My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
Where do you live? If it really is that dangerous to be on the streets, don't you think it would be better to move somewhere safer? Even with a gun, her self-defence might fail, so moving would seem to ensure your wife's right to life in a better way.
The argument of the ID crowd tends to be on the improbability of life. I submit to you:
How to witness the impossible (without being god)
Go to a casino and sit down at a roulette table. The probability of a sequence of 1000 specific numbers being rolled on the table is 36^-1000 (or is it 37^-1000). In any case it is about 0.00...01 (with more than 1000 zeros replacing the...), so effectively impossible. And yet, sitting at the roulette table and witnessing 1000 rolls you have just witnessed the impossible.
We may be the outcome of such an extremely unlikely event, or it may be very probable that life comes into existence in our universe. The problem is: we don't know. We can't restart the universe to see if it happens again. And even if we were to know the probabilities, fact remains that we are here. The event may or may not have been unlikely, but nevertheless still happened. Invoking god in the scenario is as unnecessary as invoking god when sitting at the roulette table for a few hours.
Besides, the gross number of wireless network doesn't tell us much. A per capita figure would have been a more useful comparison. NYC metro has 17 million people, London 8 million and Paris is at 9.6 million. It also looks like they only focused on the city's "financial hubs."
Well, the result would be the same then. More people per access point = bad.
MS bashing has been happening since Windows 95, and has since then become part of geek culture. It's all but automatic now, and just for fun. Like Chuck Norris jokes and the like. And you do know that this is/. right?
In the nineties a friend of mine also used to get angry when I bashed MS (again just for fun), and it really confounded me that he would get so angry. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Some people seem to think that evolution has some greater plan for developing the perfect human, but it doesn't. There's no one in the drivers seat. Whatever survives influences how life evolves.
Superstition might not have evolved from need, but be a sideeffect of something else that was in need. It just happened to stick around because it didn't decrease our chances of survival.
For instance, we still have hair on our arms. It serves no purpose, but does not decrease our chances of survival (albeit this may have more biological/genetic reasons for still being there).
Your point would be fair if the Kyoto treaty was actually being met by member nations. Most every nation is improving but they are falling far short of their goals which is the stated reason why the U.S. didn't get involved because they knew the standards were too high and could not be reasonably met without serious compromises to profitability.
And if that was why the US didn't get involved, where is the alternative Washington treaty with realistic goals?
That also said, cars in the U.S. have stricter regulations than in Europe in terms of emissions which is why all the people with truly fast cars have to import them. Of course America has a lot more cars so that is probably why you feel the way you do about our output.
Are you saying that each individual car in the US pollute less than cars in Europe? From a fuel-efficiency stand point this article would disagree: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/ In fact, on average, your cars burn twice the fuel per mile. So you would need to have some pretty fantastic emissions standards to compensate for this.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
Where do you live? If it really is that dangerous to be on the streets, don't you think it would be better to move somewhere safer? Even with a gun, her self-defence might fail, so moving would seem to ensure your wife's right to life in a better way.
No, just chair.dll.
Operation Fix The Tubes.
You may be joking, but this may happen. Let's see what Comcast's next move is.
Let's cut taxes and reduce spending elsewhere, too!
Smaller government FTW.
Is that you, Milton? :)
Latin spelling nazi here.
It has nothing to do with "Math is Hard". Math majors are about 50-50 men and women at my university.
But the latter comment could be true.
The argument of the ID crowd tends to be on the improbability of life. I submit to you:
How to witness the impossible (without being god)
Go to a casino and sit down at a roulette table. The probability of a sequence of 1000 specific numbers being rolled on the table is 36^-1000 (or is it 37^-1000). In any case it is about 0.00...01 (with more than 1000 zeros replacing the ...), so effectively impossible. And yet, sitting at the roulette table and witnessing 1000 rolls you have just witnessed the impossible.
We may be the outcome of such an extremely unlikely event, or it may be very probable that life comes into existence in our universe. The problem is: we don't know. We can't restart the universe to see if it happens again. And even if we were to know the probabilities, fact remains that we are here. The event may or may not have been unlikely, but nevertheless still happened. Invoking god in the scenario is as unnecessary as invoking god when sitting at the roulette table for a few hours.
No, the bible just counts mod 6001. Next year the universe will be 0 years old. Again.
How can this be tagged flamebait?
My guess would be a rats or a pigs DNA.
I for one welcome our new animal modern optical computing overlords.
...now that Microsoft is actually releasing good software.
Hmm, there's some kind of contradiction here.
Neither.
And there's no CowboyNeal option either.
1) Be born with natural HIV immunity.
2) Sell bone marrow to desperate people.
3) Profit!
I think there should be a
2.5) Ouch!
in there. Supposedly it's very painful and has a high risk of complications.
Besides, the gross number of wireless network doesn't tell us much. A per capita figure would have been a more useful comparison. NYC metro has 17 million people, London 8 million and Paris is at 9.6 million. It also looks like they only focused on the city's "financial hubs."
Well, the result would be the same then. More people per access point = bad.
Ok. Maybe I just mistook your cursing for being angry. My mistake.
I'm surprised at your reaction to this.
MS bashing has been happening since Windows 95, and has since then become part of geek culture. It's all but automatic now, and just for fun. Like Chuck Norris jokes and the like. And you do know that this is /. right?
In the nineties a friend of mine also used to get angry when I bashed MS (again just for fun), and it really confounded me that he would get so angry. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Quick answer: When the telescope has enough mass to make tidal forces.
I would understand why Europeans are more concerned about vendor lock-in. They don't want to be held by the balls by an American company.
There. Fixed it for ya.
...in between surfing porn and preening their myspace pages...
Wrong! Here in Europe we use Facebook.
Well put. Mod parent up.
Some people seem to think that evolution has some greater plan for developing the perfect human, but it doesn't. There's no one in the drivers seat. Whatever survives influences how life evolves.
Superstition might not have evolved from need, but be a sideeffect of something else that was in need. It just happened to stick around because it didn't decrease our chances of survival.
For instance, we still have hair on our arms. It serves no purpose, but does not decrease our chances of survival (albeit this may have more biological/genetic reasons for still being there).
Although I'm inclined to agree with the other posters who say it's greed, I don't think that's the reason (at least not all of the reason).
The companies are optimizing for profit in a given regulatory setup. If you want to change the behavior you have to change the regulations.
Until that happens (anyone want to bet on when it will?) the telcos will keep sucking.
Your point would be fair if the Kyoto treaty was actually being met by member nations. Most every nation is improving but they are falling far short of their goals which is the stated reason why the U.S. didn't get involved because they knew the standards were too high and could not be reasonably met without serious compromises to profitability.
Your first statement is incorrect, see http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Image:Kyoto36-2005.png
And if that was why the US didn't get involved, where is the alternative Washington treaty with realistic goals?
That also said, cars in the U.S. have stricter regulations than in Europe in terms of emissions which is why all the people with truly fast cars have to import them. Of course America has a lot more cars so that is probably why you feel the way you do about our output.
Are you saying that each individual car in the US pollute less than cars in Europe? From a fuel-efficiency stand point this article would disagree: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/ In fact, on average, your cars burn twice the fuel per mile. So you would need to have some pretty fantastic emissions standards to compensate for this.
There always was a number on 'unlimited'. It $bytes_per_sec*60*60*24*31 per month, and that is what they should deliver.