In my day, a fieldtrip consisted of nothing more than going outside -- in a field. The only caves we saw were the ones we had school in, and those were shared with the grizzly bears. If you've never seen your best friend's head get popped like a grape in the jaws of a grizzly, you've got it easy. It wasn't all bad though. Whenever we got a new transfer student, we'd convince them to yell into the cave really loud to "scare away the bats." Man, that was hilarious.
It was just a baby quake for Chrissake. The only way anybody *wouldn't* be fine is if they happened to have their head under a guillotine with a quick-release tied to a seismometer arm. (Sorry, Dave.. it was supposed to be safe!)
By the way, I thought I felt the quake out here in Florida, but it was just your mom walking by. (Yes, reader, your mom specifically.)
The linked story says 5.0, not 5.5. Either way, it's nothing to get your culottes in a wad about... Someone walking or driving could easily fail to notice a 5.0.
From the Wikipedias: 5.0-5.9 -- Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions. At most, slight damage to well-designed buildings. (Emphasis mine). And this was in the lower range of that scale.
Too bad the area of the Sahara is 3.5 MILLION square miles.. so 1% would be 35 thousand square miles... or an area roughly the size of Indiana.
* Before I hit post, I double checked the size, and I see numbers anywhere from 1.5M to 3.5M sq. mi. Regardless, it's fucking huge, and it would take years -- likely decades -- to populate even 1% of it with collectors. And as others have noted, without superconductors, transfer would be a bitch.
On the plus side, they'll have yet another reason to pull people over.
Officer: Do you know why I stopped you? Driver: Um.. for going 55 in a 55? Officer: Don't get smart with me, meow. You have a bad pixel on your rear plate. Driver: Bad as in misbehaved? Officer: Bad as in SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH! [Driver: That doesn't even make sense..] That's a $100 fine, plus destruction of government property. Keep mouthing off and we'll add disorderly conduct! Ain't so funny meow, is it?
Regarding Cuba, infant mortality and longevity statistics only imply better care when all other factors are equal. The level of health care is but one (and perhaps the smallest) contributor to the health of a given population, and hence to those statistics. The obvious other contributors are diet and exercise, but also things like drug abuse. When the penalty for possession is the same as the penalty for murder, there tends to be less drug abuse, hence fewer drug-addicted infants and better infant mortality statistics. Of course, we don't know for sure because Cuba is still a very closed nation; I'm merely speculating.. just like everyone else.
Sorry, all I heard was "Blah, blah, blah... wah!::sniff::" Though that sniff may have been my imagination.
Though to be fair, I'd probably be crying too if reality matched your description of events.
Re:The iPhone and finally walk and chew gum!
on
iOS 4 Releases Today
·
· Score: 1
Jeeze, I feel like I totally wasted my money buying a new iPhone when I could have had a WinMo phone from 2004. If only I had know such a glorious alternative existed last week when I placed my order.
Exactly. The density of a given substance is typically inversely proportional to its temperature when pressure remains constant, with water ice being a notable exception. That said, there are many forms of water ice, and some are indeed more dense than liquid water.
Forced labor is not outside the realm of unregulated markets, which is the definition of a free market. Hence, any regulation whatsoever renders the market non-free, including the prohibition of slavery.
But for the sake of argument, even if we expand the definition to exclude coerced contracts of employment -- slavery -- we're left with the problem of voluntary employment that becomes de facto slavery, such as indentured servitude, and the truck system. Each of those required specific legislation (regulation) to abolish, and neither were addressed during the Civil War or by the 14th Amendment.
Unregulated markets also fail to address externalities such as pollution, depletion of resources, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, et cetera. And they certainly don't prevent catastrophes like widespread food poisoning or oil spills. They allow for building code violations (since there is no building code) and cars that explode on impact. Left to their own devices, free markets are inefficient beasts that have little or no incentive to prioritize the long term or the big picture over short term profits. "Who cares what happens in 100 years; we'll all be dead!" "I'm retiring next year and my 401k is 10 figures deep."
The problem with having this argument is that people naturally include or exclude a certain amount of regulation just because it exists in what we currently call a free market, which is anything but. The fact that we abolished slavery and their de facto counterparts doesn't mean we were doing it wrong, it means we recognized that regulation is necessary for a society based on equality; that we must find a middle ground between a truly free market and a fully controlled one. It's absurd that we recognize that criminal law is necessary to promote and ensure equality in daily life, while at the same time dismissing regulation in economics, especially when economics *completely* dictate our lives outside of criminal law. I have no problem with wealth -- I'm no communist -- but one man's wealth cannot be allowed to come at the cost of another's impoverishment, let alone an entire society's. That's what free markets give us, and that's what regulation prevents.
What you seem to be asserting is that the source of the problem cannot be the source of the solution, which is not only ridiculous, it's backwards. I create problems every day that I have to solve. I lose my keys. I piss somebody off. In many cases, nobody else will fix the problem; in others, nobody *can*. The source of the problem is the first and best source of the solution. It's only when the source cannot or will not fix itself, and those problems are harming self or others, that external influences are required.
That's not to say we shouldn't pressure the government to fix itself -- we absolutely should -- but Regan's observation that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem" is a false dichotomy when taken out of context. Fortunately, several sentences later he adds, indeed clarifies, that, "All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden."
They already do this for many lenses and mirrors, except that the freezing process occurs well above room temperature. It's called spin casting. If you wear soft contacts, there's a good chance they were produced through spin casting. The hexagonal mirrors of telescopes referenced in the article are also produced through spin casting, followed by polishing. I can only assume that keeping the mirrors in liquid form offers some benefit, otherwise there would be no point.
The oil problem isn't "fueled" (if you'll pardon my pun) by electricity demand, but by transportation. Very little of our electrical energy is generated from oil. The vast majority is from coal, followed by nuclear. Shifting transportation to electricity is a bit of a chicken and egg problem: you can't sell electric vehicles without a method of refueling them (quickly), and you can't build such a network without a customer base in place, so they have to be developed in tandem. Shifting to "green" electricity production is great, but it's not going to signal an end to our demand for oil.
It is normal practice when a storm is to make landfall for larger ships to go out to sea to weather the storm - it's been like that for just about for ever..
Go out to sea, yes.. weather the storm, not ideally. Usually they'll stay well clear of a hurricane, if possible, based on storm steering probabilities. There will always be a few people willing to gamble, idiots not paying attention to weather forecasts, and obviously storms can change course unpredictably, but any responsible and competent captain will avoid a hurricane at almost any cost.
Seems like the women pay by subjecting themselves to the male company.
See, that's what they'd like you to believe. It's what (some) moms instill in us, movies tell us, and observation seems to confirm, but the truth is women are *people*, and people like attention, especially from potential mates. When they complain about attention, it's like a rich guy complaining about trying to decide what car to drive to the poor guy who's trying to find a reliable car he can afford. That's not to say they don't feel and believe what they're saying, just that they have no perspective, so you shouldn't feel too sorry for them. Don't be a prick about it, but don't sympathize with them either.
If a woman (or anyone else) doesn't want *your* attention, then just move on to the next one. That's something many guys have a hard time with -- they get hung up on one girl, because she's "special," or "the one." She may well be special, but a) getting hung up on her isn't going to win any points, it's just going to make you look like every other desperate idiot, and b) your perspective is very likely to change with experience playing the field. If you hit on lots of women and always strike out with the type of women you want to date, then you need to brush up on your social skills. Yes, they are skills, and any skill can be improved, if not mastered.
Anyway, I'm getting off subject, but all of this is to say that women are just people. They're not deities to be worshiped, but neither are they subhuman. It's true that "ladies night" may attract more women, but the long term cost is an institutionalized sense of entitlement, which is a lose/lose proposition. There's nothing worse than dealing with someone who feels entitled, regardless of their gender, and by systematically reinforcing that belief, we're actually shrinking the pool of worthwhile mates. We're making things worse for *ourselves*. Think I'm full of shit? Why are foreign dating sites so popular? Because we've created a huge pool of women in the US who believe they're God's gift to men, and a huge pool of self-loathing men who continue to reinforce that belief.
Gay bars don't have "ladies night" and yet they're often packed. Why? Obviously there's the fact that ladies night would have no effect (or an undesired effect), but there's also the reality that, in many cities, there's no alternative. They don't stop going to gay bars just because they don't get in for free. Likewise, banning ladies night for *all* clubs wouldn't result in the mass exodus of females. They would have no alternative, and they would still show up, because they *want to*. When it comes down to it, discrimination is discrimination, and tolerating it only makes us weaker. If you don't believe that, then you stopped thinking through the problem at "ladies." The people who are suing aren't the bitches; it's people who actually believe that they're so worthless that absent external incentives, nobody would want to hang out with them.
Slashdot Mirror
In my day, a fieldtrip consisted of nothing more than going outside -- in a field. The only caves we saw were the ones we had school in, and those were shared with the grizzly bears. If you've never seen your best friend's head get popped like a grape in the jaws of a grizzly, you've got it easy. It wasn't all bad though. Whenever we got a new transfer student, we'd convince them to yell into the cave really loud to "scare away the bats." Man, that was hilarious.
Anyway, yeah.. Mars.
Any word on who they're planning to charge for failing to predict this monster?
It was just a baby quake for Chrissake. The only way anybody *wouldn't* be fine is if they happened to have their head under a guillotine with a quick-release tied to a seismometer arm. (Sorry, Dave.. it was supposed to be safe!)
By the way, I thought I felt the quake out here in Florida, but it was just your mom walking by. (Yes, reader, your mom specifically.)
The linked story says 5.0, not 5.5. Either way, it's nothing to get your culottes in a wad about... Someone walking or driving could easily fail to notice a 5.0.
From the Wikipedias: 5.0-5.9 -- Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions. At most, slight damage to well-designed buildings. (Emphasis mine). And this was in the lower range of that scale.
Too bad the area of the Sahara is 3.5 MILLION square miles.. so 1% would be 35 thousand square miles... or an area roughly the size of Indiana.
* Before I hit post, I double checked the size, and I see numbers anywhere from 1.5M to 3.5M sq. mi. Regardless, it's fucking huge, and it would take years -- likely decades -- to populate even 1% of it with collectors. And as others have noted, without superconductors, transfer would be a bitch.
Not if your hundreds have depreciated to 99 you insensitive clod.
You're missing the point: You can't rock the jock if your Cox is Fox, fool.
On the plus side, they'll have yet another reason to pull people over.
Officer: Do you know why I stopped you?
Driver: Um.. for going 55 in a 55?
Officer: Don't get smart with me, meow. You have a bad pixel on your rear plate.
Driver: Bad as in misbehaved?
Officer: Bad as in SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH! [Driver: That doesn't even make sense..] That's a $100 fine, plus destruction of government property. Keep mouthing off and we'll add disorderly conduct! Ain't so funny meow, is it?
Regarding Cuba, infant mortality and longevity statistics only imply better care when all other factors are equal. The level of health care is but one (and perhaps the smallest) contributor to the health of a given population, and hence to those statistics. The obvious other contributors are diet and exercise, but also things like drug abuse. When the penalty for possession is the same as the penalty for murder, there tends to be less drug abuse, hence fewer drug-addicted infants and better infant mortality statistics. Of course, we don't know for sure because Cuba is still a very closed nation; I'm merely speculating.. just like everyone else.
High sodium intake is a contributing factor in High Blood Pressure, which affects 1 in 3 Americans. So no.. it's not healthy.
The apple boys have been saving their moderation points.
It doesn't work like that slick. Use 'em or lose 'em.
Sorry, all I heard was "Blah, blah, blah... wah! ::sniff::" Though that sniff may have been my imagination.
Though to be fair, I'd probably be crying too if reality matched your description of events.
Jeeze, I feel like I totally wasted my money buying a new iPhone when I could have had a WinMo phone from 2004. If only I had know such a glorious alternative existed last week when I placed my order.
It's impossible to fully all possible games of chess.
That's partially.
I came close to the cover of Chess Life once. Does that count?
It's neat and all, but wouldn't it have been much easier to just scan the film and create audio from the waveforms?
Exactly. The density of a given substance is typically inversely proportional to its temperature when pressure remains constant, with water ice being a notable exception. That said, there are many forms of water ice, and some are indeed more dense than liquid water.
Forced labor is not outside the realm of unregulated markets, which is the definition of a free market. Hence, any regulation whatsoever renders the market non-free, including the prohibition of slavery.
But for the sake of argument, even if we expand the definition to exclude coerced contracts of employment -- slavery -- we're left with the problem of voluntary employment that becomes de facto slavery, such as indentured servitude, and the truck system. Each of those required specific legislation (regulation) to abolish, and neither were addressed during the Civil War or by the 14th Amendment.
Unregulated markets also fail to address externalities such as pollution, depletion of resources, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, et cetera. And they certainly don't prevent catastrophes like widespread food poisoning or oil spills. They allow for building code violations (since there is no building code) and cars that explode on impact. Left to their own devices, free markets are inefficient beasts that have little or no incentive to prioritize the long term or the big picture over short term profits. "Who cares what happens in 100 years; we'll all be dead!" "I'm retiring next year and my 401k is 10 figures deep."
The problem with having this argument is that people naturally include or exclude a certain amount of regulation just because it exists in what we currently call a free market, which is anything but. The fact that we abolished slavery and their de facto counterparts doesn't mean we were doing it wrong, it means we recognized that regulation is necessary for a society based on equality; that we must find a middle ground between a truly free market and a fully controlled one. It's absurd that we recognize that criminal law is necessary to promote and ensure equality in daily life, while at the same time dismissing regulation in economics, especially when economics *completely* dictate our lives outside of criminal law. I have no problem with wealth -- I'm no communist -- but one man's wealth cannot be allowed to come at the cost of another's impoverishment, let alone an entire society's. That's what free markets give us, and that's what regulation prevents.
Yes.
What you seem to be asserting is that the source of the problem cannot be the source of the solution, which is not only ridiculous, it's backwards. I create problems every day that I have to solve. I lose my keys. I piss somebody off. In many cases, nobody else will fix the problem; in others, nobody *can*. The source of the problem is the first and best source of the solution. It's only when the source cannot or will not fix itself, and those problems are harming self or others, that external influences are required.
That's not to say we shouldn't pressure the government to fix itself -- we absolutely should -- but Regan's observation that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem" is a false dichotomy when taken out of context. Fortunately, several sentences later he adds, indeed clarifies, that, "All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden."
Sure, but do you really think everyone with latex sheets is just going to... Oh, right. That oil.
Glass isn't a liquid, despite what my (and possibly your) high school chemistry teacher taught.
They already do this for many lenses and mirrors, except that the freezing process occurs well above room temperature. It's called spin casting. If you wear soft contacts, there's a good chance they were produced through spin casting. The hexagonal mirrors of telescopes referenced in the article are also produced through spin casting, followed by polishing. I can only assume that keeping the mirrors in liquid form offers some benefit, otherwise there would be no point.
The oil problem isn't "fueled" (if you'll pardon my pun) by electricity demand, but by transportation. Very little of our electrical energy is generated from oil. The vast majority is from coal, followed by nuclear. Shifting transportation to electricity is a bit of a chicken and egg problem: you can't sell electric vehicles without a method of refueling them (quickly), and you can't build such a network without a customer base in place, so they have to be developed in tandem. Shifting to "green" electricity production is great, but it's not going to signal an end to our demand for oil.
It is normal practice when a storm is to make landfall for larger ships to go out to sea to weather the storm - it's been like that for just about for ever..
Go out to sea, yes.. weather the storm, not ideally. Usually they'll stay well clear of a hurricane, if possible, based on storm steering probabilities. There will always be a few people willing to gamble, idiots not paying attention to weather forecasts, and obviously storms can change course unpredictably, but any responsible and competent captain will avoid a hurricane at almost any cost.
Seems like the women pay by subjecting themselves to the male company.
See, that's what they'd like you to believe. It's what (some) moms instill in us, movies tell us, and observation seems to confirm, but the truth is women are *people*, and people like attention, especially from potential mates. When they complain about attention, it's like a rich guy complaining about trying to decide what car to drive to the poor guy who's trying to find a reliable car he can afford. That's not to say they don't feel and believe what they're saying, just that they have no perspective, so you shouldn't feel too sorry for them. Don't be a prick about it, but don't sympathize with them either.
If a woman (or anyone else) doesn't want *your* attention, then just move on to the next one. That's something many guys have a hard time with -- they get hung up on one girl, because she's "special," or "the one." She may well be special, but a) getting hung up on her isn't going to win any points, it's just going to make you look like every other desperate idiot, and b) your perspective is very likely to change with experience playing the field. If you hit on lots of women and always strike out with the type of women you want to date, then you need to brush up on your social skills. Yes, they are skills, and any skill can be improved, if not mastered.
Anyway, I'm getting off subject, but all of this is to say that women are just people. They're not deities to be worshiped, but neither are they subhuman. It's true that "ladies night" may attract more women, but the long term cost is an institutionalized sense of entitlement, which is a lose/lose proposition. There's nothing worse than dealing with someone who feels entitled, regardless of their gender, and by systematically reinforcing that belief, we're actually shrinking the pool of worthwhile mates. We're making things worse for *ourselves*. Think I'm full of shit? Why are foreign dating sites so popular? Because we've created a huge pool of women in the US who believe they're God's gift to men, and a huge pool of self-loathing men who continue to reinforce that belief.
Gay bars don't have "ladies night" and yet they're often packed. Why? Obviously there's the fact that ladies night would have no effect (or an undesired effect), but there's also the reality that, in many cities, there's no alternative. They don't stop going to gay bars just because they don't get in for free. Likewise, banning ladies night for *all* clubs wouldn't result in the mass exodus of females. They would have no alternative, and they would still show up, because they *want to*. When it comes down to it, discrimination is discrimination, and tolerating it only makes us weaker. If you don't believe that, then you stopped thinking through the problem at "ladies." The people who are suing aren't the bitches; it's people who actually believe that they're so worthless that absent external incentives, nobody would want to hang out with them.