Well, if you take into consideration the premise of fallen humanity and the corruption that would be expected to follow that, it's not so surprising. Note that most of the leading causes of death in the develped world are lifestyle diseases, which is directly related to the human condition whether you subscribe to evolution or creationism. And the Judeo-christian God I read about was big on consequences for our actions.
The leg thing is kind of interesting since they've done tests in insects, and a simple transcription error (duplicates of the right piece of DNA) will cause multiple segments to grow. Which begs the question of why it didn't happen more often, whether you believe in micro- or macro-evolution.
We also have a good example of strange behaviour in the mammalian line, with the platypus. It has both bird-like and mammalian sex chromosomes, and 5 pairs of them. Here is an interesting article about them, and their unusual relationship to birds. I'm not sure if it would be easier to get something like that through random occurrence or intelligent design, one way or the other. It seems to fall on both sides of the bird-mammal fence (literally with the sex gene!), in a fairly random manner.
People like you amuse me. Here you are, criticizing a god for using the same technique more than once, and, given what I can see of what you've posted previously, you'd probably expect nothing less from a programmer. And even from a programmer, I'd expect different implementations of certain things if the criteria were slightly different (although I haven't studied the different eyes out there to see their relative benefits and drawbacks).
It's never a bad thing to listen to other peoples' arguments for or against your position. Either one will strengthen or weaken your position. But knee-jerk reactions of "Well, if they like X, I don't" only show you have no real opinion, or mind, of your own. I'd be embarrassed of that, not celebrating it.
And some would say it was arrogant of the U.S. to be sticking their noses in the politics of Iraq, especially after the abundant lack of weapons that could threaten the U.S. And no, even a million pounds of conventional explosives don't count if you don't find a delivery method.
Here we have trademark, copyright, and patent, all being used interchangeably. OTOH, this could be diabolically clever, I had to read the article to see if they mentioned all three there, too. And no, they only mention two.
I think you're underestimating the FBI, which is something coming from me. What you would actually do is create a virus that would make it nearly impossible to convict someone of child porn. Imagine multile emails, with the pics of your choice. You could make a collection, and if the feds came, you could honestly say you didn't know where those files came from.
Well, the monkeys wouldn't be for Bush. After all, with less human stem cell testing, it sucks to be a primate. Unfortunately, monkeys don't have suffrage, and the Bush family does.
Previous tests tried several thousand volts, and had the opposite impact on verbal skills, with most saying either "gnnnnh!" or nothing at all. On the other hand, the effect was permanent.
I get a headache every time I use my dad's phone. Might be because he has the volume cranked twice as high as I would have it, and it has no volume balancing.
Sound is a known, and likely, cause of headaches in the general population. Also, pressing things against your head for long times can be problematic, as well, and can be user specific (if I wear my cap too tight...). And third, I find cheap speakers that are too tinny to cause me headaches after long use, and most cell phone speakers are too small to be very high quality.
I'm not saying that EM radiation can't cause problems, but you'll have to rule out other causes before you make any conclusions.
BTW, a good test to see whether it's sound vs. EM (or anything else) would be to make a call somewhere, put your cell on mute, and pretend you're actually using it normally. If you get no headache, it might be sound that's causing it.
This is more suited to low population densities. You're sharing bandwidth between the users for a certain zone, so the more users, the less bandwidth. OTOH, when you run line, you can mitigate this problem, and scale easier.
The two are really complementary. It allows service providers to provide internet service to people in low or high population density areas at costs that may well be comparable (expensive line, but a new customer every 100 feet vs. expensive transceiver with new customers for 10 miles in every direction). The only urban use I can see for this is temporary hotspots (festivals, conferences, etc.) or places where the number of potentials users is fairly low, even with the high population density. That last may be the case for India.
Hear hear! I live in rural Canada, and ADSL service is about 5 miles away. If the telco runs that 5 miles of cable, etc., they'll be lucky to be able to provide service to 100 houses, of which probably a quarter will subscribe. Doesn't sound too efficient, does it? Now, the sister cell telco has a cell tower half a mile from my place. They can probably service a couple hundred houses, with relatively little infrastructure increase. Now, which seems likelier?
Well, I only half-disagree with you. I don't think of sex as shameful, but still private. That said, sex is prevalent in our society, and to a degree, that's not bad (think beauty vs. sleaze). And, just to make it clear, I don't mind someone flashing boob on TV, or anywhere else, just so long as I'm made aware of it beforehand, so I can make the choice about whether I want to see it or not.
The point was, in order, that 3-year-olds aren't going to get much value for the level of trauma they'll suffer from seeing bloated and dismembered corpses from some war, and that it is unhealthy for some things to occur at any age. The exact phrases were "age-appropriateness" and "healthy presentation".
Okay, now let's deal with real issues. Were Janet's rights somehow infringed by not being allowed to expose her breast without permission in a timeslot where such was disallowed? Would my rights to not have someones's privates presented to me in a time and place where I wouldn't expect, or desire it infringed?
I personally don't care if she wants to bare her breast. I haven't seen it, have no desire to see it, and am relieved that my lack of interest in football finally has a tangible benefit. Had it not been live TV, unannounced, in a timeslot and/or venue where such activities are disallowed, I'd be even less concerned. Bear in mind, strip bars have been ignoring, and making fun of, sexual taboos (and yes, it's sexual, just look at the cover of any porn mag if you're unconvinced) for a long time. And I readily uphold their right to do so, so long as they don't remove my right not to.
And yes, I'm aware that there are cultures where women's breasts aren't considered sexual, and cultures where they are, yet there is no inhibition in displaying them (without fabric). And I'm aware of the difference between art and gratuitous displays, and the subjectivity thereof. And when I think my children will do something other than giggle when they see Michelangelo's David or Venus de Milo (and others), I'll be sure to show them.
In my opinion, Alanis Morissette did a far better job of making fun of the taboo while still haveing an element of taste. Those who would be offended were, while having to deal with the fact that they probably have far more revealing clothing in their own closet. That points out the holes in the taboo, whereas all (most of?) the critics could say that they hadn't worn tearaway tops in public...
Being honest and open in your dealings with these teens when it comes to sex will be more effective.
Ah, so it's okay to show 3-year-old children pictures of some of the more gruesome scenes from D-Day, napalmed villages in Vietnam, or any number of massacres in Africa in the last 30 years, because it's real, we're being open, and they need to know the consequences of violence? Shall I teach my kids about sex by having intercourse with my wife in their presence?
There are such things as age-appropriateness, and healthy presentation. No one learned a valuable lesson about healthy appreciation of the female form or sexual education from Janet's public display. I personally didn't see it (don't generally mind T&A, but don't like football), but would have been irritated if my child had seen it, not because I think it's inappropriate, but because I would not have been given a choice. This occurred on live TV, in a time-slot where sexually explicit material is disallowed. Janet doesn't have the right to make that choice for me, nor for my children.
That's the crux of the issue. There is an agreement between the broadcasters and the FCC, which the public is aware of, that certain things aren't going to occur on certain stations in certain time slots. Some people out there make decisions on what they will watch based on these criteria. Their choice was removed by a celebrity who felt her "artistic expression" overruled the right of everyone else on whether they were buying into her desires. And her lack of respect for everyone else's rights is what I despise about her.
I didn't read the article, not that interested in American politics, but when I first read it, I was certain that it was a Kerry-endorsed spoof of the SVT campaign. Then I start reading the posts and come to the conclusion that this is real! I mean, come on, while I agree that it's important that elected officials not lie (or at least not get caught), we're talking sports here! Does his platform mention NFL reform? How about we look at our politicians in regards to where they stand on issues that they actually have power (or a declared intention) to change?
Yet another example of the quote "people get the government they deserve" being more true than anyone would want.
The article I read said that some new features, which some people consider at least peripherally security, are not going to be in there. Two that were mentioned were the pop-up blocker (not really security IMO) and the new ActiveX handling (definitely security IMO).
The original empire (in the western world) was Babylon. Then Persia. Then Greece. Then Rome. They just fell further than most other empires, or maybe they're just too far back to have any cultural impact on modern society. Just remember them any time you use a compass, or look at a clock, or read astronomy articles.
And, of course, this doesn't include contemporary, non-western empires, such as the various Asian and American empires.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you take into consideration the premise of fallen humanity and the corruption that would be expected to follow that, it's not so surprising. Note that most of the leading causes of death in the develped world are lifestyle diseases, which is directly related to the human condition whether you subscribe to evolution or creationism. And the Judeo-christian God I read about was big on consequences for our actions.
The leg thing is kind of interesting since they've done tests in insects, and a simple transcription error (duplicates of the right piece of DNA) will cause multiple segments to grow. Which begs the question of why it didn't happen more often, whether you believe in micro- or macro-evolution.
We also have a good example of strange behaviour in the mammalian line, with the platypus. It has both bird-like and mammalian sex chromosomes, and 5 pairs of them. Here is an interesting article about them, and their unusual relationship to birds. I'm not sure if it would be easier to get something like that through random occurrence or intelligent design, one way or the other. It seems to fall on both sides of the bird-mammal fence (literally with the sex gene!), in a fairly random manner.
People like you amuse me. Here you are, criticizing a god for using the same technique more than once, and, given what I can see of what you've posted previously, you'd probably expect nothing less from a programmer. And even from a programmer, I'd expect different implementations of certain things if the criteria were slightly different (although I haven't studied the different eyes out there to see their relative benefits and drawbacks).
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason cephalopods have better eyes is that they didn't have porn?
It's never a bad thing to listen to other peoples' arguments for or against your position. Either one will strengthen or weaken your position. But knee-jerk reactions of "Well, if they like X, I don't" only show you have no real opinion, or mind, of your own. I'd be embarrassed of that, not celebrating it.
And some would say it was arrogant of the U.S. to be sticking their noses in the politics of Iraq, especially after the abundant lack of weapons that could threaten the U.S. And no, even a million pounds of conventional explosives don't count if you don't find a delivery method.
Here we have trademark, copyright, and patent, all being used interchangeably. OTOH, this could be diabolically clever, I had to read the article to see if they mentioned all three there, too. And no, they only mention two.
I think you're underestimating the FBI, which is something coming from me. What you would actually do is create a virus that would make it nearly impossible to convict someone of child porn. Imagine multile emails, with the pics of your choice. You could make a collection, and if the feds came, you could honestly say you didn't know where those files came from.
There's not nearly enough information there to have a suitable knee-jerk reaction. What am I supposed to do now, RTFA?
What would you sing, anyway. Know any good campfire songs from prior to 1929 or thereabouts?
Yes, but the data retrieval system is manual.
Or maybe you could leave well enough alone, and realize there's a reason cat people aren't dog people.
;)
Now fetch my paper.
Well, the monkeys wouldn't be for Bush. After all, with less human stem cell testing, it sucks to be a primate. Unfortunately, monkeys don't have suffrage, and the Bush family does.
Previous tests tried several thousand volts, and had the opposite impact on verbal skills, with most saying either "gnnnnh!" or nothing at all. On the other hand, the effect was permanent.
I get a headache every time I use my dad's phone. Might be because he has the volume cranked twice as high as I would have it, and it has no volume balancing.
Sound is a known, and likely, cause of headaches in the general population. Also, pressing things against your head for long times can be problematic, as well, and can be user specific (if I wear my cap too tight...). And third, I find cheap speakers that are too tinny to cause me headaches after long use, and most cell phone speakers are too small to be very high quality.
I'm not saying that EM radiation can't cause problems, but you'll have to rule out other causes before you make any conclusions.
BTW, a good test to see whether it's sound vs. EM (or anything else) would be to make a call somewhere, put your cell on mute, and pretend you're actually using it normally. If you get no headache, it might be sound that's causing it.
This is more suited to low population densities. You're sharing bandwidth between the users for a certain zone, so the more users, the less bandwidth. OTOH, when you run line, you can mitigate this problem, and scale easier.
The two are really complementary. It allows service providers to provide internet service to people in low or high population density areas at costs that may well be comparable (expensive line, but a new customer every 100 feet vs. expensive transceiver with new customers for 10 miles in every direction). The only urban use I can see for this is temporary hotspots (festivals, conferences, etc.) or places where the number of potentials users is fairly low, even with the high population density. That last may be the case for India.
Hear hear! I live in rural Canada, and ADSL service is about 5 miles away. If the telco runs that 5 miles of cable, etc., they'll be lucky to be able to provide service to 100 houses, of which probably a quarter will subscribe. Doesn't sound too efficient, does it? Now, the sister cell telco has a cell tower half a mile from my place. They can probably service a couple hundred houses, with relatively little infrastructure increase. Now, which seems likelier?
On the other hand, this will be quite expensive, for two reasons.
First, it's new technology, and the research will have to be paid back. This will go down in time.
Second, the examination cost will have to pay for the therapy of seeing 30 feet of asshole. That can only go up over time...
Well, I only half-disagree with you. I don't think of sex as shameful, but still private. That said, sex is prevalent in our society, and to a degree, that's not bad (think beauty vs. sleaze). And, just to make it clear, I don't mind someone flashing boob on TV, or anywhere else, just so long as I'm made aware of it beforehand, so I can make the choice about whether I want to see it or not.
The point was, in order, that 3-year-olds aren't going to get much value for the level of trauma they'll suffer from seeing bloated and dismembered corpses from some war, and that it is unhealthy for some things to occur at any age. The exact phrases were "age-appropriateness" and "healthy presentation".
Okay, now let's deal with real issues. Were Janet's rights somehow infringed by not being allowed to expose her breast without permission in a timeslot where such was disallowed? Would my rights to not have someones's privates presented to me in a time and place where I wouldn't expect, or desire it infringed?
I personally don't care if she wants to bare her breast. I haven't seen it, have no desire to see it, and am relieved that my lack of interest in football finally has a tangible benefit. Had it not been live TV, unannounced, in a timeslot and/or venue where such activities are disallowed, I'd be even less concerned. Bear in mind, strip bars have been ignoring, and making fun of, sexual taboos (and yes, it's sexual, just look at the cover of any porn mag if you're unconvinced) for a long time. And I readily uphold their right to do so, so long as they don't remove my right not to.
And yes, I'm aware that there are cultures where women's breasts aren't considered sexual, and cultures where they are, yet there is no inhibition in displaying them (without fabric). And I'm aware of the difference between art and gratuitous displays, and the subjectivity thereof. And when I think my children will do something other than giggle when they see Michelangelo's David or Venus de Milo (and others), I'll be sure to show them.
In my opinion, Alanis Morissette did a far better job of making fun of the taboo while still haveing an element of taste. Those who would be offended were, while having to deal with the fact that they probably have far more revealing clothing in their own closet. That points out the holes in the taboo, whereas all (most of?) the critics could say that they hadn't worn tearaway tops in public...
Being honest and open in your dealings with these teens when it comes to sex will be more effective.
Ah, so it's okay to show 3-year-old children pictures of some of the more gruesome scenes from D-Day, napalmed villages in Vietnam, or any number of massacres in Africa in the last 30 years, because it's real, we're being open, and they need to know the consequences of violence? Shall I teach my kids about sex by having intercourse with my wife in their presence?
There are such things as age-appropriateness, and healthy presentation. No one learned a valuable lesson about healthy appreciation of the female form or sexual education from Janet's public display. I personally didn't see it (don't generally mind T&A, but don't like football), but would have been irritated if my child had seen it, not because I think it's inappropriate, but because I would not have been given a choice. This occurred on live TV, in a time-slot where sexually explicit material is disallowed. Janet doesn't have the right to make that choice for me, nor for my children.
That's the crux of the issue. There is an agreement between the broadcasters and the FCC, which the public is aware of, that certain things aren't going to occur on certain stations in certain time slots. Some people out there make decisions on what they will watch based on these criteria. Their choice was removed by a celebrity who felt her "artistic expression" overruled the right of everyone else on whether they were buying into her desires. And her lack of respect for everyone else's rights is what I despise about her.
Back666Back: Two-backed Beast
Hell, your birthday is the only day she won't go down on you...more than once.
I didn't read the article, not that interested in American politics, but when I first read it, I was certain that it was a Kerry-endorsed spoof of the SVT campaign. Then I start reading the posts and come to the conclusion that this is real! I mean, come on, while I agree that it's important that elected officials not lie (or at least not get caught), we're talking sports here! Does his platform mention NFL reform? How about we look at our politicians in regards to where they stand on issues that they actually have power (or a declared intention) to change?
Yet another example of the quote "people get the government they deserve" being more true than anyone would want.
Are intel's market-droids trying to brainwash people, or are people really that clueless to the fact that INTEL IS MAKIGN A CLONE OF AN AMD CHIP?
Yes, and yes. What, are you surprised?
The article I read said that some new features, which some people consider at least peripherally security, are not going to be in there. Two that were mentioned were the pop-up blocker (not really security IMO) and the new ActiveX handling (definitely security IMO).
The original empire (in the western world) was Babylon. Then Persia. Then Greece. Then Rome. They just fell further than most other empires, or maybe they're just too far back to have any cultural impact on modern society. Just remember them any time you use a compass, or look at a clock, or read astronomy articles.
And, of course, this doesn't include contemporary, non-western empires, such as the various Asian and American empires.