Nay! To the contrary, DN3D (which is what I assume you're referring to; the Duke Nukem 1-2 games were pretty tame Commander Keen type side scrollers) was much more than "just" a shooter with funny one-liners. Yes, those one-liner quips greatly improved the game's action (acting somewhat like 'emotional perks' to the player when he would activate one).
But it was more than that. Games like Quake 3 Arena are "just a shooter with *something* one-liners. They're not even in the same category, as far as I'm concerned.
Even though the game engine was quite dated when it came out (compared to Quake, at least), they made up for that with a handful of (*gasp*) actual gameplay 'features'/levels of coolness:
* Shrink/freeze-gun. It was a truly unique weapon which hasn't been well employed elsewhere since. * They innovated the "interactive game world" with breakable (and usable) sinks, toilets, walls, and mirrors (amongst other things, all of which were likely very difficult to accomplish with the technology at hand). To this day, I still expect games to allow me do the environmental things DN3D did long before anyone else did - and I find myself somewhat disappointed if I can't drink from the toilets, sinks, or water fountains. Hell, I suspect that the inclusion of bathrooms in damn near every semi-realistic FPS is directly related to DN3D doing it first (remember how controversial that was back then?) * Jetpack, nightvision, HoloDuke, Steroids: all Firsts in FPS games, and still unique 'power ups' in many regards. (I've yet to see a jetpack in a FPS, short of the new IronMan game(s).) * The Foot: undeniably the coolest "weaponless" weapon to date because it became additionally useful when combined with the shrink or freeze guns. SQUISH. * Laser trip mines. It led to much more open-ended gameplay as you had more options than "run into the room shooting", as with every other FPS before and since. * Locational sound: detonate those 5 'nades remotely, but only when you hear your opponent walk by. * All of these features led to a wonderful multiplayer experience much more diverse and undeniably enjoyable, especially considering the competition of the day. Not only could you gib your friends, you could do it remotely if you were careful - or squish/freeze them while they were using the jetpack, having them die a merciless death after the fall.
Yes, between killing Usenet (forums and blogs = poor replacement; a plain text digest really is the best format for some things) and the increasingly less useful/interesting search results (starting maybe 5-6 years ago?), google has gotten to be a bit of a necessary evil: less useful than before, but still the best game in town.
As for improving search results? I haven't the faintest. But I do think that we're getting to a point where we need more of an informationally segmented Internet again: Google's search results were more useful (to me, as a geek) when they indexed Less Stuff. Now they index everything, and often information-dense pages get crowded out by a product spec PDF or someone's presentation powerpoints.
Yeah, OK. I'm not going to -completely- argue with that. But explain:
- My chiseled abs - Ability to deadlift about 150-170lb without much effort and carry 100lb objects in front of me - extended - for a fair amount of time - Able to do at least as much work (in both the time-lapse and scientific sense, sans their additional bulk) as someone slightly overweight, but muscular (and weighing 100lb more than I)
Yes, I have feminine, thin wrists. But I'm not a weakling by any reasonable estimation, unless you're only considering appearance. This (far right) is my little brother, who is noticeably more muscular than I am but does less work (though a lot more "exercise". He looks more femme and also somewhat more muscular than I do.
Point being, I'm not one of "those" idiots who slouch around all day and couldn't lift a cinderblock if it was on their throat. I literally have a difficult time gaining weight, and am almost always hungry. And it isn't because I'm a vegan or anything like that; I eat most every/anything. Looking at my family, it seems unlikely I'll be getting fat or muscular anytime soon, short of shooting up with 'roids. Maybe a little potbelly in 20 years if I sit around doing nothing and eating pretzels and beer for dinner, though (like some relatives). But never "fat".
Teenage girls blossom earlier for one reason: calories.
That is incorrect. There are a couple other factors leading to early development in recent times, and are probably more significant than just 'calories'. They are:
Protein intake. A higher protein intake will result in a faster maturation (ie, not just growth, which is largely attributable to calories). For
Vitamin/mineral intake. While the base foods might be the same as they were 25 years ago (Wonder bread) you can't pull something off the shelf without it being 'fortified' with some cocktail of vitamins and minerals. Even if people are eating relative junk, they're still getting a sizable dose.
Hormones. This is a big factor, especially in a Western country where a large part of our diet is meat and dairy from cattle. Cattle are fed phenomenal amounts of hormones to help them grow quickly to a poitn where they are able to produce milk (or be slaughtered) - and then they are fed more hormones to help them to produce milk throughout their entire useful lives. Those hormones don't just get "used up": like any chemical a creature eats, it will be present in that creature's byproducts: their milk, waste (which goes into the water), and meat will all contain those hormones at one level or another. (This fits in very closely to my observation that urban girls mature much more quickly than the girls who live on the ranch/farm, and are consuming home-grown/free-range meats and dairy. Urban girls mature much earlier.)
I'm a tall minority male. In every job I have ever held, I have made as much as if not more than my peers because I'm good at what I do and I know how much my work is worth.
Absolutely. I don't suppose anyone has considered a simple fact: men tend to have more drive than women. It's a biological difference which makes us more likely to request higher wages. (There's also the fact that, generally, there have been more women working as a second-income, so bringing in the big bucks isn't as much of a necessity. Though I doubt that in and of itself plays much into things at this point.)
Personally, I've met very few women who self-identify with their career. Even if they are skilled, driven, and even a bit geeky about their job, family life (kids, husband) are still their focus. Men, on the other hand, tend to put a great deal more emphasis on what they do as part of who they are. I do it. No, it probably isn't healthy, but it can certainly explain a 3% pay discrepancy when distributed over the entire work force.
You know how every once in a while there's an article about how women aren't making as much money as men, or some other similar fact?
Absolute bullshit. It's just feminists pushing their agenda of female empowerment (and by female empowerment, i mean 'more for us, less for men').
Most of those numbers are derived on a per-capita basis, which makes the figures all but moot and very deceptive. They make the assumption that all careers are socially equal in their contributions, and everyone should be paid the same amount regardless of schooling, experience, or any number of other factors.
Fact is, for a similar job, women typically make more than a man. Women just pick careers (there's that whole "choice" thing: they made the decision, not some oligarchy of malevolent men in suits) which pay less: they become nurses instead of doctors (due to the convenience vs. becoming a doctor and personality predisposition); secretaries/assistants/HR instead of business types or IT; and so on. Or they decide to raise a family.
Such figures have been all but meaningless for some time now. There is no wage disparity; or, at least, no disparity in which women are losing out due to discrimination. Quite the contrary, it would appear that a woman in the business world (or any other professional capacity) is more likely to succeed financially than their male counterparts. (Just look at all the articles and info on the rise of female executives, if you don't believe me.)
We neither need or want specific work types being a perfect representation of gender or race demographics. It's discrimination in the name of political correctness, and it is just as (if not more) odious than discrimination in the name of gender. (Not to come to its defense, but at least back in the Bad Old Days, when men ruled the roost, they at least tried to make cogent arguments justifying the "why" of discrimination. And ironically, we're finding out they may have just found a point - due to the socially and financially destructive nature of having a two-gender workforce.)
I'm going to guess that, based on your selfish outlook on life (in this regard) you're also a proponent of socialized, state-run healthcare. How exactly do you think that's going to work? Do you think it's "fair" or even appropriate for others' kids to foot the bill for your aged, decrepit health care?
(It's a supreme irony that socialized medicine appears to have much broader support in locations where there will be no "future generation" to help hoist the cost of late-life care.)
It used to be said that you should never trust a man who didn't like children or cats. I think it still holds true, to large degree.
If you're the kind of person who thinks self-sustainment is required with regard to healthcare (do it yourself, leave the gov't out of it), more power to you. But it is an intellectual dishonesty - and very internally inconsistent - to support socialized medicine and various other programs which push costs down the line to future generations while ignoring your responsibility to produce at least enough children to replace yourself.
I think it largely depends on where in the country/world you live. Out here in the US Midwest, it seems that there is a very big preconception that skinny = malnourished.
My wife is 5'4" and about 125-135lb, I'd wager. She's not fat, but she's also not "fit" (she doesn't exercise). We've had two kids, and there's going to be some residue from that, naturally. (I should note: no, I do not think she's fat. I like her the way she is.)
Also, I'm a freaking twig - 6'2" and about 165lb, depending on how much I've eaten on a given day. I can not gain weight, and actually lose weight unless I'm consuming large quantities of food (including substantial carbs). I'm not unhealthy-skinny (I work for a living, damn it) or anemic or anything, but i -am- skinny.
However, damn near everyone we know thinks we're both 'underweight' and need to eat more/get fat. We're lumped into the same categorization of "not being fat enough". I'm at the lower end of what's considered 'fit' and my wife is at the upper end. I'm not sure if it's a jealousy type thing with my wife (because they're all significantly heavier than she is), or if it's a genuine thought that yes, we are indeed underfed or some such thing.
My mom's cursive is borderline legible, but my dad's looks like a pen exploded or something. In contrast, his print looks like a freaking typesetting machine: it's all block letters, perfectly spaced, written quickly. Quite amazing to behold.
I don't see how cursive ever caught on. I've never been able to read the 'cursive' of most people: reading others' shorthand is usually easier. The only cursive handwriting I've see that's legible has been of the girls in high school and college who put the little circle or heart to 'dot' the "i".
Honestly, it's not just us "young" people. Most people's cursive is illegible. My mom can barely read my dad's, and I've got journals written by my grandmother and great grandmother which are completely illegible (and they were teachers).
Hell, I can't read some of my college notes (from before when I started to write in block-only letters) because cursive sucks. It's not adaptable to the human hand, in my opinion.
Nonsense. How many times have you seen "do not press the red button" type signs, and someone has inevitably pushed it just because the want to know what happens? Make it so simple a toddler could understand it (provided they could read) and they'd still find a reason to fuck it up.
A problem I've run into with several of my ideas is that yes, someone else has thought of my idea; they also thought about it a lot longer than I did, made an implementation and - due to their more extensive involvement with the idea - were able to more accurately describe what the product was.
Ideas are worth absolutely zilch. Any of the 6 billion people on earth can come up with your idea, and probably have. What is valuable is the execution of ideas.
Well, what's an "idea"? Joe Sixpack might think, "wow, this yahoo.com index thing is really cumbersome." but he hasn't a clue about what's going on, that anything is able to be done differently, or for that matter may not even consciously realize he had the idea.
Successful ideas are the obvious ones: improvements on previous stuff in common use which just plain sucks, made by people who understand the systems involved. Yahoo was -the- internet giant, and look where they are now: almost nowhere, being dwarfed by google and Microsoft (which was dismissive of the "Internet" for the better part of the 1990s while Yahoo! creators were about ready to retire.)
Apple didn't do anything there weren't dozens of other people trying to do. They just did it better.
Actually, Apple made it from Zero to Hero overnight with a single 'invention' which was, indeed, drastically different in approach to what everyone else was doing. It -was- a new idea. He *gasp* did things in software with a general processor where others were trying to do it all in hardware. The end result was a substantially cheaper, more adaptable system. (This is for the original Apple, I think. It's in one of his biographies.)
Finally, regarding confidentiality: don't worry about it so much
yeah, ever have an idea on which you've worked hard (and spent money on) stolen from you before? Or at the very least, someone taking credit for your work? I've got inventors and artists in my family who have had both of those things happen to them. It sucks, and it's usually a costly mistake: you're not immediately out anything but your time, but that's usually time spent investing in the future. You're out that future if it's taken from you.
Problem: nuclear weapons are useless when you're fighting a ground war. IE, when you are being invaded, such as an invasion force using a friendly country as a beachhead. And yes, it probably is possible for a country to sneak an invasion force into Canada or Mexico, especially if said country ships mass quantities of connex containers here (to N. America) on a daily basis.
Finally, FWIW, I subscribe to the two level theory of war. The first level is the infantry, the second level is everything else: it exists to support the infantry since only the infantry can take and hold ground. Artillery, sea power, aviation, even tanks can deny the enemy ground, but only the infantry can hold it. So more A-10s putting more ordance where the infantry needs it seems a better deal than F-22's holding air superiority over a non-existant enemy air force. IMHO.
Absolutely: wars are won by men on the ground, regardless of the tech involved. If they're going to be in 500lb mobile armor suits, so be it - but it's still men on the ground, holding it.
It's a bloody shame they're going to replace the A10s so soon: they're bloody capable, with an 85% mission/target success rate in Iraq this last time around. That's astounding for what is, essentially, a slow airborne tank.:P I hear the Marines really like 'em.
and has always been, a boondoggle granted to military contractors by lawmakers who get large contributions from those contractors. As far as I know, no F-22 has ever flown a combat mission. They cost hundreds of millions of dollars and have never been used.
It is apparent to me that you do not understand how things like funding for these planes works, and why they are as expensive as they are. In fact, it would appear that most of the people in this thread are missing a crucial point about this aircraft - a point which should be flat obvious to anyone who has ever procured anything.
Quite simply, when you buy more of an item, it costs less due to the ability to distribute the distribution cost of the item over the whole set of items. How long would it cost per CPU if each 'version' of a CPU only had one in production? Billions of dollars each, more than likely. But because they're made by the ten thousand per batch (I'm guessing) with a lifespan of a lot, you can buy a high tech CPU for a couple hundred dollars.
This airplane has suffered greatly from this kind of purchasing. The original intent was to purchase 750 of them: by no means a "small" number of planes, but it's also not a whole hell of a lot compared to the past. They then commenced to cut the desired purchase number throughout the 1990s all the way down to the current number of around 100, resulting in a higher per-unit cost: realistically, not a damn thing was saved by doing this, because repair parts will now cost more as well.
As for those saying "this is old, outdated Cold War junk", realize that they only came into service in 2005 and they are more advanced than what the competition has.
As for never doing anything? They've only been in service since 2005, and we've managed to stay out of any major wars since then with the likes of China or Russia (ie those with more advanced aircraft), yes? Then I think they've served (part of) their purpose by dissuading hostile action. Nobody ever attacked Athens by sea or Sparta by land, for good reason.
As for the planes being well designed and error free, I can not attest either way. But limited-run cutting edge technology does tend to have its share of problems.
I should note that it is a LOT easier to keep things neat if you keep them off the floor. Aside from things getting twisted and tangled, there's the fire danger of having it on carpet (if you've got carpet) and the dust/dirt buildup issue of having a ratfuck nest for it to gather in. It can get pretty gross.
I know a guy who got one of those "yard tool holders" from a hardware store for holding mops, rakes, shovels and the like with little rubber tension grommets, which he puts on the wall to keep each 'collection' of cables on a 'track' and looking neat. It works pretty well.
Simple solution, while still allowing you to retain some semblance of space utilization:
Put the surge bars under 5-sided boxes made of wood. Just the thinner plywood would do. Then drill holes in the boxes for the device-mating side and set the devices on top of the box while charging or in use (or to the side, depending on the device, etc. Cable manage all the cables under the box, and unplug the unused power strip(s).
There's also the "put everything on a shelf" option, which works well. Put your surge bars below the shelf, and cable tie all the cables (which hang behind the shelf) under the shelf. You can use the "plant hanger" hooks to hang cables if you don't want to attach them to make a quasi-rack-like cable management system with the assistance of some kitchen twist ties or string.
Since I'm changing things often, and my environment is more like a "lab" than a server room, I've got the most previous example employed for most of my stuff, except the surge bars sit on the wall above wherever the devices will sit, about 3' over the bench/table, with the slack in the device cables 'wound up'. I've got 4 surge bars: 1 for 'muck with stuff', 1 for 'devices that are always/usually on' (servers, main switch, workstation and other 'main' computers, modem, etc.), one for "workbench" stuff (which is over on the far side and slightly closer to the bench, so I can put extra things on the floor if need be), and one for miscelaneous things that are only plugged in on occasion that is under the initially mentioned 'box' for charging my camcorder, cell phone, digital camera, mobilepro, and so on.
How does that make any sense? Not that I disagree, but it seems to me that removing 'species' from scientific discourse completely removes any space in scientific discourse for evolution as an accepted part of the scientific establishment. Evolution as a science depends on species and their granular definition.
No, jackass. Half the stated problem is due to the funding extravaganza they get from the State, coupled with the fact that their hands are held behind their backs: it results in an over-funded, bored force with too much time on their hands. This leads to an "us vs. them" mentality eventually due to bored cops doing stupid shit (and trying to justify their toys and pay).
This is what happens when you throw money at police to "fight crime" (drugs, prostitution, violence, whatever) and then tie their hands in apprehending criminals (eg. violence, coercion, and so on). The police get bored and start going after stupid things like this, while the rates for violent crime sky-rocket (as they have in Britain since the 1980s).
While I would agree you've got a reason for contention for this, something like The Stand isn't like 1984 or Animal Farm. While The Stand is certainly a noteworthy work of fiction, it is not even in the same category of works that Orwell's are by the simple fact of their political discourse/criticism and the impact they've had on society. They are not solely a work of fiction, they are historical and political commentary - making this act akin to the very acts spoken of in the books ("book burning" if you will).
What? I'd agree with you that books aren't obsolete, but it certainly isn't true that they're cheap. A longer hardcover novel will run a person $30ish and the paper version probably $20+ these days. I know there's inflation and all to account for, but that isn't "cheap".
Slashdot Mirror
Nay! To the contrary, DN3D (which is what I assume you're referring to; the Duke Nukem 1-2 games were pretty tame Commander Keen type side scrollers) was much more than "just" a shooter with funny one-liners. Yes, those one-liner quips greatly improved the game's action (acting somewhat like 'emotional perks' to the player when he would activate one).
But it was more than that. Games like Quake 3 Arena are "just a shooter with *something* one-liners. They're not even in the same category, as far as I'm concerned.
Even though the game engine was quite dated when it came out (compared to Quake, at least), they made up for that with a handful of (*gasp*) actual gameplay 'features'/levels of coolness:
* Shrink/freeze-gun. It was a truly unique weapon which hasn't been well employed elsewhere since.
* They innovated the "interactive game world" with breakable (and usable) sinks, toilets, walls, and mirrors (amongst other things, all of which were likely very difficult to accomplish with the technology at hand). To this day, I still expect games to allow me do the environmental things DN3D did long before anyone else did - and I find myself somewhat disappointed if I can't drink from the toilets, sinks, or water fountains. Hell, I suspect that the inclusion of bathrooms in damn near every semi-realistic FPS is directly related to DN3D doing it first (remember how controversial that was back then?)
* Jetpack, nightvision, HoloDuke, Steroids: all Firsts in FPS games, and still unique 'power ups' in many regards. (I've yet to see a jetpack in a FPS, short of the new IronMan game(s).)
* The Foot: undeniably the coolest "weaponless" weapon to date because it became additionally useful when combined with the shrink or freeze guns. SQUISH.
* Laser trip mines. It led to much more open-ended gameplay as you had more options than "run into the room shooting", as with every other FPS before and since.
* Locational sound: detonate those 5 'nades remotely, but only when you hear your opponent walk by.
* All of these features led to a wonderful multiplayer experience much more diverse and undeniably enjoyable, especially considering the competition of the day. Not only could you gib your friends, you could do it remotely if you were careful - or squish/freeze them while they were using the jetpack, having them die a merciless death after the fall.
Yes, between killing Usenet (forums and blogs = poor replacement; a plain text digest really is the best format for some things) and the increasingly less useful/interesting search results (starting maybe 5-6 years ago?), google has gotten to be a bit of a necessary evil: less useful than before, but still the best game in town.
As for improving search results? I haven't the faintest. But I do think that we're getting to a point where we need more of an informationally segmented Internet again: Google's search results were more useful (to me, as a geek) when they indexed Less Stuff. Now they index everything, and often information-dense pages get crowded out by a product spec PDF or someone's presentation powerpoints.
Yeah, OK. I'm not going to -completely- argue with that. But explain:
- My chiseled abs
- Ability to deadlift about 150-170lb without much effort and carry 100lb objects in front of me - extended - for a fair amount of time
- Able to do at least as much work (in both the time-lapse and scientific sense, sans their additional bulk) as someone slightly overweight, but muscular (and weighing 100lb more than I)
Yes, I have feminine, thin wrists. But I'm not a weakling by any reasonable estimation, unless you're only considering appearance. This (far right) is my little brother, who is noticeably more muscular than I am but does less work (though a lot more "exercise". He looks more femme and also somewhat more muscular than I do.
Point being, I'm not one of "those" idiots who slouch around all day and couldn't lift a cinderblock if it was on their throat. I literally have a difficult time gaining weight, and am almost always hungry. And it isn't because I'm a vegan or anything like that; I eat most every/anything. Looking at my family, it seems unlikely I'll be getting fat or muscular anytime soon, short of shooting up with 'roids. Maybe a little potbelly in 20 years if I sit around doing nothing and eating pretzels and beer for dinner, though (like some relatives). But never "fat".
Teenage girls blossom earlier for one reason: calories.
That is incorrect. There are a couple other factors leading to early development in recent times, and are probably more significant than just 'calories'. They are:
Protein intake. A higher protein intake will result in a faster maturation (ie, not just growth, which is largely attributable to calories). For
Vitamin/mineral intake. While the base foods might be the same as they were 25 years ago (Wonder bread) you can't pull something off the shelf without it being 'fortified' with some cocktail of vitamins and minerals. Even if people are eating relative junk, they're still getting a sizable dose.
Hormones. This is a big factor, especially in a Western country where a large part of our diet is meat and dairy from cattle. Cattle are fed phenomenal amounts of hormones to help them grow quickly to a poitn where they are able to produce milk (or be slaughtered) - and then they are fed more hormones to help them to produce milk throughout their entire useful lives. Those hormones don't just get "used up": like any chemical a creature eats, it will be present in that creature's byproducts: their milk, waste (which goes into the water), and meat will all contain those hormones at one level or another. (This fits in very closely to my observation that urban girls mature much more quickly than the girls who live on the ranch/farm, and are consuming home-grown/free-range meats and dairy. Urban girls mature much earlier.)
I'm a tall minority male. In every job I have ever held, I have made as much as if not more than my peers because I'm good at what I do and I know how much my work is worth.
Absolutely. I don't suppose anyone has considered a simple fact: men tend to have more drive than women. It's a biological difference which makes us more likely to request higher wages. (There's also the fact that, generally, there have been more women working as a second-income, so bringing in the big bucks isn't as much of a necessity. Though I doubt that in and of itself plays much into things at this point.)
Personally, I've met very few women who self-identify with their career. Even if they are skilled, driven, and even a bit geeky about their job, family life (kids, husband) are still their focus. Men, on the other hand, tend to put a great deal more emphasis on what they do as part of who they are. I do it. No, it probably isn't healthy, but it can certainly explain a 3% pay discrepancy when distributed over the entire work force.
You know how every once in a while there's an article about how women aren't making as much money as men, or some other similar fact?
Absolute bullshit. It's just feminists pushing their agenda of female empowerment (and by female empowerment, i mean 'more for us, less for men').
Most of those numbers are derived on a per-capita basis, which makes the figures all but moot and very deceptive. They make the assumption that all careers are socially equal in their contributions, and everyone should be paid the same amount regardless of schooling, experience, or any number of other factors.
Fact is, for a similar job, women typically make more than a man. Women just pick careers (there's that whole "choice" thing: they made the decision, not some oligarchy of malevolent men in suits) which pay less: they become nurses instead of doctors (due to the convenience vs. becoming a doctor and personality predisposition); secretaries/assistants/HR instead of business types or IT; and so on. Or they decide to raise a family.
Such figures have been all but meaningless for some time now. There is no wage disparity; or, at least, no disparity in which women are losing out due to discrimination. Quite the contrary, it would appear that a woman in the business world (or any other professional capacity) is more likely to succeed financially than their male counterparts. (Just look at all the articles and info on the rise of female executives, if you don't believe me.)
We neither need or want specific work types being a perfect representation of gender or race demographics. It's discrimination in the name of political correctness, and it is just as (if not more) odious than discrimination in the name of gender. (Not to come to its defense, but at least back in the Bad Old Days, when men ruled the roost, they at least tried to make cogent arguments justifying the "why" of discrimination. And ironically, we're finding out they may have just found a point - due to the socially and financially destructive nature of having a two-gender workforce.)
I'm going to guess that, based on your selfish outlook on life (in this regard) you're also a proponent of socialized, state-run healthcare. How exactly do you think that's going to work? Do you think it's "fair" or even appropriate for others' kids to foot the bill for your aged, decrepit health care?
(It's a supreme irony that socialized medicine appears to have much broader support in locations where there will be no "future generation" to help hoist the cost of late-life care.)
It used to be said that you should never trust a man who didn't like children or cats. I think it still holds true, to large degree.
If you're the kind of person who thinks self-sustainment is required with regard to healthcare (do it yourself, leave the gov't out of it), more power to you. But it is an intellectual dishonesty - and very internally inconsistent - to support socialized medicine and various other programs which push costs down the line to future generations while ignoring your responsibility to produce at least enough children to replace yourself.
I think it largely depends on where in the country/world you live. Out here in the US Midwest, it seems that there is a very big preconception that skinny = malnourished.
My wife is 5'4" and about 125-135lb, I'd wager. She's not fat, but she's also not "fit" (she doesn't exercise). We've had two kids, and there's going to be some residue from that, naturally. (I should note: no, I do not think she's fat. I like her the way she is.)
Also, I'm a freaking twig - 6'2" and about 165lb, depending on how much I've eaten on a given day. I can not gain weight, and actually lose weight unless I'm consuming large quantities of food (including substantial carbs). I'm not unhealthy-skinny (I work for a living, damn it) or anemic or anything, but i -am- skinny.
However, damn near everyone we know thinks we're both 'underweight' and need to eat more/get fat. We're lumped into the same categorization of "not being fat enough". I'm at the lower end of what's considered 'fit' and my wife is at the upper end. I'm not sure if it's a jealousy type thing with my wife (because they're all significantly heavier than she is), or if it's a genuine thought that yes, we are indeed underfed or some such thing.
My mom's cursive is borderline legible, but my dad's looks like a pen exploded or something. In contrast, his print looks like a freaking typesetting machine: it's all block letters, perfectly spaced, written quickly. Quite amazing to behold.
I don't see how cursive ever caught on. I've never been able to read the 'cursive' of most people: reading others' shorthand is usually easier. The only cursive handwriting I've see that's legible has been of the girls in high school and college who put the little circle or heart to 'dot' the "i".
Honestly, it's not just us "young" people. Most people's cursive is illegible. My mom can barely read my dad's, and I've got journals written by my grandmother and great grandmother which are completely illegible (and they were teachers).
Hell, I can't read some of my college notes (from before when I started to write in block-only letters) because cursive sucks. It's not adaptable to the human hand, in my opinion.
Nonsense. How many times have you seen "do not press the red button" type signs, and someone has inevitably pushed it just because the want to know what happens? Make it so simple a toddler could understand it (provided they could read) and they'd still find a reason to fuck it up.
A problem I've run into with several of my ideas is that yes, someone else has thought of my idea; they also thought about it a lot longer than I did, made an implementation and - due to their more extensive involvement with the idea - were able to more accurately describe what the product was.
Ideas are worth absolutely zilch. Any of the 6 billion people on earth can come up with your idea, and probably have. What is valuable is the execution of ideas.
Well, what's an "idea"? Joe Sixpack might think, "wow, this yahoo.com index thing is really cumbersome." but he hasn't a clue about what's going on, that anything is able to be done differently, or for that matter may not even consciously realize he had the idea.
Successful ideas are the obvious ones: improvements on previous stuff in common use which just plain sucks, made by people who understand the systems involved. Yahoo was -the- internet giant, and look where they are now: almost nowhere, being dwarfed by google and Microsoft (which was dismissive of the "Internet" for the better part of the 1990s while Yahoo! creators were about ready to retire.)
Apple didn't do anything there weren't dozens of other people trying to do. They just did it better.
Actually, Apple made it from Zero to Hero overnight with a single 'invention' which was, indeed, drastically different in approach to what everyone else was doing. It -was- a new idea. He *gasp* did things in software with a general processor where others were trying to do it all in hardware. The end result was a substantially cheaper, more adaptable system. (This is for the original Apple, I think. It's in one of his biographies.)
Finally, regarding confidentiality: don't worry about it so much
yeah, ever have an idea on which you've worked hard (and spent money on) stolen from you before? Or at the very least, someone taking credit for your work? I've got inventors and artists in my family who have had both of those things happen to them. It sucks, and it's usually a costly mistake: you're not immediately out anything but your time, but that's usually time spent investing in the future. You're out that future if it's taken from you.
Problem: nuclear weapons are useless when you're fighting a ground war. IE, when you are being invaded, such as an invasion force using a friendly country as a beachhead. And yes, it probably is possible for a country to sneak an invasion force into Canada or Mexico, especially if said country ships mass quantities of connex containers here (to N. America) on a daily basis.
Finally, FWIW, I subscribe to the two level theory of war. The first level is the infantry, the second level is everything else: it exists to support the infantry since only the infantry can take and hold ground. Artillery, sea power, aviation, even tanks can deny the enemy ground, but only the infantry can hold it. So more A-10s putting more ordance where the infantry needs it seems a better deal than F-22's holding air superiority over a non-existant enemy air force. IMHO.
Absolutely: wars are won by men on the ground, regardless of the tech involved. If they're going to be in 500lb mobile armor suits, so be it - but it's still men on the ground, holding it.
It's a bloody shame they're going to replace the A10s so soon: they're bloody capable, with an 85% mission/target success rate in Iraq this last time around. That's astounding for what is, essentially, a slow airborne tank. :P I hear the Marines really like 'em.
and has always been, a boondoggle granted to military contractors by lawmakers who get large contributions from those contractors. As far as I know, no F-22 has ever flown a combat mission. They cost hundreds of millions of dollars and have never been used.
It is apparent to me that you do not understand how things like funding for these planes works, and why they are as expensive as they are. In fact, it would appear that most of the people in this thread are missing a crucial point about this aircraft - a point which should be flat obvious to anyone who has ever procured anything.
Quite simply, when you buy more of an item, it costs less due to the ability to distribute the distribution cost of the item over the whole set of items. How long would it cost per CPU if each 'version' of a CPU only had one in production? Billions of dollars each, more than likely. But because they're made by the ten thousand per batch (I'm guessing) with a lifespan of a lot, you can buy a high tech CPU for a couple hundred dollars.
This airplane has suffered greatly from this kind of purchasing. The original intent was to purchase 750 of them: by no means a "small" number of planes, but it's also not a whole hell of a lot compared to the past. They then commenced to cut the desired purchase number throughout the 1990s all the way down to the current number of around 100, resulting in a higher per-unit cost: realistically, not a damn thing was saved by doing this, because repair parts will now cost more as well.
As for those saying "this is old, outdated Cold War junk", realize that they only came into service in 2005 and they are more advanced than what the competition has.
As for never doing anything? They've only been in service since 2005, and we've managed to stay out of any major wars since then with the likes of China or Russia (ie those with more advanced aircraft), yes? Then I think they've served (part of) their purpose by dissuading hostile action. Nobody ever attacked Athens by sea or Sparta by land, for good reason.
As for the planes being well designed and error free, I can not attest either way. But limited-run cutting edge technology does tend to have its share of problems.
I should note that it is a LOT easier to keep things neat if you keep them off the floor. Aside from things getting twisted and tangled, there's the fire danger of having it on carpet (if you've got carpet) and the dust/dirt buildup issue of having a ratfuck nest for it to gather in. It can get pretty gross.
I know a guy who got one of those "yard tool holders" from a hardware store for holding mops, rakes, shovels and the like with little rubber tension grommets, which he puts on the wall to keep each 'collection' of cables on a 'track' and looking neat. It works pretty well.
Simple solution, while still allowing you to retain some semblance of space utilization:
Put the surge bars under 5-sided boxes made of wood. Just the thinner plywood would do. Then drill holes in the boxes for the device-mating side and set the devices on top of the box while charging or in use (or to the side, depending on the device, etc. Cable manage all the cables under the box, and unplug the unused power strip(s).
There's also the "put everything on a shelf" option, which works well. Put your surge bars below the shelf, and cable tie all the cables (which hang behind the shelf) under the shelf. You can use the "plant hanger" hooks to hang cables if you don't want to attach them to make a quasi-rack-like cable management system with the assistance of some kitchen twist ties or string.
Since I'm changing things often, and my environment is more like a "lab" than a server room, I've got the most previous example employed for most of my stuff, except the surge bars sit on the wall above wherever the devices will sit, about 3' over the bench/table, with the slack in the device cables 'wound up'. I've got 4 surge bars: 1 for 'muck with stuff', 1 for 'devices that are always/usually on' (servers, main switch, workstation and other 'main' computers, modem, etc.), one for "workbench" stuff (which is over on the far side and slightly closer to the bench, so I can put extra things on the floor if need be), and one for miscelaneous things that are only plugged in on occasion that is under the initially mentioned 'box' for charging my camcorder, cell phone, digital camera, mobilepro, and so on.
How does that make any sense? Not that I disagree, but it seems to me that removing 'species' from scientific discourse completely removes any space in scientific discourse for evolution as an accepted part of the scientific establishment. Evolution as a science depends on species and their granular definition.
No, jackass. Half the stated problem is due to the funding extravaganza they get from the State, coupled with the fact that their hands are held behind their backs: it results in an over-funded, bored force with too much time on their hands. This leads to an "us vs. them" mentality eventually due to bored cops doing stupid shit (and trying to justify their toys and pay).
This is what happens when you throw money at police to "fight crime" (drugs, prostitution, violence, whatever) and then tie their hands in apprehending criminals (eg. violence, coercion, and so on). The police get bored and start going after stupid things like this, while the rates for violent crime sky-rocket (as they have in Britain since the 1980s).
While I would agree you've got a reason for contention for this, something like The Stand isn't like 1984 or Animal Farm. While The Stand is certainly a noteworthy work of fiction, it is not even in the same category of works that Orwell's are by the simple fact of their political discourse/criticism and the impact they've had on society. They are not solely a work of fiction, they are historical and political commentary - making this act akin to the very acts spoken of in the books ("book burning" if you will).
What? I'd agree with you that books aren't obsolete, but it certainly isn't true that they're cheap. A longer hardcover novel will run a person $30ish and the paper version probably $20+ these days. I know there's inflation and all to account for, but that isn't "cheap".