The speaker is a low frequency emitter, so there's no comparison. You might as well claim that gamma-rays are safe because visible light is safe--the only difference is frequency, after all.
I find typical AMOG material from the pick up community works well when dealing Internet fuckwads. You can just google them, there are hundreds and many can be paraphrased to work for forums.
Most cable and DSL providers will assign you a different IP if you merely change the MAC address of your router (a 10 second procedure from your browser). You don't even need to use proxies; IP bans are useless and trivial to avoid, unless you're willing to ban an entire ISP (and I've gotten Shaw banned completely from quite a few IRC channels in my day).
That's why you need retinal projection, since with a fast response focusing control you can invoke the additional 3D perception sense the eye generates through accommodation.
You can't be serious. Uranium (and thorium as well) reserves are pretty limited, even with breeder reactors. If peak oil really hits hard in the next few years and there's a large increase in use of fission for energy, ores will be depleted within decades. Then you're left with trying to extract uranium from seawater, which has been deemed impractical in the only paper to carefully examine the technological obstacles (it is an extremely inefficient process). On the other hand, the energy spent on extracting deuterium from seawater, compared to the energy released in fusion, makes a better ratio, and of course the reactor makes its own tritium. The reserves in this case will last for centuries or more, not decades.
Your analogy is ludicrous, and I've answered your "different post". And "gynormous"? How do you expect me to take you seriously? You even fail to differentiate gender from sex, which is not a good start when you claim insight into this issue.
Right, and all the neurologists cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence that they accept race as a biological factor in intelligence must be bigoted sons of bitches for not hammering the data into the politically correct shape *rolleyes* . I find it amusing how the wiki article authors struggled to list _half_ as many researchers that are not convinced that race is a biological factor in intelligence as the number that are taking the opposite view, despite the latter flying in the face of political correctness. Funny how you don't get the same level of controversy in the study of how race is a factor in neurological pathologies--when the science doesn't hurt your feelings, it's much easier to accept.
Why mod me down? Insecure much? The references backing me up are out there for anyone that would bother to read. Even a simple wikipedia check reveals neurological dimorphism between the human sexes:
Quote: * On average, male brains have approximately 4% more cells and 100 grams more brain tissue than females do. However, both sexes have similar brain weight to body weight ratios. Men have larger left inferior parietal lobes[13], while women have larger Wernicke's and Broca's areas [14]. Evidence of gender differences in the size of the corpus callosum is ambiguous.
* Women generally have faster blood flow to their brains and lose less brain tissue as they age than men do. [15]
* Depression and chronic anxiety are more common in women than in men, due to difference in the brainâ(TM)s serotonin system.[9]
The resulting differences in psychology have been studied for a long time; start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence#References and notice that the majority of papers support my viewpoint.
So on the one hand you imply that you have what it takes to succeed (including core ingredients called determination and courage that are required of either sex), and on the other one you want a nanny state to make it easy for you by castigating the big bad male bullies. You may think yourself a feminist, but your post makes you out to seem but a regulation-loving socialist.
The politically correct view that races are a social construct is not scientifically correct, and that's quite clear when you read papers in population genetics (even though researchers in most cases try to avoid loaded terms like race). Despite variations within any given group tending to blur out distinctions between groups when considering individual aspects, Edwards' statistical cluster analysis (overview at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin's_Fallacy but I recommend you read the actual paper) shows that indeed race is a valid biological categorization (even if not special in terms of level of detail, in that you can further subdivide groups, so race is just one arbitrary level in a genealogical hierarchy). This means that there will be natural predispositions in fields of study and career choices, as well as aptitude, that will exist regardless of any social conditioning! This _must_ be accounted for in public policy before something like affirmative action is considered, otherwise choices are made based on feelings and political expediency, not sound science.
Neuroscience and evolutionary psychology disagrees with your psychological conditioning BS. This is in the same leftist vein as the Soviet communists' rejection of Darwinism in favor of Lamarckism, because it better fit their sociological agenda, actual science be damned. This "nurture" thing is more of the same.
Overpulation pressure is a great long term motivator for space exploration. In a world more interconnected and shrinking due to technological progress, the redundancy of beyond-Earth colonization is another welcome feature.
Slashdot Mirror
The speaker is a low frequency emitter, so there's no comparison. You might as well claim that gamma-rays are safe because visible light is safe--the only difference is frequency, after all.
That's why one can buy hollow tube headsets; there's no wire going near your head and I can't tell a difference in the sound quality.
That's why I use a hollow tube headset similar to this one http://www.bioelectricshield.com/products/images/biopro%20handsfree.jpg
It's not harsh since the retarded can't understand the mocking.
I find typical AMOG material from the pick up community works well when dealing Internet fuckwads. You can just google them, there are hundreds and many can be paraphrased to work for forums.
Most cable and DSL providers will assign you a different IP if you merely change the MAC address of your router (a 10 second procedure from your browser). You don't even need to use proxies; IP bans are useless and trivial to avoid, unless you're willing to ban an entire ISP (and I've gotten Shaw banned completely from quite a few IRC channels in my day).
I don't get it :?
That's why you need retinal projection, since with a fast response focusing control you can invoke the additional 3D perception sense the eye generates through accommodation.
You can't be serious. Uranium (and thorium as well) reserves are pretty limited, even with breeder reactors. If peak oil really hits hard in the next few years and there's a large increase in use of fission for energy, ores will be depleted within decades. Then you're left with trying to extract uranium from seawater, which has been deemed impractical in the only paper to carefully examine the technological obstacles (it is an extremely inefficient process). On the other hand, the energy spent on extracting deuterium from seawater, compared to the energy released in fusion, makes a better ratio, and of course the reactor makes its own tritium. The reserves in this case will last for centuries or more, not decades.
Are you in this field, by any chance? I feel sorry for paper authors that have to use elaborate euphemisms throughout their work.
Your analogy is ludicrous, and I've answered your "different post". And "gynormous"? How do you expect me to take you seriously? You even fail to differentiate gender from sex, which is not a good start when you claim insight into this issue.
Sugar-coat it, you mean. ^5
Right, and all the neurologists cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence that they accept race as a biological factor in intelligence must be bigoted sons of bitches for not hammering the data into the politically correct shape *rolleyes* . I find it amusing how the wiki article authors struggled to list _half_ as many researchers that are not convinced that race is a biological factor in intelligence as the number that are taking the opposite view, despite the latter flying in the face of political correctness. Funny how you don't get the same level of controversy in the study of how race is a factor in neurological pathologies--when the science doesn't hurt your feelings, it's much easier to accept.
Why mod me down? Insecure much? The references backing me up are out there for anyone that would bother to read. Even a simple wikipedia check reveals neurological dimorphism between the human sexes:
Quote:
* On average, male brains have approximately 4% more cells and 100 grams more brain tissue than females do. However, both sexes have similar brain weight to body weight ratios. Men have larger left inferior parietal lobes[13], while women have larger Wernicke's and Broca's areas [14]. Evidence of gender differences in the size of the corpus callosum is ambiguous.
* Women generally have faster blood flow to their brains and lose less brain tissue as they age than men do. [15]
* Depression and chronic anxiety are more common in women than in men, due to difference in the brainâ(TM)s serotonin system.[9]
The resulting differences in psychology have been studied for a long time; start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence#References and notice that the majority of papers support my viewpoint.
Thanks. You've restored my faith in women. Compare to those such as http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=615191&cid=24204107 seeking the government to pave the path for them.
So on the one hand you imply that you have what it takes to succeed (including core ingredients called determination and courage that are required of either sex), and on the other one you want a nanny state to make it easy for you by castigating the big bad male bullies. You may think yourself a feminist, but your post makes you out to seem but a regulation-loving socialist.
Yeah, but I heard they're both on sale.
The politically correct view that races are a social construct is not scientifically correct, and that's quite clear when you read papers in population genetics (even though researchers in most cases try to avoid loaded terms like race). Despite variations within any given group tending to blur out distinctions between groups when considering individual aspects, Edwards' statistical cluster analysis (overview at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin's_Fallacy but I recommend you read the actual paper) shows that indeed race is a valid biological categorization (even if not special in terms of level of detail, in that you can further subdivide groups, so race is just one arbitrary level in a genealogical hierarchy). This means that there will be natural predispositions in fields of study and career choices, as well as aptitude, that will exist regardless of any social conditioning! This _must_ be accounted for in public policy before something like affirmative action is considered, otherwise choices are made based on feelings and political expediency, not sound science.
Neuroscience and evolutionary psychology disagrees with your psychological conditioning BS. This is in the same leftist vein as the Soviet communists' rejection of Darwinism in favor of Lamarckism, because it better fit their sociological agenda, actual science be damned. This "nurture" thing is more of the same.
My point was not expansion in space reducing population that much, but population driving expansion in space. You got it backwards.
closed *
Your comment is unfair. Most atheists aren't completely close to the idea; they simply make a realistic probability estimate.
Overpulation pressure is a great long term motivator for space exploration. In a world more interconnected and shrinking due to technological progress, the redundancy of beyond-Earth colonization is another welcome feature.
I don't get it.
I don't like big tits. If I needed cushions I'd get pillows. Medium tits FTW!