Objects that are designed by people (and, presumably, other intelligences) tend to be simpler than those created by nature. For example, compare the straight lines of a road with the wavy shape of a river.
If you are going to make comparisons at least do so with apples and apples. A wavy shape of a river only occurs once the river is very old and has had time to erode the rock/soil it flows over. The Colorado River is an example of this, very wavy almost to the point of reconnecting. Try comparing a wavy river to a road (i.e. interstate) that has been in existence for more than a few years w/o repair which has hundreds of semis driving over it everyday in the northern U.S. (which sees hot weather in the summer and below zero temps in the winter). Given those items in the comparison, the natural objects and man-made objects are similar: both are old and show signs of it all over the place. Time wears things down no matter what. By the way, in reference to the OP text, since when did evidence of the hand of God have to be mutually exclusive with that of "nature taking its course"? Nature is what God created therefore they are one in the same in my opinion.
I will state though that nature is still number 1 with respect to complexity. Just to name a few off the top of my head: all the processes running inside a star, the human body (can't live without all the organs at once w/o medical intervention; makes you wonder just how evolutionists explain how that problem got solved), gravity (simple yet so complex that we can't explain everything about it, yet), mass (same as gravity with respect to a simple concept that is still not 100% explained), etc.
Where I live, a rural area of Ohio, people are generally Republican because they are ignorant of the outside world and have knee-jerk emotional reactions to anything that contradicts their personal values or way of life (abortion, gay marrige, oil, Iraq, etc). People in larger urban areas are generally Democratic and have knee-jerk emotional reactions to the BS spewed by the media every day. (global warming, Iraq, etc).
I believe you are wrong. Democrats do indeed react based on emotion which is why they want to view the world as gray. They say we don't live in a black and white world but only because they don't want to view it that way and do what they can to add the gray. On the other hand Republicans are going to disagree on topics with Democrats because Republicans make decisions based on absolutes. The personal values they hold are based on absolute values which Democrats just choose to ignore and therefore view them as personally held by Republicans because they have to be if there isn't anything absolute. Having anything absolute means they wouldn't have the power to view/judge things how they need/want to view/judge them. Having absolutes, in a way, means you don't need to be all knowing of the outside world because, in a sense, you don't have control over certain aspects of that world anyway. What is right will always be right and what is wrong will always be wrong and people will get what they deserve in the end. This doesn't make them stupid and the Democrats smart. It means they know some things are considered above them but Democrats want to get their grubby little hands on anything that will put things in their favor.
Los Alamos are jealous since they just got a 1.026 petaflop supercomputer installed earlier this year by IBM called RoadRunner. It was featured in last month's Linux Journal.
Personally, I think that's true. They should shoot out the tires, and if they can't do that, shoot out the driver. To go 120 mph to catch up to someone going 80 in a 70 to give them a ticket is absurd.
Often times high-speed chases begin when the criminal is already speeding away to avoid capture. When that happens the only thing to do is to start the pursuit. You can't shoot someone who is already going 100mph and expect to be able to hit your small target (tire or head). When you are going 100mph in a 70mph (top interstate speed in parts of the U.S.) and a cop catches you I highly doubt you will only get a ticket. 20+mph over is wreckless driving so 30 over would probably mean mandatory jail time so it wouldn't just be a ticket therefore it wouldn't be absurd. Also, you won't see a cop doing 120mph to stop someone going 80 in a 70 zone because there just isn't a need for it. Even from a standstill a cop could catch the person in a few miles by simply going about 85mph. You are using extreme data to make your argument and you are failing miserably.
If it's safe for them to go that fast, how can it be unsafe for the person only going 10 over the limit?
As someone already said, cops are trained for high speed pursuits and for some reason criminals (who aren't trained) actually think they are better than the cops when they decide to flee at high speed.
Which part should I object to, the entrapment or the using real drugs when they went and bothered to make it illegal to sell flour, or should I object to the fact that selling flour is illegal if the person believes it to be drugs?
If you are caught doing something that you know is illegal but you think you can get away with, you are still guilty because of your intent. Intent is the factor in determining whether you are guilty of murder or manslaughter when you kill someone. You better be glad intent is looked at if you ever happen to kill someone (odds are slim I know but not 0). Don't try splitting hairs and saying this is akin to Minority Report but it isn't. In situations such as selling flour as drugs you are actually still performing the act. It isn't like you thought about doing it and got arrested for it. If you actually attempt to sell flour as drugs then you obviously showed intent to do an illegal act. One story I'll always remember from watching Law and Order is the ethical debate of a guy who shoots another person who is already dead. The guy doesn't know the person is already dead. Is the guy guilty of murder, manslaughter, something else, nothing? I don't recall the answer unfortunately but at the least the guy showed intent to kill because he shot the person. It doesn't matter the person was already dead.
I assert that fraud in enforcement of the law is a violation of civil rights. Maybe not the protected civil rights observed in the US, but I believe it to be a right none the less.
Ok, which civil right is violated? Does it have a name (protected or not)? The right to do something illegal but not have to worry about law enforcement doing something else illegal to arrest you? If you step outside the bounds why can't they? Too fair for you?
Because fraud is illegal. Con games in order to deprive someone of something are illegal. The government should never partake of otherwise illegal means in order to "catch" anyone.
So it shouldn't be legal for the gov't (city or state cop) to exceed the speed limit in order to catch a criminal flying down the highway at 100mph? Or to setup a drug bust using real drugs that stupid criminals buy off them? As long as it isn't entrapment and they respect civil rights there is no harm done.
Nah... Creationists are fair game here on Slashdot. Matter of fact, they're fair game, period.
There is no place in an adult discussion for people who think name-calling and other childish behavior helps their cause. Those who believe in evolution should be ashamed there are people like you who are fighting for their cause. Just goes to show you how low someone must go in order to win their argument or how they act once they think they won. If evolution is such a great idea then you shouldn't need to worry about whether your opposition is "fair game" or not unless you just want to act like a child. IMO, you lose credibility by viewing them as fair game.
One caveat I should mention with my recommendation is it only works for current news articles and not for usenet archives so if you are strictly needing archival searching then my idea is of no use to you.
Have you tried using a stand-alone news client and its own specific search functions? Something like Thunderbird's or any other news client may be of use to you.
Religion is a bad thing when you get zealots bent on using legislation to force their beliefs on others. The Republicans have been hitching their wagon to that pony since the 80s. It came back to bite them in the ass this time. Instead of talking about issues and coming up with plans to help people, they decided to talk about abortion, gays, and Israel instead. Hopefully they will learn a lesson from this years vote and reevaluate their priorities.
Bias against religion means you easily mistake someone trying to force their beliefs upon you for just trying to uphold the ability for them to freely exercise their own beliefs in public. That includes upholding societal standards of morals and ethics. Don't confuse their goal. Besides, it isn't always about helping people. Some, not all, people just need to step up and be responsible by helping themselves instead of always saying "oh woe is me" and expecting someone to bail them out all thet time. I hardly would say that the Republicans lost because of abortion, gays, and Israel.
In fact, California, Arizona, and Florida all had the majority of the population vote *against* homosexual marriage thereby overturning the state Supreme Court decision (in California) which allows same-sex marriage. That says in at least those 3 states that societal standards lean toward traditional values and we all know how liberal "California" is. I put that in quotes because there are only a few hotspots in CA that are really liberal. The rest of the state is just like most other states which have conservative people. The current map of blues and reds spell that out with the West and NE displaying the majority of the blue but the majority of the country is red.
Please I hope "God"had nothing to do with it. Can we please get past this religion drug? Anyhow, now that the troll bait is out of the way. Congratulations to Mr.Obama, friends, & cow-orkers.
I assume you'll be fair and tell people they should stop using the Lord's name in vain when they say "Oh my God" all the time, especially on TV. By the way, some drugs are useful and not illegal so calling religion a drug isn't a bad thing, nor is religion itself bad. Religion isn't the problem. The lack thereof causes the problems as well as those people who have something against religion. Didn't anyone ever teach you diversity?
It's not mentioned in the article, and I assume it's so obvious that it was ruled out before announcement, but is there anything to suggest that the pulsar is pulsing across all frequencies up to Gamma, and that intervening matter is simply blocking all but the high-energy Gamma portion of the pulse?
Yes it was mentioned:
This discovery by Fermi is different because it is a purely gamma-ray pulsar. The star is silent across parts of electromagnetic spectrum where pulsars are normally found and hints at a whole population of previously unsuspected pulsars waiting to be picked out of the heavens.
The intent is to create a North American Union similar to the EU. The excuse for doing so is to save the United States from economic collapse and, to do so, the people who think they know better will create (with the help of Canada and Mexico) a NAU. Supposedly national security is also an excuse. With that comes a new currency. Work has been under way for decades and the concept for the EU started many decades ago as well. WIth the state of the U.S. economy it gives Obama the perfect excuse to push forward with this concept. It will basically wipe the U.S. off the map eventually. The lack of real intentions to close off the Mexican border is part of this overarching goal. Why put up a border fence if Mexico will be part of the new Union? The fact that trucks can go from Mexico, through the U.S., to Canada to transport "goods" is not a good thing but is a sign that we will see more of that if a NAU comes into existence. Some people may say it may never happen here, but why not? It happened to Europe. It is happening to the U.S, in secret. The cat is out of the bag as far as the goal is concerned but individual meetings still occur under wraps.
you're absolutely right. they're complete cowards for risking their jobs to share information with the public. i mean, how dare they try to preserve their anonymity, not like you of course Mr. glitch23--i assume that's your surname?
There are people in companies who are authorized to talk to the press about these issues. They are there for a reason. Those who are not authorized are doing almost exactly what you said, they are risking their designated job for which they were hired to do. They were not hired to leak information to the press. These same people could be responsible for leaking the incorrect information in the first place. I'm not going outside my realm of responsibility by leaking information about my company so my identification is irrelevant. You, and everyone else, are capable of contacting me on here just like you already did. Isn't that enough?
"My understanding, based on information from informed sources who do not wish to be identified because they were not authorized by their employers,
Big surprise. More cowards who are too afraid to state their names but want to talk to act like big shots even though they aren't authorized to talk to anyone. I'd love to find people like that to fire them if I was a manager at a company like that. It was probably loose lips like that which caused this rumor to get out in the first place.
Handful of servers is easy to handle but how are logins and home directories handled in environment this scale?
Use LDAP to integrate RHEL clients (and other distros too) with OpenLDAP, MS Active Directory, Fedora Directory Server, or Sun Java System Directory Server. Any one of those accomplishes a central identification and authentication repository. LDAP-based directory servers can handle millions of entries in a distributed (i.e. global) environment.
This is just another sad example of the American tendency to live beyond one's means. This is another symptom of the disease that is eating this country: financial illiteracy.
You give them too much credit. Another problem is that people who are on welfare, who need help buying groceries, may be buying these phones. Well, we are buying these phones for them in essence. That symptom's disease can be described as "we deserve everything but we don't want to pay for it so let the government help us do everything". Maybe that would be considered financial ignorance or dependence?
Just how much of the difference is the increase in attempts, and how much is the fact that with an election year, some departments have to arrest perpetrators to get funding? I mean it's not like we have an independant verified count of attempted illegal exports...
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view) the gov't only plans budgets a year at a time. So they would need funding whether it is an election year or not. Now, if you are thinking they are counting on the fact that there may be a Democrat for president then my question is: isn't criminal justice more of a Republican thing in which a Democrat would be lenient on? I'm genuinely asking because I'm not sure on this particular topic whether it is traditionally a Republican or Democratic topic for wooing voters. If not then it does indeed make sense that they are working harder in anticipation of a Democrat win.
....but when he discovered that the expansion is accelerating...
That was not a discovery, but an interpretation based on the assumption (belief) that the observed red-shift is due to the doppler effect. There is increasing evidence, that the red shift cannot be due to any large-scale motion or expansion of the universe.
What else creates red-shift? If there is increasing evidence ruling out large-scale motion (of what?) or expansion of the universe then what are they ruling in? All you said was accelerated expansion is wrong based on incorrect assumption of where the red-shift originated without saying what the proposed red-shift origination really is which can support the observed red-shift.
There is a big difference between 'can't physically' and 'doesn't know how' which is what McCain explicitly stated. Which is back to my original point, if a person does not understand technology, they can not reasonably be expected to run a country based largely on said technology.
A President has advisers to help him/her make decisions. A President does not need to know nor ever will know every answer. How many Presidents have we had who have a medical degree? Should the lack of one disqualify him/her for the POTUS position because any legislation or policy regarding healthcare will not be understood by him/her? The same goes for a law degree and anything else. We're not talking about an electrical engineering degree or a CS degree here, only whether a person knows how to use a PC, and you think that should disqualify McCain from running a country based on technology? You gotta be kidding me. You need to rethink your position (and logic) because it is obviously too far to the left to be unbiased.
Unless you adopt the Hindu/Buddhist take on the cosmology... it wasn't created, it didn't magically poof into existence out of nothing: it just is. Always has been, always will be, and goes through periodic cycles of growth and destruction, without end.
Although that does conveniently ignore any hint of a Creation, it doesn't actually provide a useful answer which is what scientists are always searching for in order to be satisfied that the answer may be viable (along with whether the solution is "clean" or "beautiful"). It may be one reason why not many people have not liked that theory much (except Hoyle). There isn't any evidence that a constant expansion/contraction is occuring though which is probably the better reason why scientists don't go for the steady-state theory. It was possible when Hubble first discovered that the universe was expanding but when he discovered that the expansion is accelerating it makes it difficult for the contraction phase to ever get initiated.
Replacing the BSOD with the ASOD.
Except with ASOD, you wont know whos SOD it is...
Just what I was thinking, but I figured out what SOD stands for: Sky of Death. It is a stretch but Azure is blue so I figured we could actually keep BSOD and now it just means Blue Sky of Death since we are talking about a cloud now. A BSOD "out there" will send a message to your computer to display a BSOD locally.
Slashdot Mirror
Objects that are designed by people (and, presumably, other intelligences) tend to be simpler than those created by nature. For example, compare the straight lines of a road with the wavy shape of a river.
If you are going to make comparisons at least do so with apples and apples. A wavy shape of a river only occurs once the river is very old and has had time to erode the rock/soil it flows over. The Colorado River is an example of this, very wavy almost to the point of reconnecting. Try comparing a wavy river to a road (i.e. interstate) that has been in existence for more than a few years w/o repair which has hundreds of semis driving over it everyday in the northern U.S. (which sees hot weather in the summer and below zero temps in the winter). Given those items in the comparison, the natural objects and man-made objects are similar: both are old and show signs of it all over the place. Time wears things down no matter what. By the way, in reference to the OP text, since when did evidence of the hand of God have to be mutually exclusive with that of "nature taking its course"? Nature is what God created therefore they are one in the same in my opinion.
I will state though that nature is still number 1 with respect to complexity. Just to name a few off the top of my head: all the processes running inside a star, the human body (can't live without all the organs at once w/o medical intervention; makes you wonder just how evolutionists explain how that problem got solved), gravity (simple yet so complex that we can't explain everything about it, yet), mass (same as gravity with respect to a simple concept that is still not 100% explained), etc.
Where I live, a rural area of Ohio, people are generally Republican because they are ignorant of the outside world and have knee-jerk emotional reactions to anything that contradicts their personal values or way of life (abortion, gay marrige, oil, Iraq, etc). People in larger urban areas are generally Democratic and have knee-jerk emotional reactions to the BS spewed by the media every day. (global warming, Iraq, etc).
I believe you are wrong. Democrats do indeed react based on emotion which is why they want to view the world as gray. They say we don't live in a black and white world but only because they don't want to view it that way and do what they can to add the gray. On the other hand Republicans are going to disagree on topics with Democrats because Republicans make decisions based on absolutes. The personal values they hold are based on absolute values which Democrats just choose to ignore and therefore view them as personally held by Republicans because they have to be if there isn't anything absolute. Having anything absolute means they wouldn't have the power to view/judge things how they need/want to view/judge them. Having absolutes, in a way, means you don't need to be all knowing of the outside world because, in a sense, you don't have control over certain aspects of that world anyway. What is right will always be right and what is wrong will always be wrong and people will get what they deserve in the end. This doesn't make them stupid and the Democrats smart. It means they know some things are considered above them but Democrats want to get their grubby little hands on anything that will put things in their favor.
Los Alamos are jealous since they just got a 1.026 petaflop supercomputer installed earlier this year by IBM called RoadRunner. It was featured in last month's Linux Journal.
Personally, I think that's true. They should shoot out the tires, and if they can't do that, shoot out the driver. To go 120 mph to catch up to someone going 80 in a 70 to give them a ticket is absurd.
Often times high-speed chases begin when the criminal is already speeding away to avoid capture. When that happens the only thing to do is to start the pursuit. You can't shoot someone who is already going 100mph and expect to be able to hit your small target (tire or head). When you are going 100mph in a 70mph (top interstate speed in parts of the U.S.) and a cop catches you I highly doubt you will only get a ticket. 20+mph over is wreckless driving so 30 over would probably mean mandatory jail time so it wouldn't just be a ticket therefore it wouldn't be absurd. Also, you won't see a cop doing 120mph to stop someone going 80 in a 70 zone because there just isn't a need for it. Even from a standstill a cop could catch the person in a few miles by simply going about 85mph. You are using extreme data to make your argument and you are failing miserably.
If it's safe for them to go that fast, how can it be unsafe for the person only going 10 over the limit?
As someone already said, cops are trained for high speed pursuits and for some reason criminals (who aren't trained) actually think they are better than the cops when they decide to flee at high speed.
Which part should I object to, the entrapment or the using real drugs when they went and bothered to make it illegal to sell flour, or should I object to the fact that selling flour is illegal if the person believes it to be drugs?
If you are caught doing something that you know is illegal but you think you can get away with, you are still guilty because of your intent. Intent is the factor in determining whether you are guilty of murder or manslaughter when you kill someone. You better be glad intent is looked at if you ever happen to kill someone (odds are slim I know but not 0). Don't try splitting hairs and saying this is akin to Minority Report but it isn't. In situations such as selling flour as drugs you are actually still performing the act. It isn't like you thought about doing it and got arrested for it. If you actually attempt to sell flour as drugs then you obviously showed intent to do an illegal act. One story I'll always remember from watching Law and Order is the ethical debate of a guy who shoots another person who is already dead. The guy doesn't know the person is already dead. Is the guy guilty of murder, manslaughter, something else, nothing? I don't recall the answer unfortunately but at the least the guy showed intent to kill because he shot the person. It doesn't matter the person was already dead.
I assert that fraud in enforcement of the law is a violation of civil rights. Maybe not the protected civil rights observed in the US, but I believe it to be a right none the less.
Ok, which civil right is violated? Does it have a name (protected or not)? The right to do something illegal but not have to worry about law enforcement doing something else illegal to arrest you? If you step outside the bounds why can't they? Too fair for you?
Because fraud is illegal. Con games in order to deprive someone of something are illegal. The government should never partake of otherwise illegal means in order to "catch" anyone.
So it shouldn't be legal for the gov't (city or state cop) to exceed the speed limit in order to catch a criminal flying down the highway at 100mph? Or to setup a drug bust using real drugs that stupid criminals buy off them? As long as it isn't entrapment and they respect civil rights there is no harm done.
Nah ... Creationists are fair game here on Slashdot. Matter of fact, they're fair game, period.
There is no place in an adult discussion for people who think name-calling and other childish behavior helps their cause. Those who believe in evolution should be ashamed there are people like you who are fighting for their cause. Just goes to show you how low someone must go in order to win their argument or how they act once they think they won. If evolution is such a great idea then you shouldn't need to worry about whether your opposition is "fair game" or not unless you just want to act like a child. IMO, you lose credibility by viewing them as fair game.
One caveat I should mention with my recommendation is it only works for current news articles and not for usenet archives so if you are strictly needing archival searching then my idea is of no use to you.
Have you tried using a stand-alone news client and its own specific search functions? Something like Thunderbird's or any other news client may be of use to you.
Religion is a bad thing when you get zealots bent on using legislation to force their beliefs on others. The Republicans have been hitching their wagon to that pony since the 80s. It came back to bite them in the ass this time. Instead of talking about issues and coming up with plans to help people, they decided to talk about abortion, gays, and Israel instead. Hopefully they will learn a lesson from this years vote and reevaluate their priorities.
Bias against religion means you easily mistake someone trying to force their beliefs upon you for just trying to uphold the ability for them to freely exercise their own beliefs in public. That includes upholding societal standards of morals and ethics. Don't confuse their goal. Besides, it isn't always about helping people. Some, not all, people just need to step up and be responsible by helping themselves instead of always saying "oh woe is me" and expecting someone to bail them out all thet time. I hardly would say that the Republicans lost because of abortion, gays, and Israel.
In fact, California, Arizona, and Florida all had the majority of the population vote *against* homosexual marriage thereby overturning the state Supreme Court decision (in California) which allows same-sex marriage. That says in at least those 3 states that societal standards lean toward traditional values and we all know how liberal "California" is. I put that in quotes because there are only a few hotspots in CA that are really liberal. The rest of the state is just like most other states which have conservative people. The current map of blues and reds spell that out with the West and NE displaying the majority of the blue but the majority of the country is red.
Please I hope "God"had nothing to do with it. Can we please get past this religion drug? Anyhow, now that the troll bait is out of the way. Congratulations to Mr.Obama, friends, & cow-orkers.
I assume you'll be fair and tell people they should stop using the Lord's name in vain when they say "Oh my God" all the time, especially on TV. By the way, some drugs are useful and not illegal so calling religion a drug isn't a bad thing, nor is religion itself bad. Religion isn't the problem. The lack thereof causes the problems as well as those people who have something against religion. Didn't anyone ever teach you diversity?
It's not mentioned in the article, and I assume it's so obvious that it was ruled out before announcement, but is there anything to suggest that the pulsar is pulsing across all frequencies up to Gamma, and that intervening matter is simply blocking all but the high-energy Gamma portion of the pulse?
Yes it was mentioned:
This discovery by Fermi is different because it is a purely gamma-ray pulsar. The star is silent across parts of electromagnetic spectrum where pulsars are normally found and hints at a whole population of previously unsuspected pulsars waiting to be picked out of the heavens.
So you are saying there is no intelligent life out there afterall?
The intent is to create a North American Union similar to the EU. The excuse for doing so is to save the United States from economic collapse and, to do so, the people who think they know better will create (with the help of Canada and Mexico) a NAU. Supposedly national security is also an excuse. With that comes a new currency. Work has been under way for decades and the concept for the EU started many decades ago as well. WIth the state of the U.S. economy it gives Obama the perfect excuse to push forward with this concept. It will basically wipe the U.S. off the map eventually. The lack of real intentions to close off the Mexican border is part of this overarching goal. Why put up a border fence if Mexico will be part of the new Union? The fact that trucks can go from Mexico, through the U.S., to Canada to transport "goods" is not a good thing but is a sign that we will see more of that if a NAU comes into existence. Some people may say it may never happen here, but why not? It happened to Europe. It is happening to the U.S, in secret. The cat is out of the bag as far as the goal is concerned but individual meetings still occur under wraps.
you're absolutely right. they're complete cowards for risking their jobs to share information with the public. i mean, how dare they try to preserve their anonymity, not like you of course Mr. glitch23--i assume that's your surname?
There are people in companies who are authorized to talk to the press about these issues. They are there for a reason. Those who are not authorized are doing almost exactly what you said, they are risking their designated job for which they were hired to do. They were not hired to leak information to the press. These same people could be responsible for leaking the incorrect information in the first place. I'm not going outside my realm of responsibility by leaking information about my company so my identification is irrelevant. You, and everyone else, are capable of contacting me on here just like you already did. Isn't that enough?
"My understanding, based on information from informed sources who do not wish to be identified because they were not authorized by their employers,
Big surprise. More cowards who are too afraid to state their names but want to talk to act like big shots even though they aren't authorized to talk to anyone. I'd love to find people like that to fire them if I was a manager at a company like that. It was probably loose lips like that which caused this rumor to get out in the first place.
Handful of servers is easy to handle but how are logins and home directories handled in environment this scale?
Use LDAP to integrate RHEL clients (and other distros too) with OpenLDAP, MS Active Directory, Fedora Directory Server, or Sun Java System Directory Server. Any one of those accomplishes a central identification and authentication repository. LDAP-based directory servers can handle millions of entries in a distributed (i.e. global) environment.
This is just another sad example of the American tendency to live beyond one's means. This is another symptom of the disease that is eating this country: financial illiteracy.
You give them too much credit. Another problem is that people who are on welfare, who need help buying groceries, may be buying these phones. Well, we are buying these phones for them in essence. That symptom's disease can be described as "we deserve everything but we don't want to pay for it so let the government help us do everything". Maybe that would be considered financial ignorance or dependence?
On the dayside of Earth (the side closest to the sun),
Just how much of the difference is the increase in attempts, and how much is the fact that with an election year, some departments have to arrest perpetrators to get funding? I mean it's not like we have an independant verified count of attempted illegal exports...
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view) the gov't only plans budgets a year at a time. So they would need funding whether it is an election year or not. Now, if you are thinking they are counting on the fact that there may be a Democrat for president then my question is: isn't criminal justice more of a Republican thing in which a Democrat would be lenient on? I'm genuinely asking because I'm not sure on this particular topic whether it is traditionally a Republican or Democratic topic for wooing voters. If not then it does indeed make sense that they are working harder in anticipation of a Democrat win.
I tried to stick with the original abbreviation of BSOD. Obviously BCOD is more accurate but we're all used to BSOD so I tried to stick to it.
It's slow, I don't like the interface, the constant "allow/deny" requests are annoying as hell, and I can't customize it the way I can XP.
Old excuse. They can be disabled. That still leaves the other issues though.
....but when he discovered that the expansion is accelerating ...
That was not a discovery, but an interpretation based on the assumption (belief) that the observed red-shift is due to the doppler effect. There is increasing evidence, that the red shift cannot be due to any large-scale motion or expansion of the universe.
What else creates red-shift? If there is increasing evidence ruling out large-scale motion (of what?) or expansion of the universe then what are they ruling in? All you said was accelerated expansion is wrong based on incorrect assumption of where the red-shift originated without saying what the proposed red-shift origination really is which can support the observed red-shift.
There is a big difference between 'can't physically' and 'doesn't know how' which is what McCain explicitly stated. Which is back to my original point, if a person does not understand technology, they can not reasonably be expected to run a country based largely on said technology.
A President has advisers to help him/her make decisions. A President does not need to know nor ever will know every answer. How many Presidents have we had who have a medical degree? Should the lack of one disqualify him/her for the POTUS position because any legislation or policy regarding healthcare will not be understood by him/her? The same goes for a law degree and anything else. We're not talking about an electrical engineering degree or a CS degree here, only whether a person knows how to use a PC, and you think that should disqualify McCain from running a country based on technology? You gotta be kidding me. You need to rethink your position (and logic) because it is obviously too far to the left to be unbiased.
Unless you adopt the Hindu/Buddhist take on the cosmology... it wasn't created, it didn't magically poof into existence out of nothing: it just is. Always has been, always will be, and goes through periodic cycles of growth and destruction, without end.
Although that does conveniently ignore any hint of a Creation, it doesn't actually provide a useful answer which is what scientists are always searching for in order to be satisfied that the answer may be viable (along with whether the solution is "clean" or "beautiful"). It may be one reason why not many people have not liked that theory much (except Hoyle). There isn't any evidence that a constant expansion/contraction is occuring though which is probably the better reason why scientists don't go for the steady-state theory. It was possible when Hubble first discovered that the universe was expanding but when he discovered that the expansion is accelerating it makes it difficult for the contraction phase to ever get initiated.
Replacing the BSOD with the ASOD. Except with ASOD, you wont know whos SOD it is...
Just what I was thinking, but I figured out what SOD stands for: Sky of Death. It is a stretch but Azure is blue so I figured we could actually keep BSOD and now it just means Blue Sky of Death since we are talking about a cloud now. A BSOD "out there" will send a message to your computer to display a BSOD locally.