This week, an Australian scientist published a peer-reviewed article based on actual water level measurements, that showed that water level rises are slowing and that based on an extrapolation of the observed data (not models), the most likely water level rise in Australian waters over the next century is 15cm.
I highly doubt the author wanted to convey the opinion that extrapolating observed data is a reliable way to predict the future.
Also, who cares the author is Australian? Can you cite him properly? Which journal was it?
Roaming is the last route by which telco's can rip off their customers
More likely, rip off someone else's customers. When in a foreign country, the big difference in price is given by the local operator, who has no interest in marketing itself to you since you will never be their customer, and who knows you need your mobile because you are far away from home, more likely to need the GPS and such. Your own telco is only relaying to you the foreign telco's bill.
And my point is that rule of the majority applies to legitimate political issues. It does not apply to illegitimate political issues (e.g. gassing people someone doesn't like) or scientific issues.
The vote in Italy, to which you commented, it a legitimate political issue: "do we want nuclear power plants or not?". Since it's our tax money, we will do with it whatever we want with it, thankyouverymuch. If you like nukes yourself have them over in your country.
Italy did not vote to decide how many protons there are in uranium. Italy voted to decide what to do with uranium, which is a political question, not a scientific one.
Nice troll though.
Me is the accusative, you either use the nominative ego or you don't use the subject at all (it is understood by conjugation of refero). Also, verb should be last in sentences (usual, though no rule). Vale.
You don't want to start up with a system of "Everything wrong with you costs more."
What about "Everything wrong with you, which is a culpable result of your own choices, costs more"? It would cover also other self-destructive behaviour, like reckless driving resulting in accidents, smoking, drugs, and leave out people with real medical conditions resulting in obesity, such as Prader-Willi syndrome, or non-culpable reckless behaviour (e.g. dementia or insanity).
Because, like it or not, scientific method dictates that creationism must be disproven before it can be dismissed.
Uh, no, I don't like it, because you got it ass-backwards. A theory must be falsifiable before it can be even admitted. If you make a theory that cannot be disproven, that's not bad science, that's not science at all. Not even wrong.
as far as my piss-poor Italian allows, can read just as well as a schizophrenic's hate tirade.
I understand your argument, but as a mother-language Italian speaker I can confirm that the text is clearly meant tongue-in-cheek. Not an especially hilarious piece, maybe in bad taste, but it would be obvious even to a moron in a hurry (provided he can read Italian) that it is not serious.
I am pretty sure that, had such a piece been written about some opponent of Berlusconi (e.g. Di Pietro, Vendola or Fini), no such action would have been taken. This is probably the case of some police officer trying to boost his career by showing he is aligned with the government.
In Germany after you have been employed for six months it is basically impossible to fire someone. There is no "cause" that is good enough.
If you as an HR manager cannot spot a flaw so serious to warrant a dismissal of an employee within 6 months, you should be fired first. And economic difficulties are a good cause for termination, provided of course you are not using that as a pretext for random terrorisation of employees.
Little growth happens because of the overly-restrictive employment regulations.
Never mind that last year Germany was the European country with the highest GDP growth.
If 18 months later it doesn't make sense, they are gone. Period. You can't do that in Germany.
I guess that's the way it was before slavery in America was killed off.
Corrected that for you. Paying people does not mean you have bought them (not anymore). People are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and threatening retaliation for exercising them is simply working around the Constitution.
AFAIK, they mostly use a "code" approach to the law, the codes dating back to the Romans and being used as generally guiding principles for the judges who have more discretion than common-law courts.
IANAIL, but we definitely do not have any code dating back to the Romans. There is no continuity between the Roman Empire and the Republic of Italy, which started out as the Duchy of Savoy, then Kingdom of Sardinia, then Kingdom of Italy. We have a sort of Napoleonic code (good thing that our expats bring back something useful sometimes), which if anything gives much less discretion than in common law.
For example, a judge cannot rule on the basis of custom, but only on written law. Sentences do not create precedence, unless they are from the highest court. Frankly I found it always odd that in common law you can use a precedent from a judge as an argument in front of another one.
However, the usage of bologna/baloney for nonsense derives from the university, not the sausage (which is known in Italy as mortadella, BTW). Bologna university used to be known mostly as a law university in the modern era, and as always through times lawyers have always been full of crap.
Apple technicians have been ordered to replace the Phillip screws with Pentalobular screws in every device they service, according to Wiens. Apparently, you won't get your Phillip screws back.
All employers want their programmers to churn out perfect code in no time for free. Make sure yours gets a realistic picture. Also make sure to discuss the issue with other employees before the next time the issue comes up; the boss can fire one, he cannot fire all.
In my country, I would be tempted to show my boss the finger at the mere suggestion of taking 2-3 hours a day of my life for his profit. I would surely contact my union, but I am told these are not readily available in the US. I am pretty sure that except for some really special jobs asking something like that would be illegal: think about it, he is asking you to become his slaves for a few hours a day.
You should not give your boss the idea that he can take time from you without paying for it. You can of course negotiate, but don't get shafted. You can e.g. come up with a plan for the excess hours to be paid when the company becomes profitable: in practice it is like the employees lending money to the company (which, being a startup, has likely already some debt and therefore high capital costs in the banks). Payback should have precedence on any dividends or bonuses, and a reasonable lending rate for both parts should be agreed, e.g. the Federal Reserve interest rate but it really depends on how much faith you have in the company. Ask him to pay the extra hours more than the ordinary ones, and that he gives flexibility on when you put in the extra hours on top of that. Extra points for not forcing anybody to work overtime, but allowing people to do it if they want the money.
He may not grant all requests, but make sure you make a deal out of it that is good for you too. Remember that if you want any chance at success, you must stand with (most of) the rest of the workforce on a common front.
Wasn't Scalia the guy who defended torture in Abu Ghraib with the argument that it was not "cruel and unusual punishment", because it was no "punishment", rather an interrogation technique?
It is tragic that such a fascist became a Justice. This guy belongs in a federal pound-in-the-ass prison, and if someone complains about rape being an illegitimate punishment, well, it is punishment, it is cruel, but it is not unusual, so by Scalia's argument it is just fine.
You seem to think that flight attendants only serve the purpose of serving orange juice. They are trained for safety and security purposes, including crashes and hijacking. Have you ever noticed that they are never teens who want to make a few bucks, like those who wait tables at the local pub? Yet, if the companies could save money hiring teens, rest assured they would.
A simple example of a language that did that is German. They had a 27th character called the es-zett which looks like a beta. It was used for a dual s. It has been deprecated, and now you just use two s characters instead.
The ß is still used, and believe it or not German is easier with it.
The reason for its existence is the Germans' incompetence at writing: in German,/s/,/z/ and/ts/ are all independent phonemes, and two can be geminated,/s:/ and/ts:/. If you don't know what a geminated consonant is, it is because there are none in spoken English, and if you heard them you would not recognise them immediately because your neurons are not trained for that.
The Germans initially thought of using "s" for/s/ and predictably "ss" for/s:/; for/ts/ they used "z" and for/ts:/ a "tz". Problems started (I think) when/s/ started evolving towards/z/. Germans kept writing "s", but before vowels and voiced consonants it had become/z/. The problem was that there were still places where it was still pronounced/s/ even if it was between vowels, e.g. in the formation of plurals. The ß was exactly that: an/s/ that stayed an/s/. So "foot" is "Fuß"/fu:s/ and not "Fus" (even though they would be pronounced exactly the same), because the plural is "Füße"/'fyse/, whereas "Füse" would be pronounced/'fyze/.
Then some idiot came along, and said that "ß" was really a substitute for "ss" (which it is not supposed to be), based on the fact that "ss" was still pronounced/s:/, not/z:/ which does not exist. A bunch of nonsensical rules were drawn up with the apparent purpose of torturing schoolchildren, rules that prescribed changing "ss" into "ß" in certain occasions, such as "river", "Fluß"/flus:/ becoming "Flüsse"/'flys:e/ in the plural. The rule was abolished in the last bout of common sense (not without opposition) and now the system is no longer positional, but phonetic.
Long story short: German has one more character because they have one more phoneme.
Coolest feature yet...
on
KDE 4.5 Released
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I use the Marble globe with satellite images as a background for my KDE desktop. After upgrading to 4.5 yesterday, I noticed clouds were added to it. "How pretty", I though. It turns out that clouds are not placed randomly for scenic effect, they are actually downloaded images of the current state of clouds all over the planet. Yes I checked yesterday, and today the image is slightly different and still consistent with satellite imagery from weather websites.
Do you realise that before the Commies went in, Tibet was a giant concentration camp in the hands of the lamas? The population was kept ignorant and desperate through illiteracy, denial of basic technology such as the wheel, lack of medicines (except lama piss and sweat—they are holy men so it must work, right?). You can read than in the book "7 Years in Tibet", written by an SS officer (in the movie this was bowlderised somehow) who was even sympathetic to the lama regime, but could not help noticing the inhumanity. Googling around I found this article with a few references.
The lamas' Tibet was worse than Saudi Arabia. A society ruled by religious fundamentalism that oppressed and exploited the peasants for the benefit of a small elite.
I've no idea what you are talking about in the Knox case. There was a trial, the atmosphere in the Italian media was not tense at all, no one assumed really anything about her being guilty or innocent. The case was complicated and there were plenty of bogeymen.
She was found guilty of murder because she participated in it after being on drugs and having, probably, her judgement impaired.
At the very least, it is beyond discussion that she knowingly accused an innocent man, token nigger Patrick Lumumba. Because the bad guy is always a black male, not a white girl.
You are rooting for Knox the way you would be rooting for a football team. She's from your tribe and you want her to win. This is retarded: it's a case about a murder, it's about evidence, and if she does not like the verdict she can ask for an appeal, which she did.
Keep in mind that the victim was British and the accomplice was an Italian, Knox' boyfriend. If anything, Italian media and public opinion should have been skewed towards the defendants.
Slashdot Mirror
I highly doubt the author wanted to convey the opinion that extrapolating observed data is a reliable way to predict the future.
Also, who cares the author is Australian? Can you cite him properly? Which journal was it?
More likely, rip off someone else's customers. When in a foreign country, the big difference in price is given by the local operator, who has no interest in marketing itself to you since you will never be their customer, and who knows you need your mobile because you are far away from home, more likely to need the GPS and such. Your own telco is only relaying to you the foreign telco's bill.
And my point is that rule of the majority applies to legitimate political issues. It does not apply to illegitimate political issues (e.g. gassing people someone doesn't like) or scientific issues. The vote in Italy, to which you commented, it a legitimate political issue: "do we want nuclear power plants or not?". Since it's our tax money, we will do with it whatever we want with it, thankyouverymuch. If you like nukes yourself have them over in your country.
Italy did not vote to decide how many protons there are in uranium. Italy voted to decide what to do with uranium, which is a political question, not a scientific one. Nice troll though.
Religion specifically claims logically impossible things. A fairly central one is trinity: 1=3?
Me is the accusative, you either use the nominative ego or you don't use the subject at all (it is understood by conjugation of refero). Also, verb should be last in sentences (usual, though no rule). Vale.
What about "Everything wrong with you, which is a culpable result of your own choices, costs more"? It would cover also other self-destructive behaviour, like reckless driving resulting in accidents, smoking, drugs, and leave out people with real medical conditions resulting in obesity, such as Prader-Willi syndrome, or non-culpable reckless behaviour (e.g. dementia or insanity).
Uh, no, I don't like it, because you got it ass-backwards. A theory must be falsifiable before it can be even admitted. If you make a theory that cannot be disproven, that's not bad science, that's not science at all. Not even wrong.
I understand your argument, but as a mother-language Italian speaker I can confirm that the text is clearly meant tongue-in-cheek. Not an especially hilarious piece, maybe in bad taste, but it would be obvious even to a moron in a hurry (provided he can read Italian) that it is not serious.
I am pretty sure that, had such a piece been written about some opponent of Berlusconi (e.g. Di Pietro, Vendola or Fini), no such action would have been taken. This is probably the case of some police officer trying to boost his career by showing he is aligned with the government.
If you as an HR manager cannot spot a flaw so serious to warrant a dismissal of an employee within 6 months, you should be fired first. And economic difficulties are a good cause for termination, provided of course you are not using that as a pretext for random terrorisation of employees.
Never mind that last year Germany was the European country with the highest GDP growth.
And that's the way we likes it, thankyouverymuch.
Corrected that for you. Paying people does not mean you have bought them (not anymore). People are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and threatening retaliation for exercising them is simply working around the Constitution.
IANAIL, but we definitely do not have any code dating back to the Romans. There is no continuity between the Roman Empire and the Republic of Italy, which started out as the Duchy of Savoy, then Kingdom of Sardinia, then Kingdom of Italy. We have a sort of Napoleonic code (good thing that our expats bring back something useful sometimes), which if anything gives much less discretion than in common law.
For example, a judge cannot rule on the basis of custom, but only on written law. Sentences do not create precedence, unless they are from the highest court. Frankly I found it always odd that in common law you can use a precedent from a judge as an argument in front of another one.
However, the usage of bologna/baloney for nonsense derives from the university, not the sausage (which is known in Italy as mortadella, BTW). Bologna university used to be known mostly as a law university in the modern era, and as always through times lawyers have always been full of crap.
Isn't that called theft?
All employers want their programmers to churn out perfect code in no time for free. Make sure yours gets a realistic picture. Also make sure to discuss the issue with other employees before the next time the issue comes up; the boss can fire one, he cannot fire all.
In my country, I would be tempted to show my boss the finger at the mere suggestion of taking 2-3 hours a day of my life for his profit. I would surely contact my union, but I am told these are not readily available in the US. I am pretty sure that except for some really special jobs asking something like that would be illegal: think about it, he is asking you to become his slaves for a few hours a day.
You should not give your boss the idea that he can take time from you without paying for it. You can of course negotiate, but don't get shafted. You can e.g. come up with a plan for the excess hours to be paid when the company becomes profitable: in practice it is like the employees lending money to the company (which, being a startup, has likely already some debt and therefore high capital costs in the banks). Payback should have precedence on any dividends or bonuses, and a reasonable lending rate for both parts should be agreed, e.g. the Federal Reserve interest rate but it really depends on how much faith you have in the company. Ask him to pay the extra hours more than the ordinary ones, and that he gives flexibility on when you put in the extra hours on top of that. Extra points for not forcing anybody to work overtime, but allowing people to do it if they want the money.
He may not grant all requests, but make sure you make a deal out of it that is good for you too. Remember that if you want any chance at success, you must stand with (most of) the rest of the workforce on a common front.
"Does it mean it doesn't matter?"
What, Libya? They are friends! We were never at war with Eurasia, it is with Estasia that we always have been at war.
Wasn't Scalia the guy who defended torture in Abu Ghraib with the argument that it was not "cruel and unusual punishment", because it was no "punishment", rather an interrogation technique?
It is tragic that such a fascist became a Justice. This guy belongs in a federal pound-in-the-ass prison, and if someone complains about rape being an illegitimate punishment, well, it is punishment, it is cruel, but it is not unusual, so by Scalia's argument it is just fine.
You seem to think that flight attendants only serve the purpose of serving orange juice. They are trained for safety and security purposes, including crashes and hijacking. Have you ever noticed that they are never teens who want to make a few bucks, like those who wait tables at the local pub? Yet, if the companies could save money hiring teens, rest assured they would.
The ß is still used, and believe it or not German is easier with it.
The reason for its existence is the Germans' incompetence at writing: in German, /s/, /z/ and /ts/ are all independent phonemes, and two can be geminated, /s:/ and /ts:/. If you don't know what a geminated consonant is, it is because there are none in spoken English, and if you heard them you would not recognise them immediately because your neurons are not trained for that.
The Germans initially thought of using "s" for /s/ and predictably "ss" for /s:/; for /ts/ they used "z" and for /ts:/ a "tz". Problems started (I think) when /s/ started evolving towards /z/. Germans kept writing "s", but before vowels and voiced consonants it had become /z/. The problem was that there were still places where it was still pronounced /s/ even if it was between vowels, e.g. in the formation of plurals. The ß was exactly that: an /s/ that stayed an /s/. So "foot" is "Fuß" /fu:s/ and not "Fus" (even though they would be pronounced exactly the same), because the plural is "Füße" /'fyse/, whereas "Füse" would be pronounced /'fyze/.
Then some idiot came along, and said that "ß" was really a substitute for "ss" (which it is not supposed to be), based on the fact that "ss" was still pronounced /s:/, not /z:/ which does not exist. A bunch of nonsensical rules were drawn up with the apparent purpose of torturing schoolchildren, rules that prescribed changing "ss" into "ß" in certain occasions, such as "river", "Fluß" /flus:/ becoming "Flüsse" /'flys:e/ in the plural. The rule was abolished in the last bout of common sense (not without opposition) and now the system is no longer positional, but phonetic.
Long story short: German has one more character because they have one more phoneme.
$ alien --to-tgz google-talkplugin_current_amd64.deb
Yes, one of the 14 theses about Ur-Fascism, or the fundamental traits of Fascism.
I use the Marble globe with satellite images as a background for my KDE desktop. After upgrading to 4.5 yesterday, I noticed clouds were added to it. "How pretty", I though. It turns out that clouds are not placed randomly for scenic effect, they are actually downloaded images of the current state of clouds all over the planet. Yes I checked yesterday, and today the image is slightly different and still consistent with satellite imagery from weather websites.
Call me easy to impress, but that blew me away.
Do you realise that before the Commies went in, Tibet was a giant concentration camp in the hands of the lamas? The population was kept ignorant and desperate through illiteracy, denial of basic technology such as the wheel, lack of medicines (except lama piss and sweat—they are holy men so it must work, right?). You can read than in the book "7 Years in Tibet", written by an SS officer (in the movie this was bowlderised somehow) who was even sympathetic to the lama regime, but could not help noticing the inhumanity. Googling around I found this article with a few references.
The lamas' Tibet was worse than Saudi Arabia. A society ruled by religious fundamentalism that oppressed and exploited the peasants for the benefit of a small elite.
I've no idea what you are talking about in the Knox case. There was a trial, the atmosphere in the Italian media was not tense at all, no one assumed really anything about her being guilty or innocent. The case was complicated and there were plenty of bogeymen.
She was found guilty of murder because she participated in it after being on drugs and having, probably, her judgement impaired.
At the very least, it is beyond discussion that she knowingly accused an innocent man, token nigger Patrick Lumumba. Because the bad guy is always a black male, not a white girl.
You are rooting for Knox the way you would be rooting for a football team. She's from your tribe and you want her to win. This is retarded: it's a case about a murder, it's about evidence, and if she does not like the verdict she can ask for an appeal, which she did.
Keep in mind that the victim was British and the accomplice was an Italian, Knox' boyfriend. If anything, Italian media and public opinion should have been skewed towards the defendants.