Catheters really fucking hurt!! Why they don't just seal a tube AROUND the penis, I'll never know.
I think somebody else already explained why the traditional catheter must be inserted into the bladder. However, what _you_ are looking for is called a "Texas Catheter" that fits somewhat like a condom. This would be a better solution for enabling video game addition.
You seemed to want to turn it into something else.
I really didn't, but I was afraid that my message would seem confrontational, and my fears were confirmed. I'm sorry -- I definitely didn't mean it that way. I had walked away from the message to go to lunch with the intent of rewording it, and then I just punched the "send" button when I got back. I think all I really wanted to say is: maybe it's worth it to her, and I'm not sure that the fact that she may (or may not) be a professional matters all that much. Although I agree that in my experience as a professional, there has been a lot of pressure to work longer and therefore enjoy less free time. Maybe that's exactly what I should have written.;)
but she's a professional (I assume); how much time does she have to actually watch the bloody thing anyway?!
Let's take a look at this. Even if she only has thirty minutes to watch TV each day, she should be able to watch what she wants in the quality she was expecting. Also, does being a professional mean that she should have to work more than forty hours a week? I know most of us do (myself included), but I really don't think it's fair that we're forced to do so. Assuming eight hours of sleep, one hour for commute time and two hours for getting ready, breakfast and dinner, I see five hours left to watch TV (if she has no children). Now while I feel that watching five hours of TV a day is just crazy, if that's her version of entertainment, she should get what she paid for. Agreed?
Purning corn doesn't "produce" CO2. There is just as much as there was before the corn was grown.
Not quite, but I get your sentiment. The difference is that there is just as much CARBON, but it is bound up in more complex molecules. Burning the corn supports a chemical reaction that results in (among other things), carbon gas. Eating the corn results in a chemical reaction that results in (among other things) production of methane (which is also a greenhouse gas).
How do they not get this yet, you burn stuff you produce CO2. I don't care what you burn, CO2 is given off.
Uh, begging your pardon, but that's simply not true. CO2 is only produce by burning things that contain carbon. Burning hydrogen, for example, produces water.
I really wish they'd make cards that require the pin for the transaction, that would curb 95% of the cc theft out there.
I disagree. It would just change the attack vector and perhaps the type of criminal that takes advantage of it. People would suddenly feel safe with the pin entry and get complacent. All it would take is to insert a hacked device that gathers both credit card information and pin number and forwards that information to perpetrator. The perpetrator could easily generate fake cards that worked just fine and use them with the pin. The forgeries wouldn't even have to be very good because nobody would bother to check -- assuming that the pin takes care of it (keep in mind the process of using a debit card at a grocery store today; the cashier never has to see the card). In order to pull this off, someone would have to be in a position to insert the hacked device, so it would eliminate some store clerk pulling your credit card number from the carbon copy of your receipt. However, it would become ultra-attractive to the professional criminal because once they work their way into the supply chain, it would be so incredibly easy to pull off for them.
you could simply explain to the judge that the wizards who live in the magic machine box have cast a very powerful spell that makes it extremely difficult to get the RAM out.
As funny as this is, the problem is that most judges have a sense of humor that is directly proportional to their understanding of the subject matter. In other words, if the judge is confused, he's not likely to find anything funny about it (even if the rest of us do).
"She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."
Sorry, but this doesn't necessary mean that her husband was with her at the first time she tasted the fruit, even if it would seem to mean that. Unfortunately, the English translation is a bit ambiguous. Note that because of the type of work I do, I tend to be very exacting of how things need to be stated. I do not take for granting that the most obvious meaning is the correct one.
Don't take this the wrong way, but there is something seriously wrong with your logic
Assuming you mean no offense intended -- none taken;)
in a book where the creation of the entire biosphere took exactly 2 days, you assume that more mundane events described in a logical sequence within a garden could have taken more than two days. I gave you one quote up there that contradicts your assumption, but if you look, there's more.
Actually, as I said before, my belief is that the events as described should probably be allocated to one or two days (in other words, I agree with you). However, none of the surrounding text can guarantee that the intended meaning was such a short timespan. I read it pretty carefully, and in every case I perceived: "it most likely means X, but could possibly mean Y". While I believe it is saying the same thing that you believe it is saying, I don't feel as confident in making an absolute statement as you did because I can see some "wiggle room" in the interpretation.
It's a sequence of event, there's no intervals between them. How long did Eve wait before handing the tasty fruit to Adam? How long did god take to come visit? How long did he stay mad before he kicked them out? Things in Genesis happen in one day.
First off, I think it's amusing that you were also using Biblegateway -- that's what I was using, too. I have to respectfully disagree that things must happen in one day without any intervals. I think that in many cases that's the most obvious interpretation -- IE, it makes sense that Eve would have fed the fruit to Adam on the same day she herself tasted it, and it also makes sense that they would immediately be making clothing and that God would drop by to confront them on that day, too. However, while this interpretation makes sense, it's not the only possible scenario. It's also possible that Eve tasted the fruit, felt guilty about it for a few days, and then decided to pull Adam in. Likewise, it's possible that God gave them an opportunity to call out to Him before confronting them.
Speaking as a Frenchman, that such a museum has been conceived and built is mind-boggling, in a bad way. It reflects poorly on the american educational system.
Not really. As someone else mentioned, it was built by an Australian, but all it proves is that any individual or group of people (no matter how small) with enough money can build anything they want. Having been through the school system, I can assure you that the vast majority of American schools teach Evolution with a fervor that nearly assigns it as actual history (rather than theory), and if the Judeo-Christian concept of Creation is taught at all, it is presented as mythology alongside Roman, Greek, Chaldean and other creation mythology. What people choose to believe despite this education is not really in any way related to success or failure on the part of the schools. It is not the school's responsibility to form your opinions for you. It's their responsibility to provide you with information that allows you to form your own opinions and understand differing opinions of others. Surely you don't think that schools should punish children who refuse to acknowledge the authority of Evolution, do you? Yes, I know that there are a few schools who have been dabbling in "Intelligent Design", but despite the media attention this has received, it's not very widespread in the public school system.
Now, on a separate note, there _are_ serious problems with the American education system, but they are more related to attempts to "dumb down" material (New Math anyone?) and the inability to recognize how children learn best and work with their natural proclivities. They don't do a good job of teaching logic and critical thinking. They wait until the children are too old to start teaching foreign languages. They have replaced much of the classical literature with more modern trash. They no longer discipline unruly students properly, instead allowing them to become a distraction to students who are are interested in learning. But most of all, out of fear of a lawsuit from the parents, they allow students to matriculate without a satisfactory understanding of the basic prerequisites for the next grade.
If the carnivorous beast is grazing instead of eating her, they're in Eden, and they got kicked out of eden as soon as: 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
Actually, I think you're right, and that it must depict a scene prior to the the exit from Eden, but the narrative doesn't really indicate how much time passed between eating the forbidden fruit and God calling them to task. It's probably safe to say that she wasn't wearing anything like what the museum is showing, though. I realize that they probably had to put something on her, but the least they could have done was put her in fig leaf toga or something.
Also, She didn't make herself a skirt. 21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
Actually, it's not clear _what_ clothing they made for themselves, but Genesis 3:7 indicates that they _did_ make some coverings of fig leaves prior to the garments that God made.
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
The problem with this approach is that the record for the youngest baby to survive through use of an incubator was delivered at twenty-some-odd weeks (can't remember the exact number). And plenty of babies delivered pre-term are unable to survive even in an incubator. Now, figure out a reliable way to _transplant_ a mid-term developing fetus (including placenta) into a woman who is willing to carry the pregnancy, and I think you may have something.
Google doesn't need to worry about AT&T's ransom request. They just have to find an ISP that is willing to provide service. That ISP will lean on AT&T, or they will take their traffic elsewhere.
And what do they do about the other providers in between AT&T and the consumer's ISP? Do they lean on AT&T even harder and ask AT&T to lean on them other providers? I think that's asking too much, don't you?
Instead of everyone having the same (erratic) latency, some people will pay for better, and the rest will get slightly worse.
Most people have no problem with tiered service at the consumer level (a consumer could be a business, too). We already have that. My provider offers three tiers of residential service and two tiers of business service with better performance and support. I have absolutely no problem with this because I can choose the level that meets my needs. Most of us are opposed to two things:
Tiered performance between the content owner's provider and the consumer's provider -- Google pays big fees to their provider for high performance connections. Consumer pays big fees for a high performance internet connection. But performance is horrible because the data has to pass through Verizon and AT&T networks, and Google hasn't paid their ransom fees.
Tiered performance by the consumer's provider that differentiates between incoming content based on whether the content owner has paid their ransom fees -- Google pays big fees to their provider for high performance connections. Consumer pays big fees to AT&T for a high performance internet connection. But performance is horrible simply because Google doesn't pay ransom fees to AT&T to make sure all of their customers get reasonable performance when browsing Google content.
Based on the above, do you understand where the problem is? Do you see how complicated and EXPENSIVE things would become? Sorry, but charging both your content providers and your consumers for network connections should be sufficient for your revenue model. Every provider charging additional fees to content owners for data that passes through their pipes is double-dipping, and ultimately totally unmanageable. The internet works because networks have agreements to let data pass through their networks, and it's a like-kind exchange. If point-to-point fees have to be paid, we'll have an amazing mess on our hands.
Stop saying RIAA. The RIAA didn't sue a single person.
The question is: was the RIAA involved at all, either through securing legal counsel or through lobbying to get laws in place and establish procedures with ISPs. If so, they should participate in the accountability. If not, then s/RIAA/Atlantic Records/g.
The civil court system in the US really needs an update..
I don't think so... at least not yet. I think the judge needs to deny the motion to dismiss the countersuit and, depending on the evidence, not only award the fees requested in the countersuit, but also an extremely stiff penalty. Basically, you don't want to make your court system less open, but you want to scare the living daylights out of any organization that would abuse the court system by harassing innocent people. If it's clear that the defendant was innocent and that the RIAA did not take proper measures to make sure they had the right person, then they ought to pay attorney fees, emotional stress, fees for any efforts related to the case that the family had to take, ongoing fees for counseling for the 10 year old, any medical bills that might have been related to the stress they put the family through, fees to cover any libel that the family may have suffered for their treatment, and then a huge penalty on top of that for abusing the court system. After that, the FBI should investigate the RIAA for participating in organized crime.;)
Yeah, it's just a pipe dream; I know. But seriously, before we call for changes to the court system, let's see how it plays out.
You measure the heat difference between the hot side and the cold side of the transfer. In the case of a CPU, between the CPU and ambient.
Yes, but unless you start VIOLATING laws of thermodynamics, converting heat to electricity actually removes heat from the system. That means (as was mentioned) that you basically replace the heat sink and fan on the CPU with the heat-to-sound-to-electricity conversion device. The net effect (as far as your CPU is concerned) is that the temperature is maintained at somewhere around 10C above ambient and instead of spreading the additional 90C worth of heat (assuming that your processor would hit 100C without heat sink) into the surrounding air, you're using it to generate electricity.
Why not take some of these "heat to sound to electricity" tubes and put the solar concentrators on that instead of on the solar cells? Or better yet, use the cells to get their 5%, then use the remaining "95%" heat to drive the tubes......
I think that idea was mentioned in the article, but I was very careful not to read it, so I'm not sure.
Slashdot Mirror
I think somebody else already explained why the traditional catheter must be inserted into the bladder. However, what _you_ are looking for is called a "Texas Catheter" that fits somewhat like a condom. This would be a better solution for enabling video game addition.
It depends. Had you planned on _eating_ the biscuit?
I really didn't, but I was afraid that my message would seem confrontational, and my fears were confirmed. I'm sorry -- I definitely didn't mean it that way. I had walked away from the message to go to lunch with the intent of rewording it, and then I just punched the "send" button when I got back. I think all I really wanted to say is: maybe it's worth it to her, and I'm not sure that the fact that she may (or may not) be a professional matters all that much. Although I agree that in my experience as a professional, there has been a lot of pressure to work longer and therefore enjoy less free time. Maybe that's exactly what I should have written.
Let's take a look at this. Even if she only has thirty minutes to watch TV each day, she should be able to watch what she wants in the quality she was expecting. Also, does being a professional mean that she should have to work more than forty hours a week? I know most of us do (myself included), but I really don't think it's fair that we're forced to do so. Assuming eight hours of sleep, one hour for commute time and two hours for getting ready, breakfast and dinner, I see five hours left to watch TV (if she has no children). Now while I feel that watching five hours of TV a day is just crazy, if that's her version of entertainment, she should get what she paid for. Agreed?
Not quite, but I get your sentiment. The difference is that there is just as much CARBON, but it is bound up in more complex molecules. Burning the corn supports a chemical reaction that results in (among other things), carbon gas. Eating the corn results in a chemical reaction that results in (among other things) production of methane (which is also a greenhouse gas).
Uh, begging your pardon, but that's simply not true. CO2 is only produce by burning things that contain carbon. Burning hydrogen, for example, produces water.
Erm, fuel was included alongside plastics.
I disagree. It would just change the attack vector and perhaps the type of criminal that takes advantage of it. People would suddenly feel safe with the pin entry and get complacent. All it would take is to insert a hacked device that gathers both credit card information and pin number and forwards that information to perpetrator. The perpetrator could easily generate fake cards that worked just fine and use them with the pin. The forgeries wouldn't even have to be very good because nobody would bother to check -- assuming that the pin takes care of it (keep in mind the process of using a debit card at a grocery store today; the cashier never has to see the card). In order to pull this off, someone would have to be in a position to insert the hacked device, so it would eliminate some store clerk pulling your credit card number from the carbon copy of your receipt. However, it would become ultra-attractive to the professional criminal because once they work their way into the supply chain, it would be so incredibly easy to pull off for them.
As funny as this is, the problem is that most judges have a sense of humor that is directly proportional to their understanding of the subject matter. In other words, if the judge is confused, he's not likely to find anything funny about it (even if the rest of us do).
Just to clarify -- are you saying this restriction should be applied to everybody, or only to those who have are diagnosed as mentally disturbed?
Sorry, but this doesn't necessary mean that her husband was with her at the first time she tasted the fruit, even if it would seem to mean that. Unfortunately, the English translation is a bit ambiguous. Note that because of the type of work I do, I tend to be very exacting of how things need to be stated. I do not take for granting that the most obvious meaning is the correct one.
Assuming you mean no offense intended -- none taken
Actually, as I said before, my belief is that the events as described should probably be allocated to one or two days (in other words, I agree with you). However, none of the surrounding text can guarantee that the intended meaning was such a short timespan. I read it pretty carefully, and in every case I perceived: "it most likely means X, but could possibly mean Y". While I believe it is saying the same thing that you believe it is saying, I don't feel as confident in making an absolute statement as you did because I can see some "wiggle room" in the interpretation.
First off, I think it's amusing that you were also using Biblegateway -- that's what I was using, too. I have to respectfully disagree that things must happen in one day without any intervals. I think that in many cases that's the most obvious interpretation -- IE, it makes sense that Eve would have fed the fruit to Adam on the same day she herself tasted it, and it also makes sense that they would immediately be making clothing and that God would drop by to confront them on that day, too. However, while this interpretation makes sense, it's not the only possible scenario. It's also possible that Eve tasted the fruit, felt guilty about it for a few days, and then decided to pull Adam in. Likewise, it's possible that God gave them an opportunity to call out to Him before confronting them.
Not really. As someone else mentioned, it was built by an Australian, but all it proves is that any individual or group of people (no matter how small) with enough money can build anything they want. Having been through the school system, I can assure you that the vast majority of American schools teach Evolution with a fervor that nearly assigns it as actual history (rather than theory), and if the Judeo-Christian concept of Creation is taught at all, it is presented as mythology alongside Roman, Greek, Chaldean and other creation mythology. What people choose to believe despite this education is not really in any way related to success or failure on the part of the schools. It is not the school's responsibility to form your opinions for you. It's their responsibility to provide you with information that allows you to form your own opinions and understand differing opinions of others. Surely you don't think that schools should punish children who refuse to acknowledge the authority of Evolution, do you? Yes, I know that there are a few schools who have been dabbling in "Intelligent Design", but despite the media attention this has received, it's not very widespread in the public school system.
Now, on a separate note, there _are_ serious problems with the American education system, but they are more related to attempts to "dumb down" material (New Math anyone?) and the inability to recognize how children learn best and work with their natural proclivities. They don't do a good job of teaching logic and critical thinking. They wait until the children are too old to start teaching foreign languages. They have replaced much of the classical literature with more modern trash. They no longer discipline unruly students properly, instead allowing them to become a distraction to students who are are interested in learning. But most of all, out of fear of a lawsuit from the parents, they allow students to matriculate without a satisfactory understanding of the basic prerequisites for the next grade.
Actually, I think you're right, and that it must depict a scene prior to the the exit from Eden, but the narrative doesn't really indicate how much time passed between eating the forbidden fruit and God calling them to task. It's probably safe to say that she wasn't wearing anything like what the museum is showing, though. I realize that they probably had to put something on her, but the least they could have done was put her in fig leaf toga or something.
Actually, it's not clear _what_ clothing they made for themselves, but Genesis 3:7 indicates that they _did_ make some coverings of fig leaves prior to the garments that God made.
The problem with this approach is that the record for the youngest baby to survive through use of an incubator was delivered at twenty-some-odd weeks (can't remember the exact number). And plenty of babies delivered pre-term are unable to survive even in an incubator. Now, figure out a reliable way to _transplant_ a mid-term developing fetus (including placenta) into a woman who is willing to carry the pregnancy, and I think you may have something.
And what do they do about the other providers in between AT&T and the consumer's ISP? Do they lean on AT&T even harder and ask AT&T to lean on them other providers? I think that's asking too much, don't you?
Most people have no problem with tiered service at the consumer level (a consumer could be a business, too). We already have that. My provider offers three tiers of residential service and two tiers of business service with better performance and support. I have absolutely no problem with this because I can choose the level that meets my needs. Most of us are opposed to two things:
Based on the above, do you understand where the problem is? Do you see how complicated and EXPENSIVE things would become? Sorry, but charging both your content providers and your consumers for network connections should be sufficient for your revenue model. Every provider charging additional fees to content owners for data that passes through their pipes is double-dipping, and ultimately totally unmanageable. The internet works because networks have agreements to let data pass through their networks, and it's a like-kind exchange. If point-to-point fees have to be paid, we'll have an amazing mess on our hands.
See? It can't run in 640K. *duck* Sorry, couldn't resist.
The question is: was the RIAA involved at all, either through securing legal counsel or through lobbying to get laws in place and establish procedures with ISPs. If so, they should participate in the accountability. If not, then s/RIAA/Atlantic Records/g.
I don't think so... at least not yet. I think the judge needs to deny the motion to dismiss the countersuit and, depending on the evidence, not only award the fees requested in the countersuit, but also an extremely stiff penalty. Basically, you don't want to make your court system less open, but you want to scare the living daylights out of any organization that would abuse the court system by harassing innocent people. If it's clear that the defendant was innocent and that the RIAA did not take proper measures to make sure they had the right person, then they ought to pay attorney fees, emotional stress, fees for any efforts related to the case that the family had to take, ongoing fees for counseling for the 10 year old, any medical bills that might have been related to the stress they put the family through, fees to cover any libel that the family may have suffered for their treatment, and then a huge penalty on top of that for abusing the court system. After that, the FBI should investigate the RIAA for participating in organized crime.
Yeah, it's just a pipe dream; I know. But seriously, before we call for changes to the court system, let's see how it plays out.
I'm not sure that a fan will be required. Let's see what comes to market in the next eight years.
Yes, but unless you start VIOLATING laws of thermodynamics, converting heat to electricity actually removes heat from the system. That means (as was mentioned) that you basically replace the heat sink and fan on the CPU with the heat-to-sound-to-electricity conversion device. The net effect (as far as your CPU is concerned) is that the temperature is maintained at somewhere around 10C above ambient and instead of spreading the additional 90C worth of heat (assuming that your processor would hit 100C without heat sink) into the surrounding air, you're using it to generate electricity.
I think that idea was mentioned in the article, but I was very careful not to read it, so I'm not sure.