Do the math on how many "trial and error" events take place in 4.5 billion years. Remember that you start with prokaryotes, which have average reproduction rates measured in minutes; by the time you get to mammals (along an axis merely of gestation and maturation), you have reproduction rates measured in years. Remember, too, that the number of actual point mutations that can take place between two generations is the rate at which sufficiently energetic particles and waves strike the genome of germ cells multiplied by the average time between generations. In other words, yes, the math is there.
What idiot modded this offtopic? "Rupert" is the name of the 10th planet in Douglas Adams's Mostly Harmless (well, the actual name is Persephone, but everyone calls it Rupert for reasons which it's best not to go in to here). The only way this could be modded negative is if there were a "-1 Blindingly obvious" mod.
All that tells us is that you don't know what dictionary to use. If the terms are field-specific, you need to use a field-specific lexicon. OK, yes, there are some writers who use *unnecessary* jargon as a kind of badge, but the fact is that some jargon is necessary. Neologism is a perfectly acceptable procedure in some cases: when you discover something that has never before been seen, you need to create a word to describe it.
I just love being called a "tard" by someone who can't spell "imbue" and who describes Ayn Rand as the only "fiction writer" who so imbues her work (last I checked, Ayn Rand is not a they) and is "work" reading.
Let me see if I can make this clearer without resorting to name calling again.
1. Orwell was obviously an anti-communist. He was a left-wing anti-communist. The first anti-communists were on the left; the dingbat Stalinist ingelligentsia in Britain and America would have disgusted him, but so would American and British conservatism. The problem here is that you've been taught to associate liberalism, the left, communism, and socialism together as though they are all the same thing. They're not: communism is a perversion of left-liberal thinking; Marx took some sound economic ideas and ran with them right off the edge of the earth. The reality is that a healthy economy is a mixed economy (as a healthy government is a mixed government, something that the great intellectual figures who founded the US understood).
2. Orwell might have supported the war in Iraq; hell, Tony Blair is supporting it, and though he's not on the left by any meaningful measurement, he's certainly not on the right, either. Orwell was in favor of opposing facism and totalitarianism wherever it was found, and would have recognized in Saddam Hussein a potential Franco or Mussolini (Saddam lacked the national base to become a real Hitler, and was motivated by pure will to power, not by the weirder psychological perversions that motivated Hitler). However, he might not have favored the current war in Iraq given some of the context (for instance, if China were suddenly to decide it's time to occupy Taiwan, Orwell would have been screaming about our wasting time in Iraq while the real threat was building in Asia).
However, I can guarantee you that Orwell would have been disgusted by the attacks on Social Security and "trickle-down economics" (he would have had quite a bit to say about the fantasy math and sophistic language used to support both positions), and he would have been disgusted by the self-serving language tricks the past two administrations have engaged in (the whole "well, he said Joe Wilson's wife, but he didn't name her, so he didn't violate the law" routine is the only thing that approaches Clinton's "it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is" in sophistical hypocrisy). On the other hand, I don't think he would have been surprised.
Until you have read "Down and Out in Paris and London," "The Lion and the Unicorn," and "Homage to Catalonia," don't try to talk about Orwell's politics. And don't believe ANYONE who tries to tell you that Orwell was a conservative.
Hey, shithead: you do realize that the peaceniks he was attacking were those who didn't want to fight in Spain or against Hitler, right? Two facist (right-wing) regimes?
How the HELL could anyone read Homage to Catalonia and decide that Orwell was a populist conservative? Or The Lion and the Unicorn, where he SLAMS English conservatives for supporting Hitler because he's good for business, and he comes right out and says that "capitalism" "doesn't work?"
What Cato-Institute funded mind-job factory were you educated in?
You should read The Lion and the Unicorn before you make any more stupid comments about "left-wing people [who] have hijacked the book 1984." It is you on the right who have hijacked Orwell: the man was a dedicated leftist. The problem is that you are so poorly educated you can't distinguish between the Left and Communism (which is to the Left as Wahabbism is to Islam, or the KKK is to Conservatism - a badly distorted variant).
Orwell's attacks on the Communist Party were motivated by his belief that they were anti-revolutionary: that they were Facists in sheeps' clothing: for him, democracy was a necessity for socialism. The joke to "English Socialism" that you obviously don't understand is that it is the same sort of duck speak as "Ministry of Love" - it calls itself socialism, but is actually totalitarian - just like Stalinism.
If you actually read 1984 or Animal Farm with any literary sensitivity, you'd see how in both cases Orwell imagines socialism becoming perverted by the actions of power-hungry Communists - the very same thing he saw happening in the Spanish Civil War (and described in Homage to Catalonia, where he sees the Communist Party as second only to Franco's Facists as agents of injustice). Orwell saw real danger in socialism, true - but the danger he saw was not to a healthy capitalism (which Orwell says bluntly in The Lion and the Unicorn "does not work") but to democracy - Orwell saw democracy as always unstable, as something that had to be supported by the exertions of those dedicated to justice.
Orwell made a lot of mistakes: I think he doesn't understand that all economic systems, capitalist and socialist, are corrosive to democracy because they require either competition (which naturally leads to economic disparities, which give more power to the wealthy, and which therefore undermine democracy) or control (which suppress individual initiative and submits the individual to mass control). For democracy to work, you need to create an unstable equilibrium between planned and open economy that is sufficiently bounded to prevent either repressive sociailism or unfetterred capitalism from gaining the upper hand and suppressing individual freedoms, jolting back and forth like the pistons of a machine. But then Orwell didn't have the benefit we have of having seen what happens to a planned economy.
The article refers to the U2/McCartney live version of the song "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" from Live8, not the Beatles album Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
RTFA. The new single of Sgt. Pepper's the song (the opening song on the album) by McCartney with U2 is the comparandum. They're comparing a single point download (of the Beethoven symphonies from BBC) to a single point download (of Sgt Pepper's from iTunes). Of course, they're also comparing several hours at $0.00 to three minutes at $0.79, so I'm not sure how useful the comparison really is (as they admit themselves), except that it surprised them how many people would listen to classical music if it was free. They also point out that iTunes sales are actually better than brick and mortar sales for many classical albums.
The Occitan version is in La chanson de la croisade Albigeoise attributed to Arnaud Amaury, Abbe of Beziers, to convince the men that it was ok to be indiscriminate in their killing in the sack of the city.
If you like Cowboy Beebop (it's the only anime I can stand), the new BSG, and old Star Wars, you almost certainly will like Firefly. Borrow the DVDs, watch them in order, and don't give up until you've seen "Objects in Space".
No, this is not like Stargate SG-1. (Nothing wrong with SG-1, but Firefly is on another level.)
I stand corrected. There is no current version of Outlook for Mac OS X, but there is a (old, and no longer sold, but distributed at no cost and apparently still supported) version of Outlook for OS 9 and classic. Sorry. However, according to this page, Outlook 2001 only works with an Exchange server and not with Internet mail. I imagine that the version they sold with Office 2001 did.
Ontario won't join the U.S. until the U.S. pays off the debt owed to the descendants of the Loyalists who had their properties confiscated during the Revolutionary War and sold off to profit the new government. In the Treaty of Paris that formally recognized the independence of the United States from the British Empire guaranteed that those Loyalists would be repaid. Guess what? They still haven't.
Considering that the other side of that deal was that you loyalists promised you would return slaves you had captured (or liberated) to their "rightful" "owners," I have to say that I'm pretty happy that particular aspect of the Treaty of Paris isn't being enforced.
There is no Mac version of Outlook, as I imagine you already knew. There is a version of Outlook Express for Mac OS 9, and there's Microsoft Entourage for Mac OSX, but no Outlook for Mac.
On my suggestion, the multilink degrades to a single link in browsers that can't handle multilinks. Of course, you need to get someone to add the code to the browser.
Are the Beatles on ANY download service? They certainly aren't on iTunes for the obvious Apple Computer/Apple Corps reason; but I wouldn't be surprised if they're still holding out on competing services (after all, they didn't start releasing CDs until 1987).
This would work for cases where the different links provide the same info, but what about cases where the different links provide different info? I think you need a more robust linking model in xhtml to handle those cases.
Someone really needs to come up with an extra simple version of Ghost. Or maybe a windows equivalent of CCC that only copies a limited set of programs, the OS, and non-executable files from the profile.
Slashdot Mirror
That's probably because most of the time, people searching for those electronic components are searching for ways to buy them.
. Most of the initial headlines were "FCC eases rules" or "Phone companies get internet relief".
The news outlets are writing the story because they're getting faxed press releases from the telcos, and therefore are accepting the Telcos' spin.
You do know that Chuck Yeager never flew on a space craft?
Do the math on how many "trial and error" events take place in 4.5 billion years. Remember that you start with prokaryotes, which have average reproduction rates measured in minutes; by the time you get to mammals (along an axis merely of gestation and maturation), you have reproduction rates measured in years. Remember, too, that the number of actual point mutations that can take place between two generations is the rate at which sufficiently energetic particles and waves strike the genome of germ cells multiplied by the average time between generations. In other words, yes, the math is there.
What idiot modded this offtopic? "Rupert" is the name of the 10th planet in Douglas Adams's Mostly Harmless (well, the actual name is Persephone, but everyone calls it Rupert for reasons which it's best not to go in to here). The only way this could be modded negative is if there were a "-1 Blindingly obvious" mod.
See http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/inde x.html . There's already another one, possibly an 11th "planet" (or nth TNO).
All that tells us is that you don't know what dictionary to use. If the terms are field-specific, you need to use a field-specific lexicon. OK, yes, there are some writers who use *unnecessary* jargon as a kind of badge, but the fact is that some jargon is necessary. Neologism is a perfectly acceptable procedure in some cases: when you discover something that has never before been seen, you need to create a word to describe it.
You've got a point :-)
I just love being called a "tard" by someone who can't spell "imbue" and who describes Ayn Rand as the only "fiction writer" who so imbues her work (last I checked, Ayn Rand is not a they) and is "work" reading.
Let me see if I can make this clearer without resorting to name calling again.
1. Orwell was obviously an anti-communist. He was a left-wing anti-communist. The first anti-communists were on the left; the dingbat Stalinist ingelligentsia in Britain and America would have disgusted him, but so would American and British conservatism. The problem here is that you've been taught to associate liberalism, the left, communism, and socialism together as though they are all the same thing. They're not: communism is a perversion of left-liberal thinking; Marx took some sound economic ideas and ran with them right off the edge of the earth. The reality is that a healthy economy is a mixed economy (as a healthy government is a mixed government, something that the great intellectual figures who founded the US understood).
2. Orwell might have supported the war in Iraq; hell, Tony Blair is supporting it, and though he's not on the left by any meaningful measurement, he's certainly not on the right, either. Orwell was in favor of opposing facism and totalitarianism wherever it was found, and would have recognized in Saddam Hussein a potential Franco or Mussolini (Saddam lacked the national base to become a real Hitler, and was motivated by pure will to power, not by the weirder psychological perversions that motivated Hitler). However, he might not have favored the current war in Iraq given some of the context (for instance, if China were suddenly to decide it's time to occupy Taiwan, Orwell would have been screaming about our wasting time in Iraq while the real threat was building in Asia).
However, I can guarantee you that Orwell would have been disgusted by the attacks on Social Security and "trickle-down economics" (he would have had quite a bit to say about the fantasy math and sophistic language used to support both positions), and he would have been disgusted by the self-serving language tricks the past two administrations have engaged in (the whole "well, he said Joe Wilson's wife, but he didn't name her, so he didn't violate the law" routine is the only thing that approaches Clinton's "it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is" in sophistical hypocrisy). On the other hand, I don't think he would have been surprised.
Until you have read "Down and Out in Paris and London," "The Lion and the Unicorn," and "Homage to Catalonia," don't try to talk about Orwell's politics. And don't believe ANYONE who tries to tell you that Orwell was a conservative.
Hey, shithead: you do realize that the peaceniks he was attacking were those who didn't want to fight in Spain or against Hitler, right? Two facist (right-wing) regimes?
How the HELL could anyone read Homage to Catalonia and decide that Orwell was a populist conservative? Or The Lion and the Unicorn, where he SLAMS English conservatives for supporting Hitler because he's good for business, and he comes right out and says that "capitalism" "doesn't work?"
What Cato-Institute funded mind-job factory were you educated in?
You should read The Lion and the Unicorn before you make any more stupid comments about "left-wing people [who] have hijacked the book 1984." It is you on the right who have hijacked Orwell: the man was a dedicated leftist. The problem is that you are so poorly educated you can't distinguish between the Left and Communism (which is to the Left as Wahabbism is to Islam, or the KKK is to Conservatism - a badly distorted variant).
Orwell's attacks on the Communist Party were motivated by his belief that they were anti-revolutionary: that they were Facists in sheeps' clothing: for him, democracy was a necessity for socialism. The joke to "English Socialism" that you obviously don't understand is that it is the same sort of duck speak as "Ministry of Love" - it calls itself socialism, but is actually totalitarian - just like Stalinism.
If you actually read 1984 or Animal Farm with any literary sensitivity, you'd see how in both cases Orwell imagines socialism becoming perverted by the actions of power-hungry Communists - the very same thing he saw happening in the Spanish Civil War (and described in Homage to Catalonia, where he sees the Communist Party as second only to Franco's Facists as agents of injustice). Orwell saw real danger in socialism, true - but the danger he saw was not to a healthy capitalism (which Orwell says bluntly in The Lion and the Unicorn "does not work") but to democracy - Orwell saw democracy as always unstable, as something that had to be supported by the exertions of those dedicated to justice.
Orwell made a lot of mistakes: I think he doesn't understand that all economic systems, capitalist and socialist, are corrosive to democracy because they require either competition (which naturally leads to economic disparities, which give more power to the wealthy, and which therefore undermine democracy) or control (which suppress individual initiative and submits the individual to mass control). For democracy to work, you need to create an unstable equilibrium between planned and open economy that is sufficiently bounded to prevent either repressive sociailism or unfetterred capitalism from gaining the upper hand and suppressing individual freedoms, jolting back and forth like the pistons of a machine. But then Orwell didn't have the benefit we have of having seen what happens to a planned economy.
The article refers to the U2/McCartney live version of the song "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" from Live8, not the Beatles album Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
RTFA. The new single of Sgt. Pepper's the song (the opening song on the album) by McCartney with U2 is the comparandum. They're comparing a single point download (of the Beethoven symphonies from BBC) to a single point download (of Sgt Pepper's from iTunes). Of course, they're also comparing several hours at $0.00 to three minutes at $0.79, so I'm not sure how useful the comparison really is (as they admit themselves), except that it surprised them how many people would listen to classical music if it was free. They also point out that iTunes sales are actually better than brick and mortar sales for many classical albums.
The Occitan version is in La chanson de la croisade Albigeoise attributed to Arnaud Amaury, Abbe of Beziers, to convince the men that it was ok to be indiscriminate in their killing in the sack of the city.
If you like Cowboy Beebop (it's the only anime I can stand), the new BSG, and old Star Wars, you almost certainly will like Firefly. Borrow the DVDs, watch them in order, and don't give up until you've seen "Objects in Space".
No, this is not like Stargate SG-1. (Nothing wrong with SG-1, but Firefly is on another level.)
It's designed to be used against people. How does it sort out the "rioters"?
God will know his own.
(Yes, that's sarcasm, boys and girls. Google "Tuez-les tous, Dieu reconnaîtra les siens")
I stand corrected. There is no current version of Outlook for Mac OS X, but there is a (old, and no longer sold, but distributed at no cost and apparently still supported) version of Outlook for OS 9 and classic. Sorry. However, according to this page, Outlook 2001 only works with an Exchange server and not with Internet mail. I imagine that the version they sold with Office 2001 did.
Ontario won't join the U.S. until the U.S. pays off the debt owed to the descendants of the Loyalists who had their properties confiscated during the Revolutionary War and sold off to profit the new government. In the Treaty of Paris that formally recognized the independence of the United States from the British Empire guaranteed that those Loyalists would be repaid. Guess what? They still haven't.
Considering that the other side of that deal was that you loyalists promised you would return slaves you had captured (or liberated) to their "rightful" "owners," I have to say that I'm pretty happy that particular aspect of the Treaty of Paris isn't being enforced.
There is no Mac version of Outlook, as I imagine you already knew. There is a version of Outlook Express for Mac OS 9, and there's Microsoft Entourage for Mac OSX, but no Outlook for Mac.
On my suggestion, the multilink degrades to a single link in browsers that can't handle multilinks. Of course, you need to get someone to add the code to the browser.
Are the Beatles on ANY download service? They certainly aren't on iTunes for the obvious Apple Computer/Apple Corps reason; but I wouldn't be surprised if they're still holding out on competing services (after all, they didn't start releasing CDs until 1987).
This would work for cases where the different links provide the same info, but what about cases where the different links provide different info? I think you need a more robust linking model in xhtml to handle those cases.
[a type='multilink' href='http://www.slashdot.org/defaultlinkfornon multilinkbrowsers']
[linkoption href='http://www.slashdot.org/firstlink' title='This is the first link']
[linkoption href='http://www.slashdot.org/secondlink' title='This is the second link']
[linkoption href='http://www.slashdot.org/thirdlink' title='This is the third link']
This is the text inside the link
[/a]
and have this appear as a small dropdown list below the link when you click the link.
Someone really needs to come up with an extra simple version of Ghost. Or maybe a windows equivalent of CCC that only copies a limited set of programs, the OS, and non-executable files from the profile.