I hate to say it but it was your own fault. no man should get his hair done and want of them boutique shops, it just ain't right.
I just cut my own hair. No need to waste any time and money to have someone else mess it up.
I've been cutting my own hair for years now. After a little practice (like the first time, basically - the stakes are pretty high), you get decent at it. And my wife touches up the back of my head. It's quick, cheap, and easy. The secretary at my last job was a hairdresser and was impressed with the job I did, so it can't be too bad looking.
Eventually, I just got sick of spending the time and money for someone else to screw up my hair. Although, as the GP attests, the best haircuts I've ever got were from old-fashioned barber shops.
Well, I have to say that that's utter bollocks, except where you're not comparing like with like. People working in India/China/Brazil/The Philippines are no different and no less capable than in the US or Europe - the range of ability is just the same.
Except they often don't speak the customer's language well enough to communicate. When Joe Customer gets routed to "Frank from Boise" who has an Indian accent so thick that he's unintelligible, it doesn't matter how good "Frank's" troubleshooting abilities are. This is where a lot of the general public's outrage over outsourced customer service began.
When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts games, 'Lugaru HD', on the Mac App store, shortly after they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double.
I know I must me new here... Would it kill you, Taco, to read this garbage before posting it? WTF does that sentence even mean?
This is super cool, but less for the kinetic isotope effect (KIE) studies and more for the muon-electron substitution. We've compared isotope masses with reaction rates using deuterium and tritium before, so using "H-4" and "H-5" is nice for extended validation, but not unexpected. The muonium is pretty bad-ass, though.
"It is arrogant to assume there isn't life outside our planet." --Carl Sagan
A belief is a belief is a belief. Sagan admitted, he no empirical evidence of this, but, only believed. If there is not any other life in the universe other than on earth (and I hope there is), then Carl's belief in ET is as nutty as any other.
I appreciate the believer -- whether it be the agnostic, the atheist or the Muslim. What I do not appreciate are those who reject others for not believing the same thing. And I feel sad for the arrogant, who look down on those who are _not_ in sync with what they claim are the "right" beliefs.
To quote Lewis responding to a letter by a self-avowed atheist: "As a former atheist I have to say you, Sir, are not one. You are a God hater, and a God hater is not necessarily an athiest...."
Sagan's quote does not demonstrate belief. It represents quite the opposite. "Assum[ing] there isn't life outside our planet" is the belief that he's railing against. Not assuming something that can not currently be proven or disproven is the suspension of belief and is what his quote appears to be advocating.
Sagan may believe in ETs, and in most circles that is at least slightly nutty, but his quote isn't talking about his belief in ETs (it's talking about others' belief in the non-existence of ETs).
Furthermore, you list the agnostic as being a believer. The agnostic does not believe because the matter is unknowable. Contrast this to the atheist, who is a believer in the non-existence of God. I'm not quite sure what your Lewis quote is supposed to show, but it appears that both he and the writer both believed, just in different things.
Did you read the cable, though? Tsvangirai encouraged the 'western' governments to keep up the sanctions as they were putting pressure on Mugabe. Economic sanctions are (supposed to be) great for getting leaders ousted, but they (genuinely) suck for the common people living in the country, too. It came out that Tsvangirai was trying to continue the starvation of the people to further his political goals (which were honorable). Mugabe doesn't have to twist this at all. Tsvangirai did all the damage himself.
The end doesn't justify the means and the people are rightly pissed to find out what has been happening.
Many would draw a line between having sex with a sleeping person when the sleeping person and the other person had not been having sex, and a situation where the sleeping person and the other person were mutually and consensually naked in a bed where they had just spent the night having sex. The first situation strikes most people as criminal, the second as bad manners.
Bad manners? Waking up to sex is fun! (In the context of the latter situation, of course.)
There's a lot more to being a medical doctor than memorizing symptoms. *facepalm* yourself.
Yeah, and none of it is doing scientific research, which is what my post was discussing. Apparently reading comprehension isn't part of it either. Facepalm indeed.
the problem is that most MDs aren't real scientists
MDs aren't supposed to be scientists, any more than JDs are. MD is a professional degree, indicating that they've learned everything that the certifying organization says they need to know to be an MD.
Now that's not to say that some (many?) MDs don't think that they're scientists. I've worked with a few MDs in research, and it is a truly painful experience. Most of them have a fundamental lack of grasp of basic scientific ideas (the scientific method, controls, etc) and the results of their "research" are facepalm inducing. But as medical doctors, they're fine. They memorized all of the symptoms for whatever disease and can identify it just fine. I couldn't do that.
(Of course I'm not too happy that they were paid five times more than me during this because HR likes MD more than PhD.)
And that's leaving out the part in which you actually die, which isn't going to be any fun either
I'm actually interested in experiencing this. Not anytime soon, mind you, but when my time comes I want to be conscious and alert. This is something that you only get to experience once (barring possible reincarnation, anyway). It may hurt, and I'm not into pain, but it will be a truly unique experience that no living person has experienced. I think it would be a waste to go in my sleep and miss the chance to experience my body and brain "turning off".
My cat fetches. His motivation doesn't seem to involve the actual retrieval, though. When I throw a toy, he'll chase it and play with it a bit. When he gets bored with it, he'll bring it to me to throw again. I didn't actively teach him to do this, though, so I suppose he trained me.
With limited quantities (tickets, discounted items, etc) you have to put limits/rules in place or the only people buying them are those that want to profit off it.
Having just purchased my first house, I saw this quite a bit in real estate. My wife and I have decent jobs and plenty of free time for projects, so we wanted to get a house that needed a little TLC for a lower price and fix it up ourselves. The problem is that "investors" and fix-and-flip types could, and would, swoop in and snatch these houses up before people who would actually live in them could. Then two months later the houses are back on the market at double the price (and the "upgrades" are of dubious quality, anyway). These "investors" often buy the houses outright with cash, so their offer looks the best when compared with a young couple's financed offer.
I think that most of the tragedy of the anti-vaccination crowd comes from them forgetting why we vaccinate against certain things. By not vaccinating their children, they're creating a pool of not-immune people that can sustain these infections and allow them to continue to be a threat. We vaccinate against these diseases for a reason. The outcome of childhood polio or measles or mumps is not pretty (not just cosmetically, but these are extremely contagious and can tear a person up). The chance of getting autism from the vaccine is (not proven, but let's infer from looking at apparently "effected" children) absolutely miniscule.
Pigment absorbs the light spectrums we do not see. Technically speaking, a "blue" object is not really blue, it just looks blue because it reflects the blue light and absorbs the other wavelengths, so looking at it from the point of view of light it would actually be all the colors except blue.
Actually, it doesn't absorb all other wavelengths. It absorbs the color that is opposite on the "color wheel" from the color it appears to be. So a red object absorbs green, a yellow object absorbs violet, etc. We see the reflected light (which is the incident light minus the small range of absorbed light) as biased away from the absorbed wavelength and interpret it as the opposite on the color wheel. This is a natural result of using our three color sensors to recreate colors.
You're posting on Slashdot, so you own a computer and have geekish interests. From that, you are likely middle class. You were trained not to make incredibly stupid life-altering decisions since you were young. You seem to attribute the lack of deaths to the lack of firearms. Are you saying that had you possessed a gun (or a knife even), that you think you would have murdered the other person?
In the US, even though there are plenty of middle class people who own firearms, gun crime is overwhelmingly committed by by the very poor and almost always committed with illegally owned firearms.
Gun murders in the US are a symptom of much larger social problems. As another poster above pointed out, we have some serious social problems in the US and they are not caused (or really even exacerbated) by guns.
> The only difference is you want to decide what people should want to do.
No. The difference is that _one_ of the examples you made involves hurting other sentient beings. This fact changes the "let people do what they want" situation into a "let people do what they want, but minimize negative impact on others" one.
Also, neither video games nor web sites per se are a need. Food is. By claiming that hunting is for food, people deliberately pull something from the realm of "want" into the realm of "need". When I call bullshit on that, claiming that "want" is "want" may be true, but is hardly a logical answer to what I said.
It's nothing personal, but I feel reminded of arguing with children or religious zealots, atm.
You feel like that because you're getting upset that people won't just take your opinions as fact. Slow down and listen to what people are saying.
You seem to be saying that if someone can't demonstrate a clear need to hunt for food that they shouldn't be allowed to hunt (or eat their kill, or what is your point exactly?) because it's something that they want to do instead of need to do. You claim that hunting for food is not needed because there exist other ways of getting meat than hunting. So those ways should be accepted as the "correct" ways to get meat, while hunting should be regarded as the "not needed" way to get meat. Your argument for this seems to be that killing domesticated animals is done in a less painful manner. Ideally, the way that animals are killed for meat would be painless, whether they were hunted or raised and slaughtered.
A decent hunter can kill an animal quickly and no more painfully than a slaughterhouse can. There will always be exceptions to this in both cases. Some people feel that raising something in captivity to slaughter it is not as ethical as taking an animal from the wild. In this way, satisfying the "need" for meat by slaughter or by hunt is equally acceptable.
Taking into account the above, why is it wrong to hunt, but alright to slaughter?
Concepts like letting the animals live happily, sheltering them, protecting them from predators and then killing them swiftly, precisely and without pain do not exist.
Now that we have this settled, I hope you go on defending hunting.
I think that killing an animal who has been free all it's life is more ethical than raising animals for the purpose of slaughter. It appears that you don't, but in no way is your opinion on the matter somehow more valid than mine.
US civil wars were fought at a time when small arms were pretty much all there were. Seriously, try it against nukes and UAVs. See how far you get.
What? While it's no nuke, they had heavy artillery and conducted naval bombardment of cities and other targets. That's still some serious shit and not to be confused with small arms.
Frozen blood won’t adhere to a frictionless surface.
It doesn't have to. It's essentially the same answer as the shoe answer, just that pushing against the blood will get you to the shore ten years later!
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to say it but it was your own fault. no man should get his hair done and want of them boutique shops, it just ain't right.
I just cut my own hair. No need to waste any time and money to have someone else mess it up.
I've been cutting my own hair for years now. After a little practice (like the first time, basically - the stakes are pretty high), you get decent at it. And my wife touches up the back of my head. It's quick, cheap, and easy. The secretary at my last job was a hairdresser and was impressed with the job I did, so it can't be too bad looking.
Eventually, I just got sick of spending the time and money for someone else to screw up my hair. Although, as the GP attests, the best haircuts I've ever got were from old-fashioned barber shops.
Well, I have to say that that's utter bollocks, except where you're not comparing like with like. People working in India/China/Brazil/The Philippines are no different and no less capable than in the US or Europe - the range of ability is just the same.
Except they often don't speak the customer's language well enough to communicate. When Joe Customer gets routed to "Frank from Boise" who has an Indian accent so thick that he's unintelligible, it doesn't matter how good "Frank's" troubleshooting abilities are. This is where a lot of the general public's outrage over outsourced customer service began.
Have an update for my ps3, wii, tv, my wifes iPhone, etc?
FYI, the iPhone supports IPv6 as of iOS4.
Granted, there's less (sic) people living below the poverty line there, though...
I think we're getting closer to the actual link.
On the other hand, there is no m in "be". :)
That's awesome. Thanks! I knew that I was going to make some mistake in there...
There ought to be some law saying that every post criticizing spelling or grammar is guaranteed to have a spelling or grammar error!
When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts games, 'Lugaru HD', on the Mac App store, shortly after they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double.
I know I must me new here... Would it kill you, Taco, to read this garbage before posting it? WTF does that sentence even mean?
With a budget of just 350 pounds...
That's some heavy styrofoam!
This is super cool, but less for the kinetic isotope effect (KIE) studies and more for the muon-electron substitution. We've compared isotope masses with reaction rates using deuterium and tritium before, so using "H-4" and "H-5" is nice for extended validation, but not unexpected. The muonium is pretty bad-ass, though.
"It is arrogant to assume there isn't life outside our planet." --Carl Sagan
A belief is a belief is a belief. Sagan admitted, he no empirical evidence of this, but, only believed. If there is not any other life in the universe other than on earth (and I hope there is), then Carl's belief in ET is as nutty as any other.
I appreciate the believer -- whether it be the agnostic, the atheist or the Muslim. What I do not appreciate are those who reject others for not believing the same thing. And I feel sad for the arrogant, who look down on those who are _not_ in sync with what they claim are the "right" beliefs.
To quote Lewis responding to a letter by a self-avowed atheist: "As a former atheist I have to say you, Sir, are not one. You are a God hater, and a God hater is not necessarily an athiest...."
Sagan's quote does not demonstrate belief. It represents quite the opposite. "Assum[ing] there isn't life outside our planet" is the belief that he's railing against. Not assuming something that can not currently be proven or disproven is the suspension of belief and is what his quote appears to be advocating.
Sagan may believe in ETs, and in most circles that is at least slightly nutty, but his quote isn't talking about his belief in ETs (it's talking about others' belief in the non-existence of ETs).
Furthermore, you list the agnostic as being a believer. The agnostic does not believe because the matter is unknowable. Contrast this to the atheist, who is a believer in the non-existence of God. I'm not quite sure what your Lewis quote is supposed to show, but it appears that both he and the writer both believed, just in different things.
Did you read the cable, though? Tsvangirai encouraged the 'western' governments to keep up the sanctions as they were putting pressure on Mugabe. Economic sanctions are (supposed to be) great for getting leaders ousted, but they (genuinely) suck for the common people living in the country, too. It came out that Tsvangirai was trying to continue the starvation of the people to further his political goals (which were honorable). Mugabe doesn't have to twist this at all. Tsvangirai did all the damage himself.
The end doesn't justify the means and the people are rightly pissed to find out what has been happening.
Many would draw a line between having sex with a sleeping person when the sleeping person and the other person had not been having sex, and a situation where the sleeping person and the other person were mutually and consensually naked in a bed where they had just spent the night having sex. The first situation strikes most people as criminal, the second as bad manners.
Bad manners? Waking up to sex is fun! (In the context of the latter situation, of course.)
There's a lot more to being a medical doctor than memorizing symptoms. *facepalm* yourself.
Yeah, and none of it is doing scientific research, which is what my post was discussing. Apparently reading comprehension isn't part of it either. Facepalm indeed.
the problem is that most MDs aren't real scientists
MDs aren't supposed to be scientists, any more than JDs are. MD is a professional degree, indicating that they've learned everything that the certifying organization says they need to know to be an MD.
Now that's not to say that some (many?) MDs don't think that they're scientists.
I've worked with a few MDs in research, and it is a truly painful experience. Most of them have a fundamental lack of grasp of basic scientific ideas (the scientific method, controls, etc) and the results of their "research" are facepalm inducing. But as medical doctors, they're fine. They memorized all of the symptoms for whatever disease and can identify it just fine. I couldn't do that.
(Of course I'm not too happy that they were paid five times more than me during this because HR likes MD more than PhD.)
And that's leaving out the part in which you actually die, which isn't going to be any fun either
I'm actually interested in experiencing this. Not anytime soon, mind you, but when my time comes I want to be conscious and alert. This is something that you only get to experience once (barring possible reincarnation, anyway). It may hurt, and I'm not into pain, but it will be a truly unique experience that no living person has experienced. I think it would be a waste to go in my sleep and miss the chance to experience my body and brain "turning off".
My cat fetches. His motivation doesn't seem to involve the actual retrieval, though. When I throw a toy, he'll chase it and play with it a bit. When he gets bored with it, he'll bring it to me to throw again. I didn't actively teach him to do this, though, so I suppose he trained me.
With limited quantities (tickets, discounted items, etc) you have to put limits/rules in place or the only people buying them are those that want to profit off it.
Having just purchased my first house, I saw this quite a bit in real estate. My wife and I have decent jobs and plenty of free time for projects, so we wanted to get a house that needed a little TLC for a lower price and fix it up ourselves. The problem is that "investors" and fix-and-flip types could, and would, swoop in and snatch these houses up before people who would actually live in them could. Then two months later the houses are back on the market at double the price (and the "upgrades" are of dubious quality, anyway). These "investors" often buy the houses outright with cash, so their offer looks the best when compared with a young couple's financed offer.
But you know that it depends on the actual structure of the silicon crystal how much X silicon atoms weigh?
No it doesn't. The structure of the crystal will only determine its volume.
I think that most of the tragedy of the anti-vaccination crowd comes from them forgetting why we vaccinate against certain things. By not vaccinating their children, they're creating a pool of not-immune people that can sustain these infections and allow them to continue to be a threat. We vaccinate against these diseases for a reason. The outcome of childhood polio or measles or mumps is not pretty (not just cosmetically, but these are extremely contagious and can tear a person up). The chance of getting autism from the vaccine is (not proven, but let's infer from looking at apparently "effected" children) absolutely miniscule.
Pigment absorbs the light spectrums we do not see. Technically speaking, a "blue" object is not really blue, it just looks blue because it reflects the blue light and absorbs the other wavelengths, so looking at it from the point of view of light it would actually be all the colors except blue.
Actually, it doesn't absorb all other wavelengths. It absorbs the color that is opposite on the "color wheel" from the color it appears to be. So a red object absorbs green, a yellow object absorbs violet, etc. We see the reflected light (which is the incident light minus the small range of absorbed light) as biased away from the absorbed wavelength and interpret it as the opposite on the color wheel. This is a natural result of using our three color sensors to recreate colors.
You're posting on Slashdot, so you own a computer and have geekish interests. From that, you are likely middle class. You were trained not to make incredibly stupid life-altering decisions since you were young. You seem to attribute the lack of deaths to the lack of firearms. Are you saying that had you possessed a gun (or a knife even), that you think you would have murdered the other person?
In the US, even though there are plenty of middle class people who own firearms, gun crime is overwhelmingly committed by by the very poor and almost always committed with illegally owned firearms.
Gun murders in the US are a symptom of much larger social problems. As another poster above pointed out, we have some serious social problems in the US and they are not caused (or really even exacerbated) by guns.
> The only difference is you want to decide what people should want to do.
No. The difference is that _one_ of the examples you made involves hurting other sentient beings. This fact changes the "let people do what they want" situation into a "let people do what they want, but minimize negative impact on others" one.
Also, neither video games nor web sites per se are a need. Food is. By claiming that hunting is for food, people deliberately pull something from the realm of "want" into the realm of "need". When I call bullshit on that, claiming that "want" is "want" may be true, but is hardly a logical answer to what I said.
It's nothing personal, but I feel reminded of arguing with children or religious zealots, atm.
You feel like that because you're getting upset that people won't just take your opinions as fact. Slow down and listen to what people are saying.
You seem to be saying that if someone can't demonstrate a clear need to hunt for food that they shouldn't be allowed to hunt (or eat their kill, or what is your point exactly?) because it's something that they want to do instead of need to do. You claim that hunting for food is not needed because there exist other ways of getting meat than hunting. So those ways should be accepted as the "correct" ways to get meat, while hunting should be regarded as the "not needed" way to get meat. Your argument for this seems to be that killing domesticated animals is done in a less painful manner. Ideally, the way that animals are killed for meat would be painless, whether they were hunted or raised and slaughtered.
A decent hunter can kill an animal quickly and no more painfully than a slaughterhouse can. There will always be exceptions to this in both cases. Some people feel that raising something in captivity to slaughter it is not as ethical as taking an animal from the wild. In this way, satisfying the "need" for meat by slaughter or by hunt is equally acceptable.
Taking into account the above, why is it wrong to hunt, but alright to slaughter?
Concepts like letting the animals live happily, sheltering them, protecting them from predators and then killing them swiftly, precisely and without pain do not exist.
Now that we have this settled, I hope you go on defending hunting.
I think that killing an animal who has been free all it's life is more ethical than raising animals for the purpose of slaughter. It appears that you don't, but in no way is your opinion on the matter somehow more valid than mine.
US civil wars were fought at a time when small arms were pretty much all there were. Seriously, try it against nukes and UAVs. See how far you get.
What? While it's no nuke, they had heavy artillery and conducted naval bombardment of cities and other targets. That's still some serious shit and not to be confused with small arms.
Frozen blood won’t adhere to a frictionless surface.
It doesn't have to. It's essentially the same answer as the shoe answer, just that pushing against the blood will get you to the shore ten years later!
That's a bold statement. Can you back it up? Of all of the people I know who jailbroke their iPhones, not one has pirated apps.