Add to that their hiring/interviewing procedure. 7 layers of interviews, psychological profiling. The psychological exam consisted of inane questions that all required binary responses. Only one that sticks in my mind still is "Daydreaming is good" Yes or no? Well, if you are operating heavy construction machinery, daydreaming is bad. On Sunday afternoon in your hammock, it is good.
After sufferring through hundreds of these assinine questions, I didn't hear back from them for several weeks (back in the early 90's), I called and the HR schlub told me that I had "failed the psychological test". I took this as a point of pride. Obviously, I was not the type of drone they preferred. I also decided that any company who hires based on that was not worth my money. I have chuckled as all of your above points have come to light over the past few decades and confirmed that I had made a sound choice.
Seriously, Cable and satellite have you paying a month ahead for service. Cell service doesn't charge you per use anymore, you generally pay for a package for a specified time frame. They all earn interest on your money. Anything that gives you a rebate instead of just lowering the price, they make interest. Hell, employers who give you a raise in June, but you don't get the money until October are doing it too.
Move along... no conspiracy here, just old, well established business practices. You'd sit on the money and take interest too.
That was my problem with Brutal Legend. After playing the demo, I decided against picking it up because it can't decide what it wants to be when it grows up. Driving game, brawling game, RTS. Different controls for each type, different types of health for all types. Way more than I want to keep track of. I'll stick with something simple, like Oblivion...
Did I say "exclusively"? Did I say "more often"? Are you saying this DOES NOT happen? Stop reading your own agenda into my post, please.
I merely stated "Government Grants" bacause that is the only type my spouse has experience with, and we are also talking about Government funded Climate research in this post.
Calm down before you get an aneurysm. I'm sure it happens in other areas too.
If I said "The sun shines on Earth" are you going to take that to mean I don't believe it shines on Mars? Wow, I'm embarassed I had to spell this out to you all.
Did I say "exclusively"? Did I say "more often"? Are you saying this DOES NOT happen? Stop reading your own agenda into my post, please.
I merely stated "Government Grants" bacause that is the only type my spouse has experience with, and we are also talking about Government funded Climate research in this post.
Calm down before you get an aneurysm. I'm sure it happens in other areas too.
If I said "The sun shines on Earth" are you going to take that to mean I don't believe it shines on Mars?
If you pay me tons of money, I will certify you so that your opinion will be valid too. I can also teach you how to audit your thetans and tell you about Xenu...
This isn't only happening in Climate science. My wife works in Mollecular Biology and has told me dozens of stories about PHD's fudging their results so that they can maintain their grants. Big Gov't gives them money to prove certain things for them, so inevitably, they need to prove those things to keep getting the money.
This happens wherever people's livelihood depends on Government Grants. Invariably, someone will end up committing fraud to keep getting the grants.
I love the irony in these CRU scientists refusing to release their data because "all they want to do is prove it wrong". Where would we be if Newton, Galileo, Einstein and others had felt that way. Methinks they doth protest too much. Besides, How the hell can you build a climate model without allowing for variations in the solar output??? How can you embed the data in the code. That is the number one rule for coders. Keep the code and data separate. If the data changes, the code can still run a new set of data. These huge gaps in logic keep me a skeptic.
By definition. Whose definition? What is it in fact? Does anyone have a definitive answer for that? If you subscribe to the "Many Worlds" view or believe that strings originate from outside our universe, or one of any number of other theories, you could believe that it may not be a closed system. Last I checked, no one had definitively cracked the answers to all the mysteries of the universe, so I'd say we don't know for sure.
I also need to point out that most definitions of Entropy refer to closed systems. We do not know yet whether the universe is a closed system or an open one. That would make a huge difference.
'Hilarious' is you creating more entropy with that post than most people do in an entire lifetime. You have an incomplete understanding of entropy as well as singularities. Including, not least of all, the English language. Anything that removes usable, ordered energy from the universe, contributes to entropy. Entropy is a decrease in something else, not an entity in its own right. You treat it like phlogiston. Heat is not the absence of cold. Cold is the absence of heat. As far as we know NOW, ordered matter and ordered energy tied up in a black hole are effectively unavailable. If it would cost more to extract them from a black hole than what we could extract from them after being extracted from the black hole, entropy is increased. Check your rectal entropy thermometer to make sure.
I think that Entropy is not purely about randomness, although that is a part of it. It is also energy in an "unusable" state. (Like where it would cost more energy to extract energy from it, so it is not worth wasting the energy to extract it in the first place) Since matter = energy, all the matter tied up in black holes is irretrievable and hence, unusable. At least as far as we know now. A lot of these depend on our current level of understanding, so I expect they will change as we learn more.
Well, at least until they find out they were off by 100X magnitude on some other measurement. That's the great thing about science, it's always changing based on new evidence and observations. The trick is to not get pigeon-holed into believing that any certain "current" opinion is absolute. The more we learn, the less, it seems, we knew.
Actually, all Palin comments should be marked as "offtopic". Whoever modded me down, actually made my point. Negative comments are modded "funny" but an attempt to draw attention to the "blathering masses" gets offtopic? Keith Olberman, was that you?
Could this be some sort of plant or microorganism colony that was "released" or "displaced" by the recent earthquake? Or did it get there way too fast to be related to that. Not up on my sea current speed charts lately.
You have a point sir. It seems more like the "liberal atention whores" can not stop injecting her into any and all unrelated subjects.
Oh, right, Alaska. If it was off of Hawaii, I guess I could bring up the fact that this blob has something in common with the president. Neither one of them has a valid US birth certificate.
But there wasn't one sighted near Hawaii, so I can't make that remark.
Yellow stars? Nah... Just put on t-shirts that say "I believe Xenu murdered millions with atomic weapons inside of Earth's volcanos and the spirits of those murdered are causing all our problems now!"
Here is a hypothetical for you: Draw a stick figure sodomizing another stick figure. Who decides if one is a child and the drawing is therefore child porn? If you imagined even for a second that one was a child, are you guilty and what are you guilty of? The thought police are coming for you...
Stop putting words in my mouth, moron. What I said is what I said. Period. It means simply, "I have not met one single person who is against gay marriage who is against it because they believe it will weaken their marriage."
Lots of people I know are against it for illogical, bigotted reasons. I know some who just hate "gays". I don't really give a damn either way, but for parity's sake: if the gov't is gonna offer secular unions to some people, they should give them to all people. Three way unions, hetero unions, famillial unions. They would all just be contracts anyway...
I have never set foot on the moon.
(Should I be worrying that in your paranoid frenzy, you will take that to mean that I believe that the moon doesn't exist? You seem to be looking for (and finding) arguments that aren't really there and interpreting statements to mean more than they say. Pretty paranoid to me. Me, I'd rather relax.)
I never said the Gov't should decide. All I mean is I am in favor of "civil unions" as long as anyone can claim one. Why shouldn't two hetero people be able to get one as well? Two siblings who live together could consolidate things legally under this sort of arrangement. I want the Gov't to decide very little in anyone's life.
The arguement that Marriage is a sacred contract was thrown out the window long ago imho. When people were able to just go to city hall and get a piece of paper that made them husband and wife legally. None of those are "sacred", they are gov't sanctioned civil unions. You want sacred, get married in a church by a priest.
That's an awfully paranoid response from someone criticizing "tin-foil hats". That tin-foil helmet you are wearing suddenly doesn't count?
I do not know one single person against legalizing gay-marriage who thinks that gay marriage will weaken their marriage. As far as I can discern, that argument is an artificial construct created by liberals to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Me, I say, everyone should be allowed to get married. They can pay the marriage tax penalties like the rest of us. In fact, they should tax any couples who cohabit for more than a year the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
Canada is the reason we have her, but Sony gave her a recording contract.
Add to that their hiring/interviewing procedure. 7 layers of interviews, psychological profiling. The psychological exam consisted of inane questions that all required binary responses. Only one that sticks in my mind still is "Daydreaming is good" Yes or no? Well, if you are operating heavy construction machinery, daydreaming is bad. On Sunday afternoon in your hammock, it is good.
After sufferring through hundreds of these assinine questions, I didn't hear back from them for several weeks (back in the early 90's), I called and the HR schlub told me that I had "failed the psychological test". I took this as a point of pride. Obviously, I was not the type of drone they preferred. I also decided that any company who hires based on that was not worth my money. I have chuckled as all of your above points have come to light over the past few decades and confirmed that I had made a sound choice.
Maybe Causation causes Correlation now?
I would put money on it being the other way around.
Depression has been around much longer than teh intarnets.
Hot dogs and buns, anyone?
Seriously, Cable and satellite have you paying a month ahead for service. Cell service doesn't charge you per use anymore, you generally pay for a package for a specified time frame. They all earn interest on your money. Anything that gives you a rebate instead of just lowering the price, they make interest. Hell, employers who give you a raise in June, but you don't get the money until October are doing it too.
Move along... no conspiracy here, just old, well established business practices. You'd sit on the money and take interest too.
Yeah, I get that sort of thing a lot too. Drives me nuts. Lemmings believe you must be a lemming too. It's what lemmings do.
People have this need to pigeon-hole everything. Whatever happened to individuals? Why does everyone try to group us?
We can agree and disagree with different ideas without actually subscribing to any group. Try it sometime, you little drones!
That was my problem with Brutal Legend. After playing the demo, I decided against picking it up because it can't decide what it wants to be when it grows up. Driving game, brawling game, RTS. Different controls for each type, different types of health for all types. Way more than I want to keep track of. I'll stick with something simple, like Oblivion...
Did I say "exclusively"? Did I say "more often"? Are you saying this DOES NOT happen?
Stop reading your own agenda into my post, please.
I merely stated "Government Grants" bacause that is the only type my spouse has experience with, and we are also talking about Government funded Climate research in this post.
Calm down before you get an aneurysm. I'm sure it happens in other areas too.
If I said "The sun shines on Earth" are you going to take that to mean I don't believe it shines on Mars?
Wow, I'm embarassed I had to spell this out to you all.
Did I say "exclusively"? Did I say "more often"? Are you saying this DOES NOT happen?
Stop reading your own agenda into my post, please.
I merely stated "Government Grants" bacause that is the only type my spouse has experience with, and we are also talking about Government funded Climate research in this post.
Calm down before you get an aneurysm. I'm sure it happens in other areas too.
If I said "The sun shines on Earth" are you going to take that to mean I don't believe it shines on Mars?
If you pay me tons of money, I will certify you so that your opinion will be valid too. I can also teach you how to audit your thetans and tell you about Xenu...
That's about the size of it, pal.
This isn't only happening in Climate science. My wife works in Mollecular Biology and has told me dozens of stories about PHD's fudging their results so that they can maintain their grants. Big Gov't gives them money to prove certain things for them, so inevitably, they need to prove those things to keep getting the money.
This happens wherever people's livelihood depends on Government Grants. Invariably, someone will end up committing fraud to keep getting the grants.
I love the irony in these CRU scientists refusing to release their data because "all they want to do is prove it wrong". Where would we be if Newton, Galileo, Einstein and others had felt that way. Methinks they doth protest too much. Besides, How the hell can you build a climate model without allowing for variations in the solar output??? How can you embed the data in the code. That is the number one rule for coders. Keep the code and data separate. If the data changes, the code can still run a new set of data. These huge gaps in logic keep me a skeptic.
By definition. Whose definition? What is it in fact? Does anyone have a definitive answer for that? If you subscribe to the "Many Worlds" view or believe that strings originate from outside our universe, or one of any number of other theories, you could believe that it may not be a closed system. Last I checked, no one had definitively cracked the answers to all the mysteries of the universe, so I'd say we don't know for sure.
I also need to point out that most definitions of Entropy refer to closed systems. We do not know yet whether the universe is a closed system or an open one. That would make a huge difference.
'Hilarious' is you creating more entropy with that post than most people do in an entire lifetime. You have an incomplete understanding of entropy as well as singularities. Including, not least of all, the English language. Anything that removes usable, ordered energy from the universe, contributes to entropy. Entropy is a decrease in something else, not an entity in its own right. You treat it like phlogiston. Heat is not the absence of cold. Cold is the absence of heat. As far as we know NOW, ordered matter and ordered energy tied up in a black hole are effectively unavailable. If it would cost more to extract them from a black hole than what we could extract from them after being extracted from the black hole, entropy is increased. Check your rectal entropy thermometer to make sure.
I think that Entropy is not purely about randomness, although that is a part of it. It is also energy in an "unusable" state. (Like where it would cost more energy to extract energy from it, so it is not worth wasting the energy to extract it in the first place) Since matter = energy, all the matter tied up in black holes is irretrievable and hence, unusable. At least as far as we know now. A lot of these depend on our current level of understanding, so I expect they will change as we learn more.
Well, at least until they find out they were off by 100X magnitude on some other measurement. That's the great thing about science, it's always changing based on new evidence and observations. The trick is to not get pigeon-holed into believing that any certain "current" opinion is absolute. The more we learn, the less, it seems, we knew.
Actually, all Palin comments should be marked as "offtopic". Whoever modded me down, actually made my point. Negative comments are modded "funny" but an attempt to draw attention to the "blathering masses" gets offtopic? Keith Olberman, was that you?
Could this be some sort of plant or microorganism colony that was "released" or "displaced" by the recent earthquake? Or did it get there way too fast to be related to that. Not up on my sea current speed charts lately.
Blobfest? Was Rendell in town again?
Oh. That Blob.
You have a point sir. It seems more like the "liberal atention whores" can not stop injecting her into any and all unrelated subjects.
Oh, right, Alaska. If it was off of Hawaii, I guess I could bring up the fact that this blob has something in common with the president. Neither one of them has a valid US birth certificate.
But there wasn't one sighted near Hawaii, so I can't make that remark.
Yellow stars? Nah... Just put on t-shirts that say "I believe Xenu murdered millions with atomic weapons inside of Earth's volcanos and the spirits of those murdered are causing all our problems now!"
Here is a hypothetical for you:
Draw a stick figure sodomizing another stick figure. Who decides if one is a child and the drawing is therefore child porn? If you imagined even for a second that one was a child, are you guilty and what are you guilty of?
The thought police are coming for you...
I always wanted to see how Pac-man would look with gore added... Space Invaders too. What about Super Mario?
Stop putting words in my mouth, moron. What I said is what I said. Period. It means simply, "I have not met one single person who is against gay marriage who is against it because they believe it will weaken their marriage."
Lots of people I know are against it for illogical, bigotted reasons. I know some who just hate "gays". I don't really give a damn either way, but for parity's sake: if the gov't is gonna offer secular unions to some people, they should give them to all people. Three way unions, hetero unions, famillial unions. They would all just be contracts anyway...
I have never set foot on the moon.
(Should I be worrying that in your paranoid frenzy, you will take that to mean that I believe that the moon doesn't exist? You seem to be looking for (and finding) arguments that aren't really there and interpreting statements to mean more than they say. Pretty paranoid to me. Me, I'd rather relax.)
I never said the Gov't should decide. All I mean is I am in favor of "civil unions" as long as anyone can claim one. Why shouldn't two hetero people be able to get one as well? Two siblings who live together could consolidate things legally under this sort of arrangement. I want the Gov't to decide very little in anyone's life.
The arguement that Marriage is a sacred contract was thrown out the window long ago imho. When people were able to just go to city hall and get a piece of paper that made them husband and wife legally. None of those are "sacred", they are gov't sanctioned civil unions. You want sacred, get married in a church by a priest.
That's an awfully paranoid response from someone criticizing "tin-foil hats". That tin-foil helmet you are wearing suddenly doesn't count?
I do not know one single person against legalizing gay-marriage who thinks that gay marriage will weaken their marriage. As far as I can discern, that argument is an artificial construct created by liberals to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Me, I say, everyone should be allowed to get married. They can pay the marriage tax penalties like the rest of us. In fact, they should tax any couples who cohabit for more than a year the same way.