I've never heard of Marshmallow Peeps. Are they our secret masters?
I've seen them on TV.
See, this is like when people in the states say "World series", they mean "United states of America series", or when they elect the "leader of the free world", they really mean "the leader of the United states of America". When a magazine decides to publish a collection of the prettiest people in hollywood, they call them the most beautifull people in the world. Or when they say "America" and they exclude two thirds of North America, as well as all of South America to only mean "United states of America".
Given a lot of time, how do fish start to crawl out of the water just because they catch insects this way?
They don't, land animals do not descend directly from eels (eeles don't have a jaw).
However, just look in the science section, they have a missing link of a legged fish. Not to mention the living fishies what got leg-like fins (aroud australia I think). They mostly use them to hang on to rocks IIRC.
I mean, to go from "fin to swim" to "legs to crawl" isn't hard to picture (tougher fins). The fish that breathe in air from their mouth to their swim bladders when their rivers dry up and go stagnant, THOSE I find immensly fascinating (there's some in the Amazon river). Because going from "pocket of air to tweak buyancy" to "pocket of air to exchange O2 and CO2" is a less obvious move to me.
There was a time when European countries cared about their soverignty. I think you guys are due for another war
I'm in europe now? Damn... how the hell did that happen?
How can we sign warcrimes treaties that would either reclasify past actions as warcrimes retroactively, or allow for politically motivated, junk prosecutions?
Apparently by requiring that U.S. citizens e above the law. I'm not kidding here, this is precisely what the U.S. position was: War crime tribunal? Ok, if we're immune.
That's not because of "politically motivated blahblablah", that's a clear "we intend to commit warcrimes, but we don't mind if no one else is allowed to".
BTW, it's physically impossible for even just China to live at the US standard of living: There's literally not enough metal to build the required number of cars. So, you would rather have the whole world live in semi-poverty?
No car means semi-povrety?
Your worldview seems quite well thought out, please enlighten the masses with our shining opinions. Go on! Take a soap box, and preach, brother, PREACH!
Navigator v3 and 4 were not that great compared to IE v3 and 4. Also, after around v4.5, Netscape didn't release a new version of the browser for about two or three years, while IE's development progressed in spades in comparison.
You seem to remember this better than me. Can you tell me which version of Netscape it was that wouldn' let me open a web page before I told it my name, adress, shoe size and pledged my first born to it?
That was the last version I *tried* to use. I didn't use it, I even went to i.e. for a while. I don't know what came over them, but instead of adding features or tweaking the interfacve, they went with invading my privacy. That was not the smartest move to make.
How naive. You're betting on the good will of a crackpot communist country, and a country that refuses to sign the nuke proliferation treaty. They don't care about carbon, they're just happy to be able to force us to give them jobs.
What about a crackpot capitalist country that refuses to sign treaties on anti-personnel mines, war crimes, and CO2 emissions? They don't care about carbon, they're just happy to force others to give them cheap labour.
whereas the US may have to spend a substantial amount more to reduce emissions the same amount. But, the US would be required to, and the developing nations would not.
Which is perfectly rational. The develloping countries have some catching up to do, wheras the U.S. has a leg up and has already polluted more than any other nation.
The treaty appears unfair to the U.S. in the fact that it takes into account the U.S.'s unfai avantage. Everyone who opposes it with "waah, waaah, it's not fair! India doesn't have to pollute less!" sounds like a very self-centered egotistical crybaby.
US: 6747 Mtons EU: 4050 Mtons China: 3650 Mtons India: 1228 Mtons Ah, ok, so, I'm not really sure what your definition of fraction is... but I'm going to go ahead and call 3650/4050, roughly 90%, which is the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by the EU vs China.
And they're just above 50% of the U.S... Oh! Oh! Do them on a per capita!
the US refuses to cut levels (translation: "refuses to devolve our economy") precisely because the absurd Kyoto Protocol would put no such restrictions on developing nations such as China and India. They could grow
And only the U.S. was annointed by GOD to grow!
It's ABSURD to give other countries a fair opportunity to grow out of their third world status!
I dunno about ancient toucans, but there's plenty of lesser known toucans with smaller, less colourfull beaks.
Serious question for any evolution scientists out there: How come we're always just looking for the "missing link" for the human species?
Simple: It's what interests people. There's tons of research on all kinds of less media-worthy subjects. It's not that they aren't looking, it's just that you aren't being told about it.
Yeah, they hate Freedom! OR, Amnesty International has an anti-'unjust detention' slant, and the U.S. happens to have fallen in the 'bad guys' camp on this issue. That would of course mean that U.S. isn't magically perfect and incapable of wrong-doing, which is obviously an insane position to take. Obviously, anyone who criticises the U.S. actions has an irrational bias!
if we didn't force feed people, we'd be accused of letting them starve to death.
Yes, you should ignore that. We're not talking politics, we're talking science.
One does not exclude the other. Science isn't above being manipulated for political reasons.
Ignoring research simply because you don't like the messenger is unscientific, ignorant, and narrow minded.
Accepting research blindly no matter who delivers it is unscientific, ignorant and narrow minded.
Again: The tobacco companies were FULL of research proving their poisons were harmless. They had also done research that proved they were deadly, but they COVERED THOSE UP. When there are millions, or billions of dollars in play, it's FREAKIN RETARDED to just assume that the people in the lab coats are all equally just and honest.
We're back to the "who's money are they looking after?" question here. Of your 3 links, two are right-wing pro-big-oil sources, and one is a goverment agency under the Bush "no-bid contracts to Halliburton" administration.
What I meant by idiot is the "common sense" view that a big hunk of metal is safer. Yes, if you hit a smaller car, the people in the smaller car have a higher chance of being killed by your penis-size compensator, but if both hit a brick wall, I'd rather be in the small car. The small car will die, I will live.
Real believers in global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refute those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack against how they are funded.
Are you saying we should ignore the fact that they are paid by people who make billions from the status quo when they come up with reasons to prolong the status quo?
I'm not a "real believer", I believe it because there's a general concensus in the scientific community, because as far as I understand it it holds true (the more you release greenhouse gasses, the more greenhouse effect you get, makes sense), AND because the people who deny it tend to be paid by those who stand to loose money from policy changes: Those people are not credible sources, it's like taking a defense lawyer's word that his client is innoncent. DUH, he's PAID to say that!
People think that since after a collision, the big inneficient car looks better than the crumpled up efficient car, that means they are safer in the big car. Those people are idiots. The efficient car crumples, the inefficient car crumples its passengers. Something's got to give in the crash, either your car, or your bones.
I'd be willing to give my copy of GTA3 to a Senator or Representative in the hopes that it would change their minds about smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol
Yeah, they should really cut that out. Have you seen the laws they're passing these days?
the only possible causes for the differences in the experimental group are the experiment itself or randomness.
Or bias in the group's selection. Or the person assigned to complete the task with them wasn't as cooperative with this group (expecting them to be more violent). Or the question were designed to get different answers based on these specific games. Or they purposefully misinterpret the data. Or whatever else could have tainted the scientific process. Science is only ever as good as the scientist and his instruments. They're measuring people's minds here: The scientist is the instrument... that doesn't make it an exact science now, does it?
The fact that they're linking GTA to the devil's weed could susggest a bias in the study. There's a group of people who have been dedicated to keeping the status quo towards certain drugs, and they've historically not been on the same side as science, even though they had people in lab coats support their position. Videogames give you a more relaxed attitude towards rugs and alcohol... that's a funny one. It's like they're falling back on their old prohibition propaganda techniques. They worked before, they'll work again!
Anyway, in two months, there will be a study claiming the exact opposite, that the Simpsons game gives kids a relaxed attitude about drinking refreshing, ice cold Duff beer. So don't get to attached to this one.
I can see how their impressive revenue is relevant, but how is the fact that they provide their horrible crap of a shitty lame ass product on many platform a sign of relevance?
p.s. I hate Real and I wish they'd die. In a fire.
Slashdot Mirror
the "Walking Catfish" can "walk" from pond to pond in search of better living conditions.
I wonder if this guy can do it too, from the video it only seems to do a grab and retreat without ever completely leaving the water.
I've never heard of Marshmallow Peeps. Are they our secret masters?
I've seen them on TV.
See, this is like when people in the states say "World series", they mean "United states of America series", or when they elect the "leader of the free world", they really mean "the leader of the United states of America".
When a magazine decides to publish a collection of the prettiest people in hollywood, they call them the most beautifull people in the world.
Or when they say "America" and they exclude two thirds of North America, as well as all of South America to only mean "United states of America".
It's the result of a very limited world view.
Given a lot of time, how do fish start to crawl out of the water just because they catch insects this way?
They don't, land animals do not descend directly from eels (eeles don't have a jaw).
However, just look in the science section, they have a missing link of a legged fish.
Not to mention the living fishies what got leg-like fins (aroud australia I think). They mostly use them to hang on to rocks IIRC.
I mean, to go from "fin to swim" to "legs to crawl" isn't hard to picture (tougher fins). The fish that breathe in air from their mouth to their swim bladders when their rivers dry up and go stagnant, THOSE I find immensly fascinating (there's some in the Amazon river). Because going from "pocket of air to tweak buyancy" to "pocket of air to exchange O2 and CO2" is a less obvious move to me.
Somebody clarify how this is news.
/. : )
It's not news, but no matter, it's stuff that's good enough for
There was a time when European countries cared about their soverignty. I think you guys are due for another war
I'm in europe now? Damn... how the hell did that happen?
How can we sign warcrimes treaties that would either reclasify past actions as warcrimes retroactively, or allow for politically motivated, junk prosecutions?
Apparently by requiring that U.S. citizens e above the law.
I'm not kidding here, this is precisely what the U.S. position was: War crime tribunal? Ok, if we're immune.
That's not because of "politically motivated blahblablah", that's a clear "we intend to commit warcrimes, but we don't mind if no one else is allowed to".
BTW, it's physically impossible for even just China to live at the US standard of living: There's literally not enough metal to build the required number of cars. So, you would rather have the whole world live in semi-poverty?
No car means semi-povrety?
Your worldview seems quite well thought out, please enlighten the masses with our shining opinions. Go on! Take a soap box, and preach, brother, PREACH!
Navigator v3 and 4 were not that great compared to IE v3 and 4.
Also, after around v4.5, Netscape didn't release a new version of the browser for about two or three years, while IE's development progressed in spades in comparison.
You seem to remember this better than me. Can you tell me which version of Netscape it was that wouldn' let me open a web page before I told it my name, adress, shoe size and pledged my first born to it?
That was the last version I *tried* to use. I didn't use it, I even went to i.e. for a while. I don't know what came over them, but instead of adding features or tweaking the interfacve, they went with invading my privacy. That was not the smartest move to make.
I'm really sick of people attacking IE.
Me too, that's why I never use it.
find out which nation help the economy of the world
Haha, that's funny!
"Help"... wheee, you kill me.
"I'm taking all your stuff, to HELP you!" Hahaha...ah, mercy!
How naive. You're betting on the good will of a crackpot communist country, and a country that refuses to sign the nuke proliferation treaty. They don't care about carbon, they're just happy to be able to force us to give them jobs.
What about a crackpot capitalist country that refuses to sign treaties on anti-personnel mines, war crimes, and CO2 emissions?
They don't care about carbon, they're just happy to force others to give them cheap labour.
whereas the US may have to spend a substantial amount more to reduce emissions the same amount. But, the US would be required to, and the developing nations would not.
Which is perfectly rational. The develloping countries have some catching up to do, wheras the U.S. has a leg up and has already polluted more than any other nation.
The treaty appears unfair to the U.S. in the fact that it takes into account the U.S.'s unfai avantage. Everyone who opposes it with "waah, waaah, it's not fair! India doesn't have to pollute less!" sounds like a very self-centered egotistical crybaby.
US: 6747 Mtons
EU: 4050 Mtons
China: 3650 Mtons
India: 1228 Mtons
Ah, ok, so, I'm not really sure what your definition of fraction is... but I'm going to go ahead and call 3650/4050, roughly 90%, which is the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by the EU vs China.
And they're just above 50% of the U.S... Oh! Oh! Do them on a per capita!
THAT will be fun.
the US refuses to cut levels (translation: "refuses to devolve our economy") precisely because the absurd Kyoto Protocol would put no such restrictions on developing nations such as China and India. They could grow
And only the U.S. was annointed by GOD to grow!
It's ABSURD to give other countries a fair opportunity to grow out of their third world status!
Or is there a type of ancient toucan that has a beak that's not quite as big and not quite as colorful as the ones we see today?
Here you go.
I dunno about ancient toucans, but there's plenty of lesser known toucans with smaller, less colourfull beaks.
Serious question for any evolution scientists out there: How come we're always just looking for the "missing link" for the human species?
Simple: It's what interests people. There's tons of research on all kinds of less media-worthy subjects. It's not that they aren't looking, it's just that you aren't being told about it.
"to be used on all new UbiSoft games"
That should read "to be used on the next Ubisoft Games".
"les tout prochains" means "the very next". "All new" would have been "tous les prochains".
Amnesty International has an anti-US slant
Yeah, they hate Freedom!
OR, Amnesty International has an anti-'unjust detention' slant, and the U.S. happens to have fallen in the 'bad guys' camp on this issue. That would of course mean that U.S. isn't magically perfect and incapable of wrong-doing, which is obviously an insane position to take. Obviously, anyone who criticises the U.S. actions has an irrational bias!
if we didn't force feed people, we'd be accused of letting them starve to death.
One word: Gandhi .
Yes, you should ignore that. We're not talking politics, we're talking science.
One does not exclude the other. Science isn't above being manipulated for political reasons.
Ignoring research simply because you don't like the messenger is unscientific, ignorant, and narrow minded.
Accepting research blindly no matter who delivers it is unscientific, ignorant and narrow minded.
Again: The tobacco companies were FULL of research proving their poisons were harmless. They had also done research that proved they were deadly, but they COVERED THOSE UP. When there are millions, or billions of dollars in play, it's FREAKIN RETARDED to just assume that the people in the lab coats are all equally just and honest.
Idiots, or dishonest.
We're back to the "who's money are they looking after?" question here. Of your 3 links, two are right-wing pro-big-oil sources, and one is a goverment agency under the Bush "no-bid contracts to Halliburton" administration.
What I meant by idiot is the "common sense" view that a big hunk of metal is safer. Yes, if you hit a smaller car, the people in the smaller car have a higher chance of being killed by your penis-size compensator, but if both hit a brick wall, I'd rather be in the small car. The small car will die, I will live.
Real believers in global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refute those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack against how they are funded.
Are you saying we should ignore the fact that they are paid by people who make billions from the status quo when they come up with reasons to prolong the status quo?
I'm not a "real believer", I believe it because there's a general concensus in the scientific community, because as far as I understand it it holds true (the more you release greenhouse gasses, the more greenhouse effect you get, makes sense), AND because the people who deny it tend to be paid by those who stand to loose money from policy changes: Those people are not credible sources, it's like taking a defense lawyer's word that his client is innoncent. DUH, he's PAID to say that!
"why not make cars more fuel efficient?" Well, you end up making them less safe in collisions, too.
That's just not true.
People think that since after a collision, the big inneficient car looks better than the crumpled up efficient car, that means they are safer in the big car. Those people are idiots. The efficient car crumples, the inefficient car crumples its passengers. Something's got to give in the crash, either your car, or your bones.
I'd be willing to give my copy of GTA3 to a Senator or Representative in the hopes that it would change their minds about smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol
Yeah, they should really cut that out. Have you seen the laws they're passing these days?
the Waltz (no kidding, look it up!)
Ankles everywhere! It's like a modern day Ghomorrah!
But, they were right you know, first it was the waltz, then blues, swing jazz, rock and roll, and now it's the Black Eyed Peas and "My Humps".
I'm not sure how I feel about that...
If you spun this study the other way, it'd be saying "gamers more permissive, less likely to force their views on other people".
Actually they had 2 groups playing car games. They just had different games.
I dig the rest of what you said though, just, that bit is off : )
the only possible causes for the differences in the experimental group are the experiment itself or randomness.
Or bias in the group's selection. Or the person assigned to complete the task with them wasn't as cooperative with this group (expecting them to be more violent). Or the question were designed to get different answers based on these specific games. Or they purposefully misinterpret the data. Or whatever else could have tainted the scientific process. Science is only ever as good as the scientist and his instruments. They're measuring people's minds here: The scientist is the instrument... that doesn't make it an exact science now, does it?
The fact that they're linking GTA to the devil's weed could susggest a bias in the study. There's a group of people who have been dedicated to keeping the status quo towards certain drugs, and they've historically not been on the same side as science, even though they had people in lab coats support their position.
Videogames give you a more relaxed attitude towards rugs and alcohol... that's a funny one. It's like they're falling back on their old prohibition propaganda techniques. They worked before, they'll work again!
Anyway, in two months, there will be a study claiming the exact opposite, that the Simpsons game gives kids a relaxed attitude about drinking refreshing, ice cold Duff beer.
So don't get to attached to this one.
I can see how their impressive revenue is relevant, but how is the fact that they provide their horrible crap of a shitty lame ass product on many platform a sign of relevance?
p.s. I hate Real and I wish they'd die. In a fire.
If it's a fight between Linux and Real, please GOD let Linux win!