Usually they cycle the first few seconds while doing the intro and/or cut off the opening instrumentals and/or they'll leave off the last part of the song such as closing instrumentals or repeating closing lyrics. Then there are the shortened, made-for-radio mixes...
There are some differences. I've never heard a song played completely, without interruptions, from beginning to end on the radio. There is also the issue of degradation, but I think that's entirely a technological issue, not a copyright one. I don't know if songs aren't played completely for copyright reasons, but it's still there.
Hence my curiosity about whether treatment has reduced the mortality rate. For instance, it doesn't have much affect on the common cold, but it does for ebola. Having read more, if they have to use respirators, then I'd guess it does, and the question becomes, "how much"?
The point is, the internet is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a guarantor of free information, nor does it's existence in a country equate to unfettered access. Hence, it has no correlation with freedom of information. OTOH, it does have the potential to provide more data and allow it's users to make their own informed opinions, but only if it is free and unfettered, in which case you already have freedom...
I can accept the quarantine, given a fairly high mortality rate and a significant mortality rate, but why webcams? It's bad in so many ways: invasion of privacy, huge monitoring costs (need >1 webcam per quarantined house), human error. Why not use the tracking device, with automated alert if they go out of range. If it can be set to a reasonable distance that the quarantine is still effective (or at least as effective as it has been so far), then at least some gov. official doesn't have to be subjected to watching someone sit at home scratching his ass all day...
It's only 4% because people are acting quickly to try and stop it from spreading.
What bunk! It's people like you who raise the fear factor for this disease. If we limit the disease to 25 people, and one dies, well that's 4%. If 25,000 get it, and 1,000 die, what do you know, it's still 4%. Limiting the spread of the disease reduces the absolute number of deaths, not the percentage mortality, which is still not a bad thing. What I'm curious about is if better treatment facilities reduces the mortality rate. That's far more important to me.
Like some others have said, how would YOU feel if someone you knew was one of those 4%. I think your knee would jerk pretty high.
My knee would jerk pretty high, and especially given the unknown vector, I would be limiting my contact with other people. If thery're quarantining people, and it's still spreading, that indicates that we don't know enough for quarantining the sick to be 100% effective. Not being sick myself (probably), I'd reduce my exposure risk if I was worried about getting it.
How does having an internet infrastructure improve the odds of freedom of information? China has quite the infastructure, judging by all the spammers, yet they don't have freedom of information. Also, the US had freedom of information (to one degree or other) before computers, although they didn't have as much knowledge.
Your opinions about that quote notwithstanding, the US's track record in taking the initiative to clean up the world's (and their own) messes has been terrible. For example, Nicaragua, Iran, Osama bin Laden, to Saddam himself (and that's without research). I find it ironic that the two bigest thorns in the collective US's side for the last 12 years were both created by them. No, I don't count the whole Yugoslavia mess a thorn in the US's side, although that didn't mitigate the risk for US soldiers in the field. Given that stellar pedigree, what makes you think Bush and his aides, who IMO haven't shown a lot of forethought to this point, will do better than their predecessors?
That's why I think it would be better for them to hand over that task to the UN. Then they can say, "Yes, it was our mess and we cleaned it up. Now, we'll leave it to an impartial (yeah, right) body to decide how best to go from here." Then no one can say it was for purely economical reasons that they attacked Iraq (no say where the oil goes), or that they're empire-building. The other "benefit" to having the UN do the job of selecting the new government is that the bigger the committee selected for a task, the more mediocre the product. And two of the "benefits" of a mediocre government is that they're too busy trying to find their ass with both hands to oppress their people, and they tend to be less of a threat to their neighbors (too much talking about who/if they should go to war than actual fighting).
On a side note, Einstein's idead about Quantum Physics may have been flawed but, just like Newton and Euclid, he built the foundation that displayed it's shortcomings.
If I'm correct, you're in the same time zone, so it becomes more of a culture issue than a telecommute issue. If they expect you to work outside of 8am - 6pm, then you can expect calls outside that time range, too. If not, who else would typically be working those hours, anyway? If you are worried, maybe you should get a second phone line (for business calls) and turn off the ringer when you're not working, or have the ringer turned down so you can't hear it outside of your office.
Just do that search 2 or 3 times a day. I'm sure that will stop them faster than anything Google can do...visions of government employees running around like ants at a kicked-in nest...
Consider this example: Some wacky hillbilly suddenly decides that, if you use the road that happens to pass through one of his plots of land, you, your wife, your car, and all your belongings are suddenly his to do as he sees fit, and thus proceeds to rob you blind.
If you're going to secretly quote Simpsons, you'll have to do better than that. Of course, the episode you're refering to (you were quoting Simpsons, right - this is/.) is the one where a cult leader tries to escape with the loot in a 'ufo' that's really a pedal-powered plane, and crashes on Cletus's house. Cult Leader: "You don't mind if I leave now, do you?" Cletus [cocking shotgun]: "Sure can, but not with my money..."
Now tell me, which is lazier - buying a bar fridge and putting it within arms reach of your desk, and stocking it with any number of varieties of pop; or running hose and machinery through your house for a limited number of selections? Of course, if all you drink is your caffienated beverage of choice, then the second half of the question is moot...
Well, that's a mighty high horse you have there. Maybe you didn't hear, but Saddam was put in power by the US government. Now that their dog has gone rabid, they want to put him down. Kudos to them for starting a war to 'fix' their previous screw-ups.
And, nothing to gain?!?! You know they have oil there, right? Couple that with the stand the US has taken, 'since we're taking Saddam out, we should get to decide who gets in'. Any bets that they'd prefer a government that was sympathetic to them? That's just human nature. Of course, given their track record in the Mid-East, I doubt it'll last long.
So, next time you try to assign lofty goals to the whole thing in the Mid-East right now, remember who funded the Saddam the tyrant, and Osamam the terrorist, and all the collateral damage the citizens get to bear for the sake of the US's foreign policy. And hurrah for the US - the country has finally grown up and can now clain to have started a war, because, not matter what Bush said, there was no connection between Iraq and any current hostilities, conventional or otherwise. The whole WMD thing looks more like a crock of shit by the day - have they found ANY indications of them in their traipse across 3/4 of the country? Is Saddam keeing them all stockpiled in his home in Baghdad? Besides, Pakistan has NUKES, and all the US did was say 'tut tut'.
All that said, I think Saddam is a monster (courtesy of the US) and should be taken out. BUT, policy and procedure, no matter how distasteful, would have left the US on the high ground, which is a difficult proposition right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually they cycle the first few seconds while doing the intro and/or cut off the opening instrumentals and/or they'll leave off the last part of the song such as closing instrumentals or repeating closing lyrics. Then there are the shortened, made-for-radio mixes...
There are some differences. I've never heard a song played completely, without interruptions, from beginning to end on the radio. There is also the issue of degradation, but I think that's entirely a technological issue, not a copyright one. I don't know if songs aren't played completely for copyright reasons, but it's still there.
Hence my curiosity about whether treatment has reduced the mortality rate. For instance, it doesn't have much affect on the common cold, but it does for ebola. Having read more, if they have to use respirators, then I'd guess it does, and the question becomes, "how much"?
Sorry, I used mortality twice. I meant martality rate and risk of infection...
...given a fairly high mortality rate and a significant infection rate...
The point is, the internet is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a guarantor of free information, nor does it's existence in a country equate to unfettered access. Hence, it has no correlation with freedom of information. OTOH, it does have the potential to provide more data and allow it's users to make their own informed opinions, but only if it is free and unfettered, in which case you already have freedom...
Still more reasons why this is such a bad idea!!
I can accept the quarantine, given a fairly high mortality rate and a significant mortality rate, but why webcams? It's bad in so many ways: invasion of privacy, huge monitoring costs (need >1 webcam per quarantined house), human error. Why not use the tracking device, with automated alert if they go out of range. If it can be set to a reasonable distance that the quarantine is still effective (or at least as effective as it has been so far), then at least some gov. official doesn't have to be subjected to watching someone sit at home scratching his ass all day...
It's only 4% because people are acting quickly to try and stop it from spreading.
What bunk! It's people like you who raise the fear factor for this disease. If we limit the disease to 25 people, and one dies, well that's 4%. If 25,000 get it, and 1,000 die, what do you know, it's still 4%. Limiting the spread of the disease reduces the absolute number of deaths, not the percentage mortality, which is still not a bad thing. What I'm curious about is if better treatment facilities reduces the mortality rate. That's far more important to me.
Like some others have said, how would YOU feel if someone you knew was one of those 4%. I think your knee would jerk pretty high.
My knee would jerk pretty high, and especially given the unknown vector, I would be limiting my contact with other people. If thery're quarantining people, and it's still spreading, that indicates that we don't know enough for quarantining the sick to be 100% effective. Not being sick myself (probably), I'd reduce my exposure risk if I was worried about getting it.
A Gaping Security Hole(R)(TM) in Microsoft
I doubt Microsoft would intentionally break their over version of Java.
No, but that statement holds true for their OS, as well.
How does having an internet infrastructure improve the odds of freedom of information? China has quite the infastructure, judging by all the spammers, yet they don't have freedom of information. Also, the US had freedom of information (to one degree or other) before computers, although they didn't have as much knowledge.
Your opinions about that quote notwithstanding, the US's track record in taking the initiative to clean up the world's (and their own) messes has been terrible. For example, Nicaragua, Iran, Osama bin Laden, to Saddam himself (and that's without research). I find it ironic that the two bigest thorns in the collective US's side for the last 12 years were both created by them. No, I don't count the whole Yugoslavia mess a thorn in the US's side, although that didn't mitigate the risk for US soldiers in the field. Given that stellar pedigree, what makes you think Bush and his aides, who IMO haven't shown a lot of forethought to this point, will do better than their predecessors?
That's why I think it would be better for them to hand over that task to the UN. Then they can say, "Yes, it was our mess and we cleaned it up. Now, we'll leave it to an impartial (yeah, right) body to decide how best to go from here." Then no one can say it was for purely economical reasons that they attacked Iraq (no say where the oil goes), or that they're empire-building. The other "benefit" to having the UN do the job of selecting the new government is that the bigger the committee selected for a task, the more mediocre the product. And two of the "benefits" of a mediocre government is that they're too busy trying to find their ass with both hands to oppress their people, and they tend to be less of a threat to their neighbors (too much talking about who/if they should go to war than actual fighting).
On a side note, Einstein's idead about Quantum Physics may have been flawed but, just like Newton and Euclid, he built the foundation that displayed it's shortcomings.
Here's the original. Looks like more cool eye candy in this one.
I figured that, but it fit so well!
Thanks you much better. Only saw it once, and years ago, but it fit perfectly.
Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them. -Einstein
If I'm correct, you're in the same time zone, so it becomes more of a culture issue than a telecommute issue. If they expect you to work outside of 8am - 6pm, then you can expect calls outside that time range, too. If not, who else would typically be working those hours, anyway? If you are worried, maybe you should get a second phone line (for business calls) and turn off the ringer when you're not working, or have the ringer turned down so you can't hear it outside of your office.
11. No woman will sleep with them unless promised special indulgences/extra network priveleges.
Just do that search 2 or 3 times a day. I'm sure that will stop them faster than anything Google can do...visions of government employees running around like ants at a kicked-in nest...
Consider this example: Some wacky hillbilly suddenly decides that, if you use the road that happens to pass through one of his plots of land, you, your wife, your car, and all your belongings are suddenly his to do as he sees fit, and thus proceeds to rob you blind.
/.) is the one where a cult leader tries to escape with the loot in a 'ufo' that's really a pedal-powered plane, and crashes on Cletus's house.
If you're going to secretly quote Simpsons, you'll have to do better than that. Of course, the episode you're refering to (you were quoting Simpsons, right - this is
Cult Leader: "You don't mind if I leave now, do you?"
Cletus [cocking shotgun]: "Sure can, but not with my money..."
Now tell me, which is lazier - buying a bar fridge and putting it within arms reach of your desk, and stocking it with any number of varieties of pop; or running hose and machinery through your house for a limited number of selections? Of course, if all you drink is your caffienated beverage of choice, then the second half of the question is moot...
Parent must be...First Post from the ISS!!
Well, that's a mighty high horse you have there. Maybe you didn't hear, but Saddam was put in power by the US government. Now that their dog has gone rabid, they want to put him down. Kudos to them for starting a war to 'fix' their previous screw-ups.
And, nothing to gain?!?! You know they have oil there, right? Couple that with the stand the US has taken, 'since we're taking Saddam out, we should get to decide who gets in'. Any bets that they'd prefer a government that was sympathetic to them? That's just human nature. Of course, given their track record in the Mid-East, I doubt it'll last long.
So, next time you try to assign lofty goals to the whole thing in the Mid-East right now, remember who funded the Saddam the tyrant, and Osamam the terrorist, and all the collateral damage the citizens get to bear for the sake of the US's foreign policy. And hurrah for the US - the country has finally grown up and can now clain to have started a war, because, not matter what Bush said, there was no connection between Iraq and any current hostilities, conventional or otherwise. The whole WMD thing looks more like a crock of shit by the day - have they found ANY indications of them in their traipse across 3/4 of the country? Is Saddam keeing them all stockpiled in his home in Baghdad? Besides, Pakistan has NUKES, and all the US did was say 'tut tut'.
All that said, I think Saddam is a monster (courtesy of the US) and should be taken out. BUT, policy and procedure, no matter how distasteful, would have left the US on the high ground, which is a difficult proposition right now.
I resent being called a monkey.