xbox at the moment, here in the UK they've reduced the price again to less than the Gamecube now. Buying one actually hurts MS if you don't buy games or sign upto their live service, which is probably the reason they make it hard for you to buy one standalone.
Really, the dreamcast isn't as good an option for someone who wants to hack a console, no hdd, etc make it less versitile. Why should people continue to have their options and basic statatory rights curtailed and just accept it.
Not buying something isn't really a protest against the DMCA, rather total acceptance of it.
you're basically saying "ok, i accept, i won't buy anything where i might be tempted to contravine the rules". It's fine when it's a console, and the main aim is trivial games playing. If however we're talking about mainstream 'trusted' computing, then that stance over time , will basically mean opting out from modern computer use all together (at least thats the fear)
I sort of see what you are saying. The big problem with the left/right view of things, is that it's increadibly Bipolar, and lots of different idealogies get lumped together, Liberalism and communism both are considered 'left wing' yet, in practice they are often diametrically opposed. the left/right thing is nothing more than a 'dumbing down' tool to simplify this stuff, it's the specifics thats important, not what label we give it.
:P
your apprasal of the scandinavian countries is laughable... so they aren't cranking out automobiles ?
oh, apart from,
Volvo
Saab
Skoda
of whice the first two are popular imports in the USA.
They also make aircraft, Ships, etc, so don't go around thinking they don't have heavy industries.
their big name corporations aren't the exception at all, more so considering their relative size and such like.
Not only are they rich comfortable safe nations to live in, they don't feel the need to sacrifice everyone one of their personal freedoms to the altar of big business.
the fact is, countries with gigantic heavy industries are usually pretty awful to live in. Who makes most of the worlds cars and technology. it's poorly paid workers in tiger economies and poor regions.
If being a 'global player', means you have to live with reduced freedoms, for the benifit of the nation overall... doesn't that sound a bit like communism ?
unchecked, freemarket Capitalism has a tendency to end up being a collection of communistic organisations (businesses) working in a free market. To the individual eventually the isn't much difference, they are still working for a greater whole for a set reward, expected to put an organisation before themselves. It's not that bad yet in places like the states and the UK,
but check places like the intel Fabs in the tiger economies, and you get an idea of where this sort of blind corporatism leads you.
still, i guess it's sort of cool for those of use who want to live in a neuromancer/snow crash style world
I'm a bit amazed at peoples lack of vision concerning this. What happened to building starships, colonising new worlds, building Dyson spheres, wormholes... all that stuff.. and that should just in the next few thousand years.
If the human race hasn't been annihilated by the myriad dangers of space, or by itself, by the time this happens, I'd be pretty disapointed if it hadn't spread all over the galaxy. i'd expect us to be able to *make* planets and stars by then.
it's one or the other, either we are destroyed eons before the sun dies, or we've colonised the universe / evolved into something far greater, and so it's just a trivial event.
It's a bit depressing to read that so many people just think we're going to go the way of the dinosaurs, and it's a just a matter of time. I'm sure we should be trying to survive a little harder than that.
wow, you can actually do that?
Presumably the retailer has to verify the RMA before accepting it in blind faith... and like, i bet a lot of them wouldn't go out of their way to help you. From what has been said on here, most shops in the US don't even want to replace faulty goods they've sold themselves, let alone another store.
In the UK, it would be covered for the year long guarantee period by teh vendor, as part of your consumer rights... surely most states have something similar to that?!?
if something breaks, you take it back to the place you got it, thats who your deal is with.
I sure hope the unfortunate 'few' are getting a free game or something to make up for having to wait such stupid times to get replacements.
Ironically, in the case of the minks it was eco-terrorism in a literal sense. it completely decimated the local ecosystem, the minks tipping the delicate scales of predator/prey.
The fact remains that these eco-groups become 'something bad' when they start going around doing stuff beliving they are right, based on quite frankly, really shakey knowledge.
Inciting fear in someone only breeds hatred. not compliance with an abstract point of view... it's insane, this is the sort of stuff you are supposed to learn at school in the playground.
It goes both ways, i'm sure you could pick out quite a few corporations that act against the good of society to the point of being deemed terrorists. (oil companies with their own private armies in 3rd world nations for example).
I wonder how many clever people put down Sith instead, and if the ppl at the home office understood it (or just ticked the seikh box).
theres a simple reason there are 2 catogories.
it's because Atheism is in itself a belief system. You specifically belive that there is no god. A lot of people call themselves atheists, when they aren't strictly atheists, for example they'll belive in some 'force' or universal intelligence from which we are all created or something like that. all of which exempts them from true atheism.
However, 'None' means you have no belief system at all, possibly the most logical, in that you don't bother beliving in stuff you can't prove, and so don't care about the question. More commonly known as an agnostic.