AOL's portal sucked.. it never evolved and they were the original bloaters of software (remember AOL 2.0-9.0 ?) Why would I play chess at flyordie.com when I can play thousands of good players on yahoo.com, almost faster than I can log-in?
That... damn, that IS evil heh. But I don't really buy that thats how the mechanics of the deal will really work. I think Microsoft will get some benefit from the patent, but the patent in question if heads come to butt heads will end up being overturned or modified somehow. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems a ridiculous loop-hole for MS to be able to exploit Google with.
I think MS really wants Yahoo for the same reasons I like Yahoo, it has a huge user base and a slick content delivery system. I tend to use it for its ease of use and lack of bloatware in things that should be really simple. I don't want to install some giant 100 megabyte pile of crap to play chess (read: MSN), I want to click on a java applet and play chess with someone. That philosophy is what has made Yahoo the best and most user friendly portal from day one, and why it has retained a staggeringly huge and loyal user base.
This is front page of the Enquirer material. It ranks right up there with that guy who thought blowing up the moon was the only way to save the earth. Meteorologists, weathermen, whatever you like, can't even predict accurately what the weather will do on a day to day basis.
Off topic rant: It always amazes me how people take NASA so seriously when it comes to "climate modeling" with their dire predictions and vagaries saying things like we're at a "tipping point" climate-wise, and yet how many times have shuttle launches been delayed due to weather? Since when did NASA become an authority in climatology? You would think if they had a good grasp of macro-scale climate trends, they would at least have an idea of what weather conditions to expect based on all the measurements readily available to them. Satellite imaging, atmospheric pressure readings, air and ground level temperature, pinpoint Doppler radar, all of it working together and they still can't predict with much accuracy what the weather will be like tomorrow. Why don't scientists come out and tell us with unblinking certainty what caused the Ice Ages, or the hot spells in the past?
People in the middle ages numbered only in the millions and had no discernible CO2 emissions, yet there was a huge spike in the temperature then? What caused that, if it wasn't people? The truth is we've had only maybe 50 years of good technology with which to record weather data, 20 years of satellite imaging, and less than 10 years of CPU power to even pretend to be accurately modeling anything. The debate is over? The debate has just started to get interesting. The facts we need for the debate are JUST NOW coming in.
Microsoft needs to start doing 'the right thing' and stop charging extortionate prices for its shoddy ass products? That might be a step in the right direction for them. The Gates foundation should really just provide corporate and end user refunds for Windows 1.1 - Windows 98.
that Clear Channel is hugely in debt? Their marketing peoples' "formula" for success resulted in some of the most grating, asinine garbagey programming ever. People hate it so much they actually donate their money freely to NPR in the overwhelming fear that the one reliable station on the dial might disappear. And fuck me, the COMMERCIALS these ad-wizards came up with, I honestly couldn't think of something more effective in triggering a Pavlovian response to hit the scan button than the shit they engineer to try and sound "cool" or whatever the fuck marketing group-think buzzword their slimy little brains secreted at CC meetings. Seriously.
You know, I never did understand that.. 300 years into the future, warp drives, replication, matter-energy transport.. little beam things you can heal peoples wounds with perfectly, and they still couldn't figure out how to give a black man some eyes? Geordi went around looking like he was headed to a 90's gay club for what, seven seasons? And I like how when he finally was able to have eyes in Star Trek: Whatever he had red LED lights on his temples and whited out pupils. Way to go RACE-Trek
Seriously though, as soon as I read the line "using hypnosis in a laboratory" the plausible-interest part of my brain shut off and my eyes glazed over. Recreate THAT in a laboratory.
yes.. it is everywhere. because ITS SUGAR. you could replace high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar and it would be the same calories and be metabolized the same way. the article you link is not a reputable medical journal, most of which aren't even on the fence about the issue, they state simply that increased sugar intake with less exercise is the culprit. makes sense huh?
i find it odd that there is so much demonizing of sugar, as it essentially the #1 source of energy for the human energy cycle.. in fact, the brain simply cannot function without rather a lot of it in the diet. its the reason we crave fruits and sweet things, because we instinctively know what is good for us, especially our sugar-hungry brains.. someone without sugar will actually perform far below the levels of someone with sugar rich diet, mentally and physically. the problem of course is overcomsumption, but that is easily avoided by simply cutting down on sugary drinks and desserts. by simply replacing soda drinks with water and skipping dessert (or smaller dessert portions) you will be at a perfectly safe level of sugar intake.
also, high fructose corn syrup is.. just sugar. there is no 'safe' sugar, its all the same.. honey, cane sugar, beet sugar, all are consumed by the body in the same fashion.
MOD THIS FUNNY, MOD THIS FUNNY.. he just said that the Chinese have been innovative in CRACKING THE MOST TRUSTED ENCRYPTION ON THE INTERNET. THATS INNOVATION!/irony off.
What we need are more doomsday predictions about some future event based on a computer model of something with trillions more variables than are actually included...
Are these the same scientists whose models all conclude that global warming is the result of human activity? That "the debate is over" ?
I'm running SimEarth right now and by my calculations all these storms are caused by an infestation of hippie non-scientists growing coffee in the shade of an organic ginkgo tree which is causing it to release far less oxygen than it normally would, thus saturating the environment with 'greenhouse gasses' DUDE.
Pesticides was in quotes because plants produce thousands of natural pesticides without any human help, why aren't people worried about them?
As for your claim about Parkinson's disease, you might not be aware of this, but rotenone, the pesticide you are referring to, is a nasty synthetic creation. Guess where biotech scientists get their genes for producing corn borer resistant plants? Thats right, other organisms. Without a solid grasp of the science involved I think it's safe to say that Slashdot commenters and "bioethicists" really should remain out of the discussion, but that of course won't happen.
"Would you rather we pretended nothing was going to happen and then you wake up four years later to find Congress has passed and enacted regulatory laws without your input and thought?"
You mean, like what happened with "GM" biotech? Most scientists (and their respective companies) have ZERO political clout, and propaganda fueled by disaster fantasies will ALWAYS win when it comes to policy design, because people respond to ad hoc emotional argumentation 9 times out of 10..
It literally makes no difference who or what body regulates nanotechnology, as long as Michael Crichton can imagine some scenario where it kills everyone, there will be a massive public body of SHEER AND TOTAL IGNORANCE pushing for its regulation.
The sad thing is, nobody seems to have much of an imagination for the FDA's drug regulatory process.. Potent psychoactive SSRI's that can alter your personality? Why, that sounds GREAT, make sure you test it on at least 5 monkeys before you inundate the nation with it, and don't forget to make a "kids" version.
Corn that has a single gene inserted to make it naturally produce a "pesticide" which we dump all over ALL FOOD anyway? Hmm, this needs at least 15 years of testing and regulations so strict that you have to shut down a field if someone drops a kernel, as well as pay ridiculous fines, even though there has never been a single iota of credible, repeatable evidence that these products have harmed a single person or living creature (that they werent intended to, and by that i mean bugs)
If you expect some kind of common sense approach to the regulatory process of some new and novel technology that has the "potential" to harm someone, GOOD LUCK.. The only technology that we can trust apparently is Psylexa from Rovenol, which you can ask your doctor about if you ever feel 'down' about being a scientist with just about zero input into policy that directly affects your line of work.
I can't help but laugh at how silly the idea of "intelligent design" is. Now that we understand how bees can fly, how the brain works is totally next. I bet it has to do with some kind of "exotic" mechanism. We can use science to understand the world around us!
Multitasking on the fly
on
Server In A Fly
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Isn't that what it says during the Windows 98 install? Press any key to continue...
Slashdot Mirror
AOL's portal sucked.. it never evolved and they were the original bloaters of software (remember AOL 2.0-9.0 ?)
Why would I play chess at flyordie.com when I can play thousands of good players on yahoo.com, almost faster than I can log-in?
That... damn, that IS evil heh. But I don't really buy that thats how the mechanics of the deal will really work. I think Microsoft will get some benefit from the patent, but the patent in question if heads come to butt heads will end up being overturned or modified somehow. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems a ridiculous loop-hole for MS to be able to exploit Google with.
I think MS really wants Yahoo for the same reasons I like Yahoo, it has a huge user base and a slick content delivery system. I tend to use it for its ease of use and lack of bloatware in things that should be really simple. I don't want to install some giant 100 megabyte pile of crap to play chess (read: MSN), I want to click on a java applet and play chess with someone. That philosophy is what has made Yahoo the best and most user friendly portal from day one, and why it has retained a staggeringly huge and loyal user base.
IN BRAZIL, car drives on sugar cane water, stealing music make people rich, and hats go on FEET!
This is front page of the Enquirer material. It ranks right up there with that guy who thought blowing up the moon was the only way to save the earth. Meteorologists, weathermen, whatever you like, can't even predict accurately what the weather will do on a day to day basis.
Off topic rant: It always amazes me how people take NASA so seriously when it comes to "climate modeling" with their dire predictions and vagaries saying things like we're at a "tipping point" climate-wise, and yet how many times have shuttle launches been delayed due to weather? Since when did NASA become an authority in climatology? You would think if they had a good grasp of macro-scale climate trends, they would at least have an idea of what weather conditions to expect based on all the measurements readily available to them. Satellite imaging, atmospheric pressure readings, air and ground level temperature, pinpoint Doppler radar, all of it working together and they still can't predict with much accuracy what the weather will be like tomorrow. Why don't scientists come out and tell us with unblinking certainty what caused the Ice Ages, or the hot spells in the past?
People in the middle ages numbered only in the millions and had no discernible CO2 emissions, yet there was a huge spike in the temperature then? What caused that, if it wasn't people? The truth is we've had only maybe 50 years of good technology with which to record weather data, 20 years of satellite imaging, and less than 10 years of CPU power to even pretend to be accurately modeling anything. The debate is over? The debate has just started to get interesting. The facts we need for the debate are JUST NOW coming in.
The moon will become pockmarked with all the failed entries slamming into its fragile face. I see a dark future for our world.
Microsoft needs to start doing 'the right thing' and stop charging extortionate prices for its shoddy ass products? That might be a step in the right direction for them. The Gates foundation should really just provide corporate and end user refunds for Windows 1.1 - Windows 98.
Even if they do, I bet they can be hacked by chinese.
that Clear Channel is hugely in debt? Their marketing peoples' "formula" for success resulted in some of the most grating, asinine garbagey programming ever. People hate it so much they actually donate their money freely to NPR in the overwhelming fear that the one reliable station on the dial might disappear. And fuck me, the COMMERCIALS these ad-wizards came up with, I honestly couldn't think of something more effective in triggering a Pavlovian response to hit the scan button than the shit they engineer to try and sound "cool" or whatever the fuck marketing group-think buzzword their slimy little brains secreted at CC meetings. Seriously.
To have this following so closely on the heels of last weeks "Variety declares that poop comes from butts" ? Variety truly is the son of Man.
Whats next, dolphins who can read engrish without laughing?
Also, did anyone listen to the audio sample? It sounds about as much like the Batman theme song as someone torturing a gaggle of bats.
a beowulf cluster shooting you in the face?
You know, I never did understand that.. 300 years into the future, warp drives, replication, matter-energy transport.. little beam things you can heal peoples wounds with perfectly, and they still couldn't figure out how to give a black man some eyes? Geordi went around looking like he was headed to a 90's gay club for what, seven seasons? And I like how when he finally was able to have eyes in Star Trek: Whatever he had red LED lights on his temples and whited out pupils. Way to go RACE-Trek
all over again..
Seriously though, as soon as I read the line "using hypnosis in a laboratory" the plausible-interest part of my brain shut off and my eyes glazed over. Recreate THAT in a laboratory.
yes.. it is everywhere. because ITS SUGAR. you could replace high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar and it would be the same calories and be metabolized the same way. the article you link is not a reputable medical journal, most of which aren't even on the fence about the issue, they state simply that increased sugar intake with less exercise is the culprit. makes sense huh?
Feed them large amounts of any sugar.
i find it odd that there is so much demonizing of sugar, as it essentially the #1 source of energy for the human energy cycle.. in fact, the brain simply cannot function without rather a lot of it in the diet. its the reason we crave fruits and sweet things, because we instinctively know what is good for us, especially our sugar-hungry brains.. someone without sugar will actually perform far below the levels of someone with sugar rich diet, mentally and physically. the problem of course is overcomsumption, but that is easily avoided by simply cutting down on sugary drinks and desserts. by simply replacing soda drinks with water and skipping dessert (or smaller dessert portions) you will be at a perfectly safe level of sugar intake.
.. just sugar. there is no 'safe' sugar, its all the same.. honey, cane sugar, beet sugar, all are consumed by the body in the same fashion.
also, high fructose corn syrup is
I thought it said "Laser Tweezers KILL YOUR FAMILY, KILL YOUR FAMILY." I couldn't figure out whAT HTEH ELL IS GOING ON. BRLUARSHHRAS>
MOD THIS FUNNY, MOD THIS FUNNY.. he just said that the Chinese have been innovative in CRACKING THE MOST TRUSTED ENCRYPTION ON THE INTERNET. THATS INNOVATION! /irony off.
Seriously, that is hilarious.
for G.W's brain cells
What we need are more doomsday predictions about some future event based on a computer model of something with trillions more variables than are actually included...
Are these the same scientists whose models all conclude that global warming is the result of human activity? That "the debate is over" ?
I'm running SimEarth right now and by my calculations all these storms are caused by an infestation of hippie non-scientists growing coffee in the shade of an organic ginkgo tree which is causing it to release far less oxygen than it normally would, thus saturating the environment with 'greenhouse gasses' DUDE.
a very similar thing happened to me..
someone left a cupcake on my desk and i ate it, and then i e-mailed my bank info to a guy in Nigeria.
Pesticides was in quotes because plants produce thousands of natural pesticides without any human help, why aren't people worried about them?
As for your claim about Parkinson's disease, you might not be aware of this, but rotenone, the pesticide you are referring to, is a nasty synthetic creation. Guess where biotech scientists get their genes for producing corn borer resistant plants? Thats right, other organisms. Without a solid grasp of the science involved I think it's safe to say that Slashdot commenters and "bioethicists" really should remain out of the discussion, but that of course won't happen.
"Would you rather we pretended nothing was going to happen and then you wake up four years later to find Congress has passed and enacted regulatory laws without your input and thought?"
You mean, like what happened with "GM" biotech? Most scientists (and their respective companies) have ZERO political clout, and propaganda fueled by disaster fantasies will ALWAYS win when it comes to policy design, because people respond to ad hoc emotional argumentation 9 times out of 10..
It literally makes no difference who or what body regulates nanotechnology, as long as Michael Crichton can imagine some scenario where it kills everyone, there will be a massive public body of SHEER AND TOTAL IGNORANCE pushing for its regulation.
The sad thing is, nobody seems to have much of an imagination for the FDA's drug regulatory process.. Potent psychoactive SSRI's that can alter your personality? Why, that sounds GREAT, make sure you test it on at least 5 monkeys before you inundate the nation with it, and don't forget to make a "kids" version.
Corn that has a single gene inserted to make it naturally produce a "pesticide" which we dump all over ALL FOOD anyway? Hmm, this needs at least 15 years of testing and regulations so strict that you have to shut down a field if someone drops a kernel, as well as pay ridiculous fines, even though there has never been a single iota of credible, repeatable evidence that these products have harmed a single person or living creature (that they werent intended to, and by that i mean bugs)
If you expect some kind of common sense approach to the regulatory process of some new and novel technology that has the "potential" to harm someone, GOOD LUCK.. The only technology that we can trust apparently is Psylexa from Rovenol, which you can ask your doctor about if you ever feel 'down' about being a scientist with just about zero input into policy that directly affects your line of work.
I can't help but laugh at how silly the idea of "intelligent design" is. Now that we understand how bees can fly, how the brain works is totally next. I bet it has to do with some kind of "exotic" mechanism. We can use science to understand the world around us!
Isn't that what it says during the Windows 98 install? Press any key to continue...