Ahh yes, we settled that question by checking what sort of power leads we got on the goods (Euro). The Dutch have a funny sense of humour, so I reckon it may well have been done for a laugh =)
It's strange that 'supporting' has come to be a synonym for 'allowing' in the software world.
I always thought it meant that if I call tech support and say "your software is crap, it doesn't work with X!", then they can reply "Sorry, as it says on the box, we don't support X, so it's not worth our time to help you with this." I don't think that should exclude "good luck with it though", or even "but you might try doing Y, I heard that works", but now it seems to be more a case of "how dare you do X, we didn't say you were allowed to do that!"
If it changes density on 'freezing' that will cause distortions, probably bad enough that the surface is no longer very reflective. I tried it with wax once, and the main problem was that the edges froze first, which caused ripples in the rest of the surface.
There's also a not-very-toxic alternative to mercury for anyone who wants to try building a small LMT; Gallium/Indium/Tin alloys which are liquid at room temp.
"The Government of Tibet in Exile" is hardly likely to be non-partial either. From what I've read, putting that lot back in charge is the last thing the average Tibetan would want.
The figures were meant to show that your claim of 1.2 million killed in an invasion of a very small country is fairly unlikely, and if it had happened, there'd be plenty of evidence for it.
Speaking of vague figures, have a good look at these figures from tibet.com:
If there are places which have laws against P2P technology, then those laws must define what P2P actually is, right?
If, as you say, P2P tech is legal in Holland (AFAIK it's not illegal anywhere) it still doesn't follow that using P2P to violate copyright laws suddenly becomes legal. Pencils are legal, but that doesn't mean it's legal to distribute handwritten copies of the latest best-seller novel.
Distributing a tracker file (for a copyrighted work (for which you do not have the authority to distribute)) doesn't seem any different to what the Napster servers were doing, but still they were shut down.
Yep, and there's absolutely no evidence disproving the idea that my dog created the universe last Wednesday. But that doesn't mean the idea has any greater or lesser basis in reality than Tooth Fairies or Jehovahs.
What if it does? How much effort do you expend in actively disbelieving the Tooth Fairy? That's about how much effort I put into disbelieving any of the other mythological entities, and I fail to see how that can qualify as a religion.
Maybe it's just that the religious attach a lot more significance to the word 'faith' than others. I think it's a fairly meaningless concept, even in the positive sense. To say that lack of belief in something requires faith is just silly IMHO. I don't believe in any deities in exactly the same way that I don't believe some guy in Nigeria has $10,000,000 to transfer to my bank account.
"Also, people, don't forget that Atheism is no less a _religion_ than any other."
Bullshit!
Why is it that you deny the existence of all the thousands of gods besides your "One True God (TM)"? Are you are simultaneously involved in all the religions which deny the existence of Baal, Zeus, Ganesh, Isis, Ra, the Rainbow Serpent etc?
An atheist just believes in one less god than you do.
And as for cosmogonics - every story a tribe in African jungle would tell you about the world's creation IMO would be better than "there was _nothing_, it _exploded_, and everything came to be".
We know pretty much exactly how and when 'the world' was 'created', but if you're talking about the universe as a whole, then it's spelled 'cosmology'. In that case I can't see how a lie can be better than 'we dunno (yet)'. Why do you think it is better to believe a lie than to be unsure?
I can just see the Conquistadores at their 'mission briefing' at the court of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V: "Now, if you happen to run into any natives over there, don't go trying to convert any of them, there's a few theological issues need to be ironed out first."
Note who Pizzaro sent to speak with Atahuallpa (and what happened):
It's interesting to compare these two 'versions of the story':
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12140a.htm
"At a given signal the Spaniards rushed upon the unsuspecting Indians, massacred them in the most horrible manner, and took possession of their chief."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02032a.htm
"The stories of a terrible slaughter of the Indians are inordinate exaggerations."
There's another recent finding from stuff in ancient amber: air. Atmospheric oxygen in the cretaceous period seems to have been > 30%, with a reduction to around current levels at the K/T boundary. Maybe crocs were better at adapting to that? They are fairly inactive critters today, probably were back then too.
Where's the video footage and survey reports from your "consistently violent and non-specific interment conditions." AKA Noah's Flood? And why are you afraid to say what you actually mean? Is it something to do with this perhaps?
How about some evidence to back up your assertions?
That's pretty rich coming from a creationist. Perfect example of seeing a speck in your brothers' eye but not the log in your own eye, if you ask me.
I don't see any data cited in your post. I'm rejecting your *assertion* because it's standard unfounded creationist dogma. If you really believe palaeontologists got it so wrong, why not go out and find some evidence for your position?
Here, I'll give you somewhere to start looking. Lots of very nice 'allegedly' extremely old rocks there for ya. All you need is one of those 'marker fossils' (of the appropriate density) to have got 'mixed up' in the 'wrong' layer and you've got the best evidence yet for your conspiracy theory. Surely such a detailed web of lies as that map can be easily picked apart by someone prepared to objectively consider the evidence.
If you're short of work over there, as your journal would indicate, there's plenty of mining companies that will beat a path to your door once you've exposed the incompetence of Geoscience Australia.
Regarding the automotive reference, I replied to your silly question with another silly question, which I had hoped would illustrate the problem with your question. Pardon me for being one not so wise in the ways of automotive engineering as yourself.
Perhaps if you'd like to clarify your original question I could give you a sensible answer, but I get the impression that you're just here to gain attention for your viewpoint.
How did this nice valley we live in come to exist? Religion: the gods carved it at the beginning of time. Science: erosion.
What's that bright warm thing up in the sky? Religion: that's the sun god! Science: it's a star, like any other.
Where did all these animals come from? Religion: one day, *poof*, there they were, and there's this cool story about a magic boat too... Science: 3.5 billion years of evolution.
What caused the big bang? Religion: Oh that's easy, our god did it. Science: We dunno yet.
"Such an admission leads me to other thoughts: if there is no God, then not only have I been lied to for my entire life, but I have no reason to constrain myself. I believe that God has a purpose for my life, and part of that purpose is understanding and believing in the limits imposed on me (no murdering, no lying, etc.) If those limits were suddenly lifted, and I truly and honestly believed that God did not exist, I would probably snap. And I'm young! Imagine fifty or sixty-year olds being forced to face such a reality!"
That's really freaking scary, you know. How much time did they spend brainwashing you to get you that far sucked in?
If you really truly believe that you will be out murdering people the day you realise that it *is* all a pack of lies, please do us all a favour and get yourself committed now. You're insane.
I'm glad to hear that no-one is refused treatment at church-run hospitals, but do they receive any public funds for providing this service? Religious institutions have tax-exempt staus right? That's as good as receiving state funds in my book, average citizens have to make up the shortfall.
Yes, there is a problem with availability of staff, especially in rural areas, nurses especially are underpaid. The current government seems very keen on moving to the US model, so they are not doing very much to help the situation. I'm sure they would be thrilled if they could point to a 'collapsing' public health system and say "see, we told you it was a bad idea, now we'll do it our way." Hopefully after the next election things will change, but whatever happens, I don't see the government ever succeeding in forcing anyone into jobs they don't want. Providing incentives such as better pay or more university places in the appropriate areas is most likely to work IMHO.
Actually, a rather strange thing happened recently, Sydney University announced the closure of their nursing faculty due to lack of funding, and not more than a few weeks later the federal government implemented a bold new initiative to address the nursing shortage: providing $25 million to a private Catholic university for the purpose of *building from scratch* a new nursing campus less than 2km down the road from Sydney Uni.
What if someone thinks that the state's concept of treatment is complete bunk?
So far as I know, the standards for health care apply to every institution in the same way. Probably for economic reasons there are some treatments or diagnostics not commonly used in the public system you may be likely to see in the private sector, but the people making the decisions about such things are educated in the same places, probably have worked in either sector at different times. Much like the Linux/MS situation, I'd be more worried about the hospitals where profit becomes a factor in making decisions.
I can tell you for a fact that my son would be dead today if hospitals administered their "standard care" to him. However, since hospitals here are private, they are more free.
I'd like to think that the professional people who have a responsibility to save lives will do the best they can in any situation. Possibly a well funded private hospital will have better equipment or better staff, but I don't think public hospitals are limited otherwise, I'm sure they apply whatever treatment they feel is called for on the basis of *medical science*, not government policy.
In socialized medicine (correct me if I am wrong), the doctors have to follow the morality of the state, and cannot choose themselves if they believe an operation is immoral
No-one is forcing anyone to work against their will, I can't see that being an issue. I don't know how a surgeon could take a job at a public hospital without knowing what procedures they will be required to perform. So far as I know surgeons often work on a basis very similar to IT contracting, it's probably as easy for them as a programmer saying "No, I really hate Java, I'll pass on that job thankyouverymuch."
Look at it from the opposite perspective; if I needed a medical procedure which is judged immoral by the only free-as-in-beer institutions, where does that leave me? Can you see Catholic hospitals providing cloned organs if that technology becomes available through use of fetal stem cells?
(as America is becoming more socialized, this is happening increasingly here, too).
It is??!!? =) We certainly don't get that impression from here.
Also, there is the general concept that taking money away from one person to serve the purposes of another is stealing, even if the purposes are good.
Is it any different to having your employer allocate part of their 'human resources' (hate that term..) budget to health insurance for employees? If your colleague gets hit by a bus, his treatm
Slashdot Mirror
FF works just fine for me with Ubuntu on AMD64.
Ahh yes, we settled that question by checking what sort of power leads we got on the goods (Euro). The Dutch have a funny sense of humour, so I reckon it may well have been done for a laugh =)
p.s. Greetings brother, may you be eaten first!
I have more than once opened a 40' shipping container here in Sydney Australia and seen 'AUSTRIA' written in thick black marker on the goods.
I prefer 400 C.E. thanks
It's strange that 'supporting' has come to be a synonym for 'allowing' in the software world.
I always thought it meant that if I call tech support and say "your software is crap, it doesn't work with X!", then they can reply "Sorry, as it says on the box, we don't support X, so it's not worth our time to help you with this." I don't think that should exclude "good luck with it though", or even "but you might try doing Y, I heard that works", but now it seems to be more a case of "how dare you do X, we didn't say you were allowed to do that!"
Like in the Road Runner cartoons where Wile E. Coyote has a skateboard with a sail on front and an electric fan on the back?
If it changes density on 'freezing' that will cause distortions, probably bad enough that the surface is no longer very reflective. I tried it with wax once, and the main problem was that the edges froze first, which caused ripples in the rest of the surface.
u id_metal/liquid_metal.html
There's also a not-very-toxic alternative to mercury for anyone who wants to try building a small LMT; Gallium/Indium/Tin alloys which are liquid at room temp.
http://www.scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/thermo/liq
The figures were meant to show that your claim of 1.2 million killed in an invasion of a very small country is fairly unlikely, and if it had happened, there'd be plenty of evidence for it.
Speaking of vague figures, have a good look at these figures from tibet.com:27,951 Tibetans were tortured to death in U-Tsang province! That's terrible! But how do they know?
Those nice Tibetan monks couldn't possibly be making it up, could they?
"and over a million Tibetans have perished under China's invasion of Tibet?"
Tibet census 1953: ~1 million
Tibet census 1964: 1.3467 million
Tibet census 1982: 1.8923 million
If there are places which have laws against P2P technology, then those laws must define what P2P actually is, right?
If, as you say, P2P tech is legal in Holland (AFAIK it's not illegal anywhere) it still doesn't follow that using P2P to violate copyright laws suddenly becomes legal. Pencils are legal, but that doesn't mean it's legal to distribute handwritten copies of the latest best-seller novel.
Distributing a tracker file (for a copyrighted work (for which you do not have the authority to distribute)) doesn't seem any different to what the Napster servers were doing, but still they were shut down.
BTW, I'm not saying any of this is a good thing.
Yep, and there's absolutely no evidence disproving the idea that my dog created the universe last Wednesday. But that doesn't mean the idea has any greater or lesser basis in reality than Tooth Fairies or Jehovahs.
"However, laws on P2P differ from coutry to country."
Can you give an example of a law which makes a distinction between P2P and non-P2P file transfer?
All machines on the 'net are peers, aren't they?
What if it does? How much effort do you expend in actively disbelieving the Tooth Fairy? That's about how much effort I put into disbelieving any of the other mythological entities, and I fail to see how that can qualify as a religion.
Maybe it's just that the religious attach a lot more significance to the word 'faith' than others. I think it's a fairly meaningless concept, even in the positive sense. To say that lack of belief in something requires faith is just silly IMHO. I don't believe in any deities in exactly the same way that I don't believe some guy in Nigeria has $10,000,000 to transfer to my bank account.
"Also, people, don't forget that Atheism is no less a _religion_ than any other."
Bullshit!
Why is it that you deny the existence of all the thousands of gods besides your "One True God (TM)"? Are you are simultaneously involved in all the religions which deny the existence of Baal, Zeus, Ganesh, Isis, Ra, the Rainbow Serpent etc?
An atheist just believes in one less god than you do.
And as for cosmogonics - every story a tribe in African jungle would tell you about the world's creation IMO would be better than "there was _nothing_, it _exploded_, and everything came to be".
We know pretty much exactly how and when 'the world' was 'created', but if you're talking about the universe as a whole, then it's spelled 'cosmology'. In that case I can't see how a lie can be better than 'we dunno (yet)'. Why do you think it is better to believe a lie than to be unsure?
I'll just throw in the Aztecs then...
o _f 00.html
I can just see the Conquistadores at their 'mission briefing' at the court of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V: "Now, if you happen to run into any natives over there, don't go trying to convert any of them, there's a few theological issues need to be ironed out first."
Note who Pizzaro sent to speak with Atahuallpa (and what happened):
http://www.pbs.org/conquistadors/pizarro/pizarr
It's interesting to compare these two 'versions of the story':
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12140a.htm
"At a given signal the Spaniards rushed upon the unsuspecting Indians, massacred them in the most horrible manner, and took possession of their chief."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02032a.htm
"The stories of a terrible slaughter of the Indians are inordinate exaggerations."
There's another recent finding from stuff in ancient amber: air. Atmospheric oxygen in the cretaceous period seems to have been > 30%, with a reduction to around current levels at the K/T boundary. Maybe crocs were better at adapting to that? They are fairly inactive critters today, probably were back then too.
link
Where's the video footage and survey reports from your "consistently violent and non-specific interment conditions." AKA Noah's Flood? And why are you afraid to say what you actually mean? Is it something to do with this perhaps?
How about some evidence to back up your assertions?
That's pretty rich coming from a creationist. Perfect example of seeing a speck in your brothers' eye but not the log in your own eye, if you ask me.
I don't see any data cited in your post. I'm rejecting your *assertion* because it's standard unfounded creationist dogma. If you really believe palaeontologists got it so wrong, why not go out and find some evidence for your position?
Here, I'll give you somewhere to start looking. Lots of very nice 'allegedly' extremely old rocks there for ya. All you need is one of those 'marker fossils' (of the appropriate density) to have got 'mixed up' in the 'wrong' layer and you've got the best evidence yet for your conspiracy theory. Surely such a detailed web of lies as that map can be easily picked apart by someone prepared to objectively consider the evidence.
If you're short of work over there, as your journal would indicate, there's plenty of mining companies that will beat a path to your door once you've exposed the incompetence of Geoscience Australia.
Regarding the automotive reference, I replied to your silly question with another silly question, which I had hoped would illustrate the problem with your question. Pardon me for being one not so wise in the ways of automotive engineering as yourself.
Perhaps if you'd like to clarify your original question I could give you a sensible answer, but I
get the impression that you're just here to gain attention for your viewpoint.
TFA says 70 - 500 microns (1mm = 1000 microns).
: //hhmi.genetics.utah.edu/microct/
They were 'sliced' with digital x-ray tomography:
http://www.microphotonics.com/skymto.html
http
"Also, if the first animal hatched then why do bird fossils - even proper dinosaur fossils - appear so late in the piece?"
If the the first car had wheels, why did the quad cam v8 turbo 4WD appear so late in the piece?
'Hatching' is the general rule right up until mammals, and even then monotremes still lay eggs.
"The fossil sorting we do see seems to be based more on environment and density than on any systematic idea of age."
Yeah, sure it does. Take your creationist tripe elsewhere, this is the *science* section, not the fundamentalist christian religion section.
Here's one reason not to believe it:
How did this nice valley we live in come to exist?
Religion: the gods carved it at the beginning of time.
Science: erosion.
What's that bright warm thing up in the sky?
Religion: that's the sun god!
Science: it's a star, like any other.
Where did all these animals come from?
Religion: one day, *poof*, there they were, and there's this cool story about a magic boat too...
Science: 3.5 billion years of evolution.
What caused the big bang?
Religion: Oh that's easy, our god did it.
Science: We dunno yet.
Ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?
All parts of it.
"Such an admission leads me to other thoughts: if there is no God, then not only have I been lied to for my entire life, but I have no reason to constrain myself. I believe that God has a purpose for my life, and part of that purpose is understanding and believing in the limits imposed on me (no murdering, no lying, etc.) If those limits were suddenly lifted, and I truly and honestly believed that God did not exist, I would probably snap. And I'm young! Imagine fifty or sixty-year olds being forced to face such a reality!"
That's really freaking scary, you know. How much time did they spend brainwashing you to get you that far sucked in?
If you really truly believe that you will be out murdering people the day you realise that it *is* all a pack of lies, please do us all a favour and get yourself committed now. You're insane.
wtf do you mean by that?
I'm happy to explain something about those topics if anyone cares to ask, and I'm certainly not one little bit religious.
I'm glad to hear that no-one is refused treatment at church-run hospitals, but do they receive any public funds for providing this service? Religious institutions have tax-exempt staus right? That's as good as receiving state funds in my book, average citizens have to make up the shortfall.
Yes, there is a problem with availability of staff, especially in rural areas, nurses especially are underpaid. The current government seems very keen on moving to the US model, so they are not doing very much to help the situation. I'm sure they would be thrilled if they could point to a 'collapsing' public health system and say "see, we told you it was a bad idea, now we'll do it our way." Hopefully after the next election things will change, but whatever happens, I don't see the government ever succeeding in forcing anyone into jobs they don't want. Providing incentives such as better pay or more university places in the appropriate areas is most likely to work IMHO.
Actually, a rather strange thing happened recently, Sydney University announced the closure of their nursing faculty due to lack of funding, and not more than a few weeks later the federal government implemented a bold new initiative to address the nursing shortage: providing $25 million to a private Catholic university for the purpose of *building from scratch* a new nursing campus less than 2km down the road from Sydney Uni.
What if someone thinks that the state's concept of treatment is complete bunk?
So far as I know, the standards for health care apply to every institution in the same way. Probably for economic reasons there are some treatments or diagnostics not commonly used in the public system you may be likely to see in the private sector, but the people making the decisions about such things are educated in the same places, probably have worked in either sector at different times. Much like the Linux/MS situation, I'd be more worried about the hospitals where profit becomes a factor in making decisions.
I can tell you for a fact that my son would be dead today if hospitals administered their "standard care" to him. However, since hospitals here are private, they are more free.
I'd like to think that the professional people who have a responsibility to save lives will do the best they can in any situation. Possibly a well funded private hospital will have better equipment or better staff, but I don't think public hospitals are limited otherwise, I'm sure they apply whatever treatment they feel is called for on the basis of *medical science*, not government policy.
In socialized medicine (correct me if I am wrong), the doctors have to follow the morality of the state, and cannot choose themselves if they believe an operation is immoral
No-one is forcing anyone to work against their will, I can't see that being an issue. I don't know how a surgeon could take a job at a public hospital without knowing what procedures they will be required to perform. So far as I know surgeons often work on a basis very similar to IT contracting, it's probably as easy for them as a programmer saying "No, I really hate Java, I'll pass on that job thankyouverymuch."
Look at it from the opposite perspective; if I needed a medical procedure which is judged immoral by the only free-as-in-beer institutions, where does that leave me? Can you see Catholic hospitals providing cloned organs if that technology becomes available through use of fetal stem cells?
(as America is becoming more socialized, this is happening increasingly here, too).
It is??!!? =) We certainly don't get that impression from here.
Also, there is the general concept that taking money away from one person to serve the purposes of another is stealing, even if the purposes are good.
Is it any different to having your employer allocate part of their 'human resources' (hate that term..) budget to health insurance for employees? If your colleague gets hit by a bus, his treatm