But the temperatures at different places on the planet are quite different. It's well established that humans all originated in from a single location (and had not migrated from there until relatively recently). So it makes sense that they'd all be comfortable at nearly the same temperature.
But plants have been around much longer, so should have adapted to all their varied environments.
OK, who changed my degree symbols into hatted A's (Â)? I actually cut and pasted the degree symbol from the article title. That doesn't work, nor does ° or °.
I've often wondered why it is that humans prefer air temperatures somewhere around 72Â. It'd seem more reasonable for us to prefer something closer to 98Â. I suppose the temperature differential between the 2 is what's required to keep us at a steady state, dissipating the energy we burn.
I find it even more remarkable that trees prefer nearly the same temperature that humans do.
The question being asked in the article/summary is "are the competitors using proactive computer virus protection?" But the question should be "are the competitors using this method of proactive computer virus protection?"
People seem to get really worked up about patents, while seemingly not understanding how the system works. The patent does not cover all methods of proactive computer virus protection -- it covers one method.
CSS is a much better (and easier) way to go. I couldn't imagine trying to manage all the enters and exist with Javascript manually (though I'm not a Javascript expert -- maybe there's an easy way?). It's pretty simple, if you use jQuery:
I'm now offering the opportunity to fulfill my every sexual desire. This is a non-paying position with no benefits... No benefits? You must be really bad in bed.
College really is what you a make of it, and you can do very well for yourself either place. That's the key phrase, right there. Choose the place that you think you will like more. Plus, you'll likely do better in a place that you like than one you don't.
I'm glad to see that the Bush administration is finally on target with their network monitoring. They've been monitoring innocent citizens on the open Internet for years now. Pretty amazing that they'd do that before bothering to secure their own networks.
What's more amazing is that I'm still amazed by government stupidity and corruption.
The fact that God does not have the same (or any) notion of time supports the theory that we do NOT have free will. Our notion of God and time is that God sits "outside" of time, or can experience all time "at once". So it's as if God can see the whole movie at once. So God sees the end of the movie at the same time that he sees the beginning.
If that's the case, then if you ask God what decisions you will be making tomorrow, he can tell you. So if he's able to tell you the decisions that you will make, with certainty, then you do not have free will to make them.
But since we generally do not talk to God -- or if we do, he generally doesn't tell us specifics about our decisions in the future, from our own perspective, we do have free will. To me, this is the key -- perspective. Put yourself as the observer of your own movie. Now looking at the movie, you already know what you were going to decide yesterday. But yesterday you did not know that. So from just your own perspective, the same event was freely chose, and at the same time, already determined.
As far as I can tell, all the pictures of Muhammad on the page were made by Muslims. The artists certainly all have Arabic names. I'm failing to understand why it was OK for them to paint the pictures, yet it's not OK to show them now, to non-Muslims. And these painting were made long ago. Where have they been all these years? Why have they not been destroyed in all those years? If Muslims don't want pictures of Muhammad to be shown, why are there pictures of Muhammad available to be shown?
I thought the difference between a Civil Engineer and Mechanical Engineer was that Civil Engineers can only add to 0. How hard can it be to make something NOT move?
In some ways, his proposal sounds a bit like XHTML 2. Not so much the details, but the idea of breaking from the existing spec, and trying to simplify things. And to put it bluntly, XHMTL 2 has not exactly been taking the world by storm. It seems that nobody really likes it, so it has not gotten much support. It's unlikely that it will ever make it out of draft status.
If you put the wrong kind of fuel in your car, you'll ruin the engine. Or at the very least, it will not run as well. For example, putting running more energy-dense fuel will likely overheat the engine.
If you put the wrong kind of fuel in you body, guess what? It won't run as well.
A contract with just your initials by the strikeouts will have no legal value- you'd both need to initial it. Otherwise you're right- there's no contract. Which is exactly what the original poster was trying to achieve.
Here's my advice on bad contracts that employers ask you to sign.
First, don't sign it right away. Take it home to spend some time reading it. At home, scratch out any clause that you don't agree to, and initial the strike-outs.
When / if they ask you to turn in the contract, tell them that it's at home, and you need to take it to your lawyer. Keep stalling, and they'll probably forget about it.
If they demand that you return the contract, turn it in with the stricken clauses. Most likely, they will not notice them, since they're in a hurry to get the contract back and into the pile. I've had people argue that striking the clauses is not enforceable if the company did not get to review them. But that's a ridiculous claim -- the company does not have a signed contract without the strike-outs, and could/should have reviewed them when you returned it to them.
If the people (state governments) are the ones paying for those primary elections, then yes -- I would say that the party should not be allowed to dictate who can run to represent them.
If you're a GNU/Linux user, I'd recommend you go take a look at Linux Weekly News (LWN). They're very much like Slashdot, in that they steer very clear from the corporate greed. They've been around for about as long, and have remained independent, with minimal ads. Their articles are very well-written and well-edited. (I.e. they're also very different from Slashdot!) I read Slashdot several times a day, but I actually consider LWN to be my number 1 site. I pay for both sites, even though though the subscriptions don't offer all that much feature-wise.
Slashdot Mirror
A planet that has the same temperature everywhere? Which planet is that?
But the temperatures at different places on the planet are quite different. It's well established that humans all originated in from a single location (and had not migrated from there until relatively recently). So it makes sense that they'd all be comfortable at nearly the same temperature.
But plants have been around much longer, so should have adapted to all their varied environments.
OK, who changed my degree symbols into hatted A's (Â)? I actually cut and pasted the degree symbol from the article title. That doesn't work, nor does ° or °.
I've often wondered why it is that humans prefer air temperatures somewhere around 72Â. It'd seem more reasonable for us to prefer something closer to 98Â. I suppose the temperature differential between the 2 is what's required to keep us at a steady state, dissipating the energy we burn.
I find it even more remarkable that trees prefer nearly the same temperature that humans do.
The question being asked in the article/summary is "are the competitors using proactive computer virus protection?" But the question should be "are the competitors using this method of proactive computer virus protection?"
People seem to get really worked up about patents, while seemingly not understanding how the system works. The patent does not cover all methods of proactive computer virus protection -- it covers one method.
$('table').hover(function(){$(this).addClass('hover');},
function(){$(this).removeClass('hover');});
Then use the hover class, instead of (or in addition to) the
I'm glad to see that the Bush administration is finally on target with their network monitoring. They've been monitoring innocent citizens on the open Internet for years now. Pretty amazing that they'd do that before bothering to secure their own networks.
What's more amazing is that I'm still amazed by government stupidity and corruption.
The fact that God does not have the same (or any) notion of time supports the theory that we do NOT have free will. Our notion of God and time is that God sits "outside" of time, or can experience all time "at once". So it's as if God can see the whole movie at once. So God sees the end of the movie at the same time that he sees the beginning.
If that's the case, then if you ask God what decisions you will be making tomorrow, he can tell you. So if he's able to tell you the decisions that you will make, with certainty, then you do not have free will to make them.
But since we generally do not talk to God -- or if we do, he generally doesn't tell us specifics about our decisions in the future, from our own perspective, we do have free will. To me, this is the key -- perspective. Put yourself as the observer of your own movie. Now looking at the movie, you already know what you were going to decide yesterday. But yesterday you did not know that. So from just your own perspective, the same event was freely chose, and at the same time, already determined.
I like the way that the "internal" memo has to explain who Steve Balmer is. Also, the way "proprietary" is misspelled.
With the dark cloud over Microsoft's Windows Vista, I suppose the claim could be made that Microsoft is just trying to level the playing field. ;)
As far as I can tell, all the pictures of Muhammad on the page were made by Muslims. The artists certainly all have Arabic names. I'm failing to understand why it was OK for them to paint the pictures, yet it's not OK to show them now, to non-Muslims. And these painting were made long ago. Where have they been all these years? Why have they not been destroyed in all those years? If Muslims don't want pictures of Muhammad to be shown, why are there pictures of Muhammad available to be shown?
Very curious.
I thought the difference between a Civil Engineer and Mechanical Engineer was that Civil Engineers can only add to 0. How hard can it be to make something NOT move?
In some ways, his proposal sounds a bit like XHTML 2. Not so much the details, but the idea of breaking from the existing spec, and trying to simplify things. And to put it bluntly, XHMTL 2 has not exactly been taking the world by storm. It seems that nobody really likes it, so it has not gotten much support. It's unlikely that it will ever make it out of draft status.
If you put the wrong kind of fuel in your car, you'll ruin the engine. Or at the very least, it will not run as well. For example, putting running more energy-dense fuel will likely overheat the engine.
If you put the wrong kind of fuel in you body, guess what? It won't run as well.
What gets me is that they have the nerve to call it non-volatile memory. If that's non-volatile memory, then what memory ISN'T non-volatile?
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."
Here's my advice on bad contracts that employers ask you to sign.
First, don't sign it right away. Take it home to spend some time reading it. At home, scratch out any clause that you don't agree to, and initial the strike-outs.
When / if they ask you to turn in the contract, tell them that it's at home, and you need to take it to your lawyer. Keep stalling, and they'll probably forget about it.
If they demand that you return the contract, turn it in with the stricken clauses. Most likely, they will not notice them, since they're in a hurry to get the contract back and into the pile. I've had people argue that striking the clauses is not enforceable if the company did not get to review them. But that's a ridiculous claim -- the company does not have a signed contract without the strike-outs, and could/should have reviewed them when you returned it to them.
Because the parties control the state legislatures, and get to make the rules that keep those parties in power. :(
If the people (state governments) are the ones paying for those primary elections, then yes -- I would say that the party should not be allowed to dictate who can run to represent them.
If you're a GNU/Linux user, I'd recommend you go take a look at Linux Weekly News (LWN). They're very much like Slashdot, in that they steer very clear from the corporate greed. They've been around for about as long, and have remained independent, with minimal ads. Their articles are very well-written and well-edited. (I.e. they're also very different from Slashdot!) I read Slashdot several times a day, but I actually consider LWN to be my number 1 site. I pay for both sites, even though though the subscriptions don't offer all that much feature-wise.
He never said that it was a programming language. He said that it is an interpreted language -- which it is.
Whooosh!!!