If your product is so good that it can be branded, then do so and make a mint. Look at Brut Champagne.
Any idiot can make soda water, but leave the fine champagnes to the wine houses in Champagne. And if the cheaper bubble-water is good enough for you, then buy it instead, but don't believe it is equal to wine produced by a french wine castle that has the tradition and expertise from before Colombus.
The silly and sometimes seemingly lame sketches have always just been a veneer over them thumbing their noses at God, Queen and Country, bureaucracy, castes and whatever else they thought deserved a bit of a dressing down. Satire was their means of writing an indignant letter to the editor.
Palin once observed that the only character to appear in all the Python movies is God. I guess it says something.
What logic? That people that take the insensible and short term solution to earn money by doing crime, will try to invest in their long term future and have carefully and rationally considered that voting democrates will make it less likely that they end up in jail? The shear stupidity of that statement is something Bush would have been proud of.
How can you sit there and say the burden is somehow on the poor with a flat tax? The more you make, the more you pay.
The system is that the more you earn the more percentage you pay. If you change this system the poor and the middle class have to pay more. You do the math. It is similar to cutting welfare and communicty programs to fund cut taxes for the rich, it is essentially an increase in the taxes on the poor.
How would they "deny the american dream" to people, anyway? As far as I know, the American Dream is not to live off the government, which is what is happening now with many of the lazy among us.
Rich are not inherently evil, but most rich are rich because of their daddy like Bush, and not because of their ability (again, junior is a good reference). To be able to live the american dream, you must have a system that not has as a purpose to make the rich richer by lowering their taxes and giving crony companies like Haliburton (and share-holders like Cheney) a free access to hard earned tax-money and even over-charging in the deal. For the entrepeneuric middle class to be able to live the american dream, contracts have to be given on merit and not by counting rich buddies. And the middle class must have money left after paying the tax bill and their health insurance to invest in their (and the countrys) future. A tax- and spend- government like the Bush administration makes sure that only the ones that can afford the lawyers and lobbiers have a chance from the start. What kind of dream is that?
You are probably one of the more misinformed people I have had the pleasure to discuss with and you even brag about your education! Maybe try to connect to the real world instead on relying on myths like the benifit of poll tax and that Bush is rich because he works hard?
You must have reading comprehension problems, which is not surprising since my guess is you were educated in public schools. I stated that as just one of the reasons criminals may be inclined to support democrats.
... and it is a stupid and unfound reasoning, whatever your educational background is.
By the way, you act as though tax cuts for the upper class are negative? Those are the people paying the most in taxes. Why not a low, flat tax with absolutely no loopholes?
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Shift the tax burden too the poor and the entrepeneurs in the middle class so that the rich can entrech their right to deny the american dream to even more people.
If you were a criminal who carries assault rifles, are you going to support the man who is the strongest supporter of executions?
It has been shown in several studies that executions don't lead to lower crime. If criminals don't respond to the presence or lack of the death penalty, why should they care if the candidate supports or opposes the death penalty. It is not like any president are going to change the state or federal laws on the matter in the near future anyway.
The poll shows Bush losing to both Kerry and Edwards in hypothetical matchups. Kerry would beat Bush 53-41 percent among registered California voters, while Edwards would defeat the president by a margin of 51 percent to 42 percent.
Voter disapproval was highest on Bush's handling of the budget deficit -- 67 percent said they disapproved of the job he is doing, while just 27 percent approve. A majority also disapproved of his handling of other key areas, including illegal immigration, health care, the economy and the war in Iraq.
Remember that Ah-nold is a quite different political beast than Bush, for one thing, Ah-nold is not an extreem right wing kind of guy. Beside, the guvenator came to power because the guvenor didn't manage to handle the budget, and who trusts Bush to manage any budget?
But if you want to insist on guns for a riot, are you trying to say Democratic supporters don't own guns? What about the criminal element, they own guns right? Even illegal weapons. Criminals likely don't vote, but they sure as hell favor liberals over tough-on-crime conservatives.
This is just stupid. So criminals support democrats so that they don't end up in jail? If there is a correlation between criminals and democrates, isn't it more likely that people from poor and neglected areas vote for someone who actually wants to improve their lifes instead of someone who cutes taxes for the rich and cut programs that have negative effect on the inner cities.
The chemical toxicity of plutonium (a heavy metal) is inconsequential alongside the radiation effects.
Plutonium is a poison as salts, not as pure metal. It is the same with Mercury, which is not toxic when in metal (liquid) form. The problem is that when exposed to other chemicals, the salts forms fast and you have an environmental problem.
The best guide to the studies on animals and humans, as of a couple of years ago, was a survey article in Science Magazine, one of the leading professional science publications in the world.
Here are some quotes from an article from Science, since you accept that source. Note that recombination here means that there are significant mutations of the DNA, mutation that in many cases will lead to cancer. (Richard Peters and Robert Sikorski; Science, Vol 282, Issue 5397, 2214, 18 December 1998):
PLANT GENOMICS:
Plant Genotoxicity
Following the accident, numerous studies reported genotoxicity in humans, animals, and plants around Chernobyl. Around the reactor itself, a 600-km2 zone has been closed to agriculture since the accident, because the average soil contamination is too high. This disaster, although very unfortunate, offers the opportunity to study the effect of ionizing radiation on living organisms and to compare data collected in a laboratory setting with data obtained from the field.
Germination rates of the seeds decreased with increasing density of soil pollution, and there was a high degree of correlation between laboratory and open-field experiments. Moreover, an increase in soil contamination was linked to an increase in the average number of recombinations (up to five per plant) in both open-field and laboratory experiments. The number of recombinations peaked at a soil contamination of about 1000 Ci/km2 and decreased at higher levels. The authors suggest that under higher radiation doses, the precision of the recombination process may decrease. Another explanation is that higher doses lead to more double-strand breaks that may be repaired more often through end-to-end joining (often referred to as illegitimate recombination). Cytological studies in other plants indicated a correlation between homologous recombination frequencies in A. thaliana and in the frequency of chromosomal bridges and fragments. Of note, the authors found that the dose-response curves they observed tended to be left-shifted for the field experiments compared with those for the laboratory experiments, that is, although the trends were identical, there was more damage in the field. They explain the differences by indicating that the plants in pots were surrounded by much less contaminated soil than the plants in the field.
Because, one day, we are going to run out of fossil fuels, and one day, our energy needs will be greater than that possible by covering the available areas of the Earth with solar energy collectors.
I heard a talk many years ago about the possibility of having solar panels in space and to send the energy down to earth by micro-waves. I guess one should make sure the micro-waves are not powerful enough to fry the birds that fly by. So, even excluding the increase efficiency of new design on solar panels, the earth available area is not the limit for how useful solar power can become in the future.
Besides, why does our energy use have to increase exponentially in the future? Why not make more energy efficient technology both for industry and home use?
It is very well documented the relationship between high radiation and cancer. The best known study is from Hiroshima, where there was found clear correlations between the rate of cancer and the amount of radiation that people were exposed to. As the study shows, the peak of leukimia was 7-8 years after the atom bomb was dropped.
The link between radiation and cancer has much to do with the increased mutation rate of DNA caused by radiation, which is natural since most cancers are caused by changes in the DNA of a cell. I find it difficult to see why you try to deny this?
It is too bad, but I guess because of the Soviet Union and the turmul in the years after the Soviet Union disintegrated, there has not been done real studies on the wildlife of Chernobyl. (There has been done many studies on the radiaton effects on humans in Chernobyl.) But since all life is related to DNA, there is no doubt that the animals and plants in the area has been seriously affected. Can you show any scientific study that has shown no impact on nuclear radiation on wildlife, we would like to hear about it. And remember, radiation is one thing, but plutonium is one of the mosth leathal chemical poisons in its own right, so if the radiations doesn't get you, the radioactiv chemicals is there for you to worry about the. Again, it is quite natural that plutonium and other radioactive isotops made in a nuclear plant are poisonous, since because they don't excist naturally in nature, organisms have not evolved protections against them.
To put it into perspective, I can imagine the response if Russians came on/. and made fun of the 3000 dead in WTC. People here are making fun of Chernobyl where probably over 100 000 died and then of course all the cancer related deaths in the years to follow.
The increadable thing is that the Soviet Union tried to pretend that nothing had happened in Chernobyl. Nobody really knew about it in the west before nuclear plants in western europe started to freak out because their employees started to have high geiger counts. It is naturally routin procedure for nuclear plants to check if their employees have had exposure by mistake or because of a leak inside the plant, but this time the exposure was from the nuclear rain outside, directly flown in from Chernobyl.
This is just more of the usual "criticize the other side" partisan bickering.
Well, except one partisan is a president desperate to get re-elected even though his record is less than impressive, while the other partisan is an engineer, US senator, and astronaut who has worked closely with NASA for many years.
The partisan bickering is part of democracy, but that is not an argument not too listen to the arguments and what the politicians are saying. Especially when the arguments are from such a relevant source as senator Glenn, even though he is a democrat and all.
The deep oceans are still unmapped areas of the earth, with unknown resources and inhabitants. Can probably think of other also, but it does not take away the reason to explore space.
While it is important to know that the Bush administration does not support stopping the outsourcing, remember that Bush is also no supporter of free trade. Contrast that with Clinton who was definitely a free trade president, which on his watch was able to get jobs and the economy rolling.
Having policies that makes it less attractive to outsource jobs, is not the same as to throw-out all the achivements of free trade agreements the last decades.
GnomeMeeting is not only for business, but also for people who live far away from friends and family and want to get the chance to see each other virtually. It also cuts down expences of long distance calls when you have broadband at home. Many linux users fall into this category and it is great that GnomeMeeting makes this possible, whatever the rage was in business 3 years ago.
Just tried GnomeMeeting myself and it worked very well, I was very impressed. And I assume that GnomeMeeting 1.0 will just improve on the experience.
I am getting a bit cynical about the whole affair I must say. It seems like SCO tries to bring as much pain as possible against Linux and the users of Linux. Maybe revenge for a failed business against stronger linux companies, maybe because of hope that the FUD will get stock money in for the people running the scam (seems to have worked), or because of the motives of companies behind like Microsoft who would have loved to crush the open source phenomena. Probably all of the above.
But even if the timid companies will be scared away from linux by SCO, timid companies would not jump on linux before it has passed the 50 % marked domination anyway. And even if the short effect would be misinformed news paper articles about SCO having a legal case, all those news papers will proclaim to the world that big companies like Daimler-Chrysler uses Linux to run their everyday operation. Even to be the pictured as the bad boys of IT, is better than the spin tried before that Linux is a toy by hobby programmers.
So SCO, keep up the good work, dig your own grave and make as much PR for linux as you can on your way to your own demiss.
While the eminent thinker, leader, and not least orator Bush would have explained why SCO would only be able to fool him (at least) once:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Those of us that were serving their country in Vietnam in those days still remember.
You should also remember all those rich kids that used their connections so that they did not need to serve their country, people like Bush, Cheney, Delay, etc etc
Slashdot Mirror
Any idiot can make soda water, but leave the fine champagnes to the wine houses in Champagne. And if the cheaper bubble-water is good enough for you, then buy it instead, but don't believe it is equal to wine produced by a french wine castle that has the tradition and expertise from before Colombus.
yes
Palin once observed that the only character to appear in all the Python movies is God. I guess it says something.
What logic? That people that take the insensible and short term solution to earn money by doing crime, will try to invest in their long term future and have carefully and rationally considered that voting democrates will make it less likely that they end up in jail? The shear stupidity of that statement is something Bush would have been proud of.
The system is that the more you earn the more percentage you pay. If you change this system the poor and the middle class have to pay more. You do the math. It is similar to cutting welfare and communicty programs to fund cut taxes for the rich, it is essentially an increase in the taxes on the poor.
Rich are not inherently evil, but most rich are rich because of their daddy like Bush, and not because of their ability (again, junior is a good reference). To be able to live the american dream, you must have a system that not has as a purpose to make the rich richer by lowering their taxes and giving crony companies like Haliburton (and share-holders like Cheney) a free access to hard earned tax-money and even over-charging in the deal. For the entrepeneuric middle class to be able to live the american dream, contracts have to be given on merit and not by counting rich buddies. And the middle class must have money left after paying the tax bill and their health insurance to invest in their (and the countrys) future. A tax- and spend- government like the Bush administration makes sure that only the ones that can afford the lawyers and lobbiers have a chance from the start. What kind of dream is that?
You are probably one of the more misinformed people I have had the pleasure to discuss with and you even brag about your education! Maybe try to connect to the real world instead on relying on myths like the benifit of poll tax and that Bush is rich because he works hard?
... and it is a stupid and unfound reasoning, whatever your educational background is.
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Shift the tax burden too the poor and the entrepeneurs in the middle class so that the rich can entrech their right to deny the american dream to even more people.
Sounds like you are the apathetic sheep believing what the british tabloids tell you to believe.
It just shows why EU citizens should participate in the elections for MEPs to the European Parlament.
It has been shown in several studies that executions don't lead to lower crime. If criminals don't respond to the presence or lack of the death penalty, why should they care if the candidate supports or opposes the death penalty. It is not like any president are going to change the state or federal laws on the matter in the near future anyway.
And who do you think is the most threat with an assault rifle, a Bush backer or a Kerry backer?
Remember that Ah-nold is a quite different political beast than Bush, for one thing, Ah-nold is not an extreem right wing kind of guy. Beside, the guvenator came to power because the guvenor didn't manage to handle the budget, and who trusts Bush to manage any budget?
This is just stupid. So criminals support democrats so that they don't end up in jail? If there is a correlation between criminals and democrates, isn't it more likely that people from poor and neglected areas vote for someone who actually wants to improve their lifes instead of someone who cutes taxes for the rich and cut programs that have negative effect on the inner cities.
Plutonium is a poison as salts, not as pure metal. It is the same with Mercury, which is not toxic when in metal (liquid) form. The problem is that when exposed to other chemicals, the salts forms fast and you have an environmental problem.
Here are some quotes from an article from Science, since you accept that source. Note that recombination here means that there are significant mutations of the DNA, mutation that in many cases will lead to cancer. (Richard Peters and Robert Sikorski; Science, Vol 282, Issue 5397, 2214, 18 December 1998):
PLANT GENOMICS:
Plant Genotoxicity
Following the accident, numerous studies reported genotoxicity in humans, animals, and plants around Chernobyl. Around the reactor itself, a 600-km2 zone has been closed to agriculture since the accident, because the average soil contamination is too high. This disaster, although very unfortunate, offers the opportunity to study the effect of ionizing radiation on living organisms and to compare data collected in a laboratory setting with data obtained from the field.
Germination rates of the seeds decreased with increasing density of soil pollution, and there was a high degree of correlation between laboratory and open-field experiments. Moreover, an increase in soil contamination was linked to an increase in the average number of recombinations (up to five per plant) in both open-field and laboratory experiments. The number of recombinations peaked at a soil contamination of about 1000 Ci/km2 and decreased at higher levels. The authors suggest that under higher radiation doses, the precision of the recombination process may decrease. Another explanation is that higher doses lead to more double-strand breaks that may be repaired more often through end-to-end joining (often referred to as illegitimate recombination). Cytological studies in other plants indicated a correlation between homologous recombination frequencies in A. thaliana and in the frequency of chromosomal bridges and fragments. Of note, the authors found that the dose-response curves they observed tended to be left-shifted for the field experiments compared with those for the laboratory experiments, that is, although the trends were identical, there was more damage in the field. They explain the differences by indicating that the plants in pots were surrounded by much less contaminated soil than the plants in the field.
Plutonium has many isotops, so does many other radioactive atoms or isotops. Where did I use the word isotop wrong?
I heard a talk many years ago about the possibility of having solar panels in space and to send the energy down to earth by micro-waves. I guess one should make sure the micro-waves are not powerful enough to fry the birds that fly by. So, even excluding the increase efficiency of new design on solar panels, the earth available area is not the limit for how useful solar power can become in the future.
Besides, why does our energy use have to increase exponentially in the future? Why not make more energy efficient technology both for industry and home use?
You forgot to mention the most dangerous chemical of all, dihydro monoxide. Why worry about mercury, when you have all that H2O around ...
It is a good thing then that we have Bush in the White House, to fight for more arsenic and lead in the water and more mercury in the air. These stupid environmental laws are just in the way when fighting against ignorance and stupidity.
The link between radiation and cancer has much to do with the increased mutation rate of DNA caused by radiation, which is natural since most cancers are caused by changes in the DNA of a cell. I find it difficult to see why you try to deny this?
It is too bad, but I guess because of the Soviet Union and the turmul in the years after the Soviet Union disintegrated, there has not been done real studies on the wildlife of Chernobyl. (There has been done many studies on the radiaton effects on humans in Chernobyl.) But since all life is related to DNA, there is no doubt that the animals and plants in the area has been seriously affected. Can you show any scientific study that has shown no impact on nuclear radiation on wildlife, we would like to hear about it. And remember, radiation is one thing, but plutonium is one of the mosth leathal chemical poisons in its own right, so if the radiations doesn't get you, the radioactiv chemicals is there for you to worry about the. Again, it is quite natural that plutonium and other radioactive isotops made in a nuclear plant are poisonous, since because they don't excist naturally in nature, organisms have not evolved protections against them.
The increadable thing is that the Soviet Union tried to pretend that nothing had happened in Chernobyl. Nobody really knew about it in the west before nuclear plants in western europe started to freak out because their employees started to have high geiger counts. It is naturally routin procedure for nuclear plants to check if their employees have had exposure by mistake or because of a leak inside the plant, but this time the exposure was from the nuclear rain outside, directly flown in from Chernobyl.
The partisan bickering is part of democracy, but that is not an argument not too listen to the arguments and what the politicians are saying. Especially when the arguments are from such a relevant source as senator Glenn, even though he is a democrat and all.
The deep oceans are still unmapped areas of the earth, with unknown resources and inhabitants. Can probably think of other also, but it does not take away the reason to explore space.
One list here of USB webcams supported in linux.
Here you find webcams that need the Philips drivers.
Having policies that makes it less attractive to outsource jobs, is not the same as to throw-out all the achivements of free trade agreements the last decades.
Just tried GnomeMeeting myself and it worked very well, I was very impressed. And I assume that GnomeMeeting 1.0 will just improve on the experience.
But even if the timid companies will be scared away from linux by SCO, timid companies would not jump on linux before it has passed the 50 % marked domination anyway. And even if the short effect would be misinformed news paper articles about SCO having a legal case, all those news papers will proclaim to the world that big companies like Daimler-Chrysler uses Linux to run their everyday operation. Even to be the pictured as the bad boys of IT, is better than the spin tried before that Linux is a toy by hobby programmers.
So SCO, keep up the good work, dig your own grave and make as much PR for linux as you can on your way to your own demiss.
While the eminent thinker, leader, and not least orator Bush would have explained why SCO would only be able to fool him (at least) once:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Liste to the actual Bush quote here.
You should also remember all those rich kids that used their connections so that they did not need to serve their country, people like Bush, Cheney, Delay, etc etc