These things are not incompatible. That is why most open sources have "stable" releases and nightlies. Early adopters can participate in the development process, other users get a strong release.
The problem is arrogance. Hollywood people really believe they are smarter than everyone else. So they take a very successful work (book, comic, whatever) and then CHANGE IT beyond just adapting it for the medium. If it ain't broke...This is what Peter Jackson understood. If the source material is good enough to make a movie then it ought not to be changed. No one will ever get this, I'm afraid. (the most successful movies from books I can think of were rarely changed much from their bestselling source material)
Definetly. The suburbs are a total travesty. That is why urban development should be encouraged. More apartments and high-density living means more people can walk to work. My experience in Boulder was more, rather than less, driving than living in Denver, because outside of the Pearl street area it actually isn't all that walkable. But your situation sounds ideal. I actually live in the city and commute to the suburbs, which blows. I carpool, which makes a big difference. Ideally I would like to work with in walking/biking/bus distance my house. I can walk to the grocery, the coffee shop, the bar and a book store. The apple store is a 10 minute bike ride.
I think a lot of the new arrivals in the boulder area are of the "I deserve a backyard and 5,000 square feet of living space" ilk, which is what is driving the godforsaken sprawl that surrounds denver. Central denver is so wonderful, one wonders what would drive someone to live in Brighton or Parker where everything is a drive away. I think you would find that most suburbanites can't even walk to their friends houses. The only place they can walk to is the mail box.
(note: this is a logically flawed rant attacking a straw man)
I don't think you have been to boulder. These people are FAKE hippies. They listen to Widespread Panic and talk about sustainable living and drive a BMW X5. When they talk about the environment they are concerned with where they want to ski, hike, mountian bike and Kyak. They care about sustainability, as long as they can afford to by a $400 fleece jacket. I know that there are real hippies that live off the grid, share cars and opt out of modern living. I don't encounter these people very often. What I encounter in Colorado is a special breed of fake hippie yuppie that is decidedly anti-urban. They think everyone should live on a mountain, but hopefully not the same mountain as them. They don't see the environment as a place that animals live and our shared heritage. They think of it as their personal disneyland to enjoy as they see fit. Their environmentalism is a consumerist environmentalism. Its very annoying.
Perhaps I am wrong. I think there probably is a new breed that are ok with urban living. In my (completely unscientific andectodal) experience a great many of the people belong to the Trustafarian clan. I would imagine the majority of people in boulder that talk the hippie talk to not walk the walk. But I am probably wrong. Nevertheless, I find it highly unlikely that six million people could live sustainably the hippie lifestyle.
In the US, yes. I gather you are from the UK, where population density is much higher. The average ex-urb hippie in the USA probably has no access to public transport. They quite likely do not have solar water-heaters. They probably recycle, but they have to drive to a recycling center because their communities don't have municipal recycling. They shops are probably a 40 minute walk. So I don't doubt you live that way. But the american hippies don't and they drive me batty. I work between Denver (2 million people) and Boulder (100,000 white, privledged "environmentalists"). I carpool to work, I can walk to the shops. They can't, yet I have often had conversations with these people maligning my urban lifestyle. The UK, compared to the US, is basically completely urban. People don't drive 45 minutes to work in a 2 ton (1.84 tonnes) "car" that gets 7 miles to the gallon (3km/litre). It is hypocracy and it really can get annoying.
A lot of environmentalists want to live in the country. Of course, living in the country in general means a bigger house and more resources than living in the city. The hippies in the Boulders and Eugenes of the world drive more than the urbanites they detest. They have bigger homes and use more electricity. Many of them (like my office-mate) think that not living in the city puts them in a category above the "sheep" that consume all the time. Everytime I see an SUV in Boulder with a "free tiber" sticker on it I can't decide if I should laugh or cry. No conclusion here, but the "anti-urban" hippies drive me crazy. They say they couldn't stand to live in the big city and don't see what an arrogant (dare I say elitest...) attitude that is. MOST people live in the city. There is no other option. There is nothing inherently superior about living in a cheap house built in the 70s because it is in the mountains. Grrr.
The anti-urban attitude is what drove me out of Boulder and into Denver. Cities are the future. Six billion people cannot live well in self-sustaining villages. The only way to reach the Boulder/Eugene vision of lots of pretty little towns surrounded by little organic farms is to kill about 3/4 of the world's population. Urbanization allows centralization of problematic features of modern life. Waste and pollution can be more easily managed, food production can be streamlined to feed more people better. Sanitation can be centralized to reduce disease. Social services that aren't feasible in the countryside are essential and managable in the cities.
Urban living is the best way to pool our resources and achieve more for humanity and a better lifestyle. Third world urban areas are awful right now, but that is a problem that can be solved with money and planning.
Can you? Where is the sacrement of marriage in the bible? Point it out to me. Martin Luther himself insisted that the "sacrement" of marriage was an invention of the Catholic church and not based in the bible.
You're RIGHT. It doesn't. So who cares if the state grants marriage licenses to gay couples? Whe aren't forcing you to do anything about it. You can believe whatever you want. I don't see your problem with gay couples having the right to be legally married. No one is going to force your church to let them get married there.
Marriage is a WORD. Get the hell over it. If there was a civil union that established ALL of the same legal protections as marriage, that wouldn't bother you, but if it was called marriage it would? Excuse me? And you know what? The bible does NOT say that marriage is between one man and one woman. It says that marriage is between one man and one (or more) women. There is no sacrement of marriage in the bible. All the discussion of marriage in the bible concernes something that is assumed to exist, and how one should behave in marriage. God does not, in the bible, great the sacred bond of marriage. He creates man and woman and marriage seems to just come naturally from that. He then condemns adultery.
The obsession with marriage as some sort of perfect union is a very new thing among evangelicals. Christians have traditionally (since Augustine) viewed marriage as a necessary evil, not as the apotheosis of christian living.
This is not true, not true at all. In many states (like Washington) homosexuals are NOT a protected class. That means you CAN fire someone or not hire them because they are gay. You can deny them a loan or housing because of their orientation. Homosexuals would not get "special" rights under this bill. They would get the right to be treated the same as everyone else. Which many in the christian lunatic fringe have decided to label as anti christian bigotry.
I am getting the impression that they aren't generating a junk file with the same hash, but some how SPOOFING the hash. I have no idea how one would do this, but I suppose it would be feasible with a special client.
There is a light that does a good job: HMI. Its an arc lamp that produces a spectrum very close to that of sunlight. Only problem is the fact that they cost a fortune, are quite dangerous and require a large ballast.
Things that change shape in the body under different situations are VERY useful in medicine. Very common right now are Nitinol devices, which can "remember" a previous geometry. Nitinol stents are saving lives today. I can imagine a polymer that changed shape when exposed to light could be quite useful, as it could be inserted in a catheter and then deployed with a light emiting catheter. Or there may be other reasons to use these polymers. Its a bit early to dismiss their medical use just because light doesn't reach inside your body.
So much british humour is about losers, morons, ugly people, rude people and bad people. Conventional wisdom in hollywoods is that no one wants to see ugly, rude, stupid losers. Or if they do there should be some sort of "likeable" character in all that. Or the loser should become a hero. This kills british humour. See: Men Behaving Badly british version vs American version. Also note the shortage of unattractive people in American sitcoms. (but note the number of unattractive people in SUCCESSFUL American sitcoms...)
Amateurs never use a boom mic. I don't know why, but they don't. They also seem to very rarely monitor audio through headphones when shooting. Another mistake.
I am going to assume that this deal goes both ways. If you spring for the stand-alone tivo box I hope it will actually support comcast digital cable, including OnDemand from the same interface, which would rock. I can't see how this is bad news for tivo users.
Slashdot Mirror
These things are not incompatible. That is why most open sources have "stable" releases and nightlies. Early adopters can participate in the development process, other users get a strong release.
Is there anyway to reverse the polarity of that darlington transistor to direct a tachyon pulse through the optocoupler?
The problem is arrogance. Hollywood people really believe they are smarter than everyone else. So they take a very successful work (book, comic, whatever) and then CHANGE IT beyond just adapting it for the medium. If it ain't broke...This is what Peter Jackson understood. If the source material is good enough to make a movie then it ought not to be changed. No one will ever get this, I'm afraid. (the most successful movies from books I can think of were rarely changed much from their bestselling source material)
although both $buzzword and $sarcastic_comment should be stored in some sort of database...
Definetly. The suburbs are a total travesty. That is why urban development should be encouraged. More apartments and high-density living means more people can walk to work. My experience in Boulder was more, rather than less, driving than living in Denver, because outside of the Pearl street area it actually isn't all that walkable. But your situation sounds ideal. I actually live in the city and commute to the suburbs, which blows. I carpool, which makes a big difference. Ideally I would like to work with in walking/biking/bus distance my house. I can walk to the grocery, the coffee shop, the bar and a book store. The apple store is a 10 minute bike ride.
I think a lot of the new arrivals in the boulder area are of the "I deserve a backyard and 5,000 square feet of living space" ilk, which is what is driving the godforsaken sprawl that surrounds denver. Central denver is so wonderful, one wonders what would drive someone to live in Brighton or Parker where everything is a drive away. I think you would find that most suburbanites can't even walk to their friends houses. The only place they can walk to is the mail box.
(note: this is a logically flawed rant attacking a straw man)
I don't think you have been to boulder. These people are FAKE hippies. They listen to Widespread Panic and talk about sustainable living and drive a BMW X5. When they talk about the environment they are concerned with where they want to ski, hike, mountian bike and Kyak. They care about sustainability, as long as they can afford to by a $400 fleece jacket. I know that there are real hippies that live off the grid, share cars and opt out of modern living. I don't encounter these people very often. What I encounter in Colorado is a special breed of fake hippie yuppie that is decidedly anti-urban. They think everyone should live on a mountain, but hopefully not the same mountain as them. They don't see the environment as a place that animals live and our shared heritage. They think of it as their personal disneyland to enjoy as they see fit. Their environmentalism is a consumerist environmentalism. Its very annoying.
Perhaps I am wrong. I think there probably is a new breed that are ok with urban living. In my (completely unscientific andectodal) experience a great many of the people belong to the Trustafarian clan. I would imagine the majority of people in boulder that talk the hippie talk to not walk the walk. But I am probably wrong. Nevertheless, I find it highly unlikely that six million people could live sustainably the hippie lifestyle.
In the US, yes. I gather you are from the UK, where population density is much higher. The average ex-urb hippie in the USA probably has no access to public transport. They quite likely do not have solar water-heaters. They probably recycle, but they have to drive to a recycling center because their communities don't have municipal recycling. They shops are probably a 40 minute walk. So I don't doubt you live that way. But the american hippies don't and they drive me batty. I work between Denver (2 million people) and Boulder (100,000 white, privledged "environmentalists"). I carpool to work, I can walk to the shops. They can't, yet I have often had conversations with these people maligning my urban lifestyle. The UK, compared to the US, is basically completely urban. People don't drive 45 minutes to work in a 2 ton (1.84 tonnes) "car" that gets 7 miles to the gallon (3km/litre). It is hypocracy and it really can get annoying.
A lot of environmentalists want to live in the country. Of course, living in the country in general means a bigger house and more resources than living in the city. The hippies in the Boulders and Eugenes of the world drive more than the urbanites they detest. They have bigger homes and use more electricity. Many of them (like my office-mate) think that not living in the city puts them in a category above the "sheep" that consume all the time. Everytime I see an SUV in Boulder with a "free tiber" sticker on it I can't decide if I should laugh or cry. No conclusion here, but the "anti-urban" hippies drive me crazy. They say they couldn't stand to live in the big city and don't see what an arrogant (dare I say elitest...) attitude that is. MOST people live in the city. There is no other option. There is nothing inherently superior about living in a cheap house built in the 70s because it is in the mountains. Grrr.
The anti-urban attitude is what drove me out of Boulder and into Denver. Cities are the future. Six billion people cannot live well in self-sustaining villages. The only way to reach the Boulder/Eugene vision of lots of pretty little towns surrounded by little organic farms is to kill about 3/4 of the world's population. Urbanization allows centralization of problematic features of modern life. Waste and pollution can be more easily managed, food production can be streamlined to feed more people better. Sanitation can be centralized to reduce disease. Social services that aren't feasible in the countryside are essential and managable in the cities.
Urban living is the best way to pool our resources and achieve more for humanity and a better lifestyle. Third world urban areas are awful right now, but that is a problem that can be solved with money and planning.
Can you? Where is the sacrement of marriage in the bible? Point it out to me. Martin Luther himself insisted that the "sacrement" of marriage was an invention of the Catholic church and not based in the bible.
You're RIGHT. It doesn't. So who cares if the state grants marriage licenses to gay couples? Whe aren't forcing you to do anything about it. You can believe whatever you want. I don't see your problem with gay couples having the right to be legally married. No one is going to force your church to let them get married there.
Marriage is a WORD. Get the hell over it. If there was a civil union that established ALL of the same legal protections as marriage, that wouldn't bother you, but if it was called marriage it would? Excuse me? And you know what? The bible does NOT say that marriage is between one man and one woman. It says that marriage is between one man and one (or more) women. There is no sacrement of marriage in the bible. All the discussion of marriage in the bible concernes something that is assumed to exist, and how one should behave in marriage. God does not, in the bible, great the sacred bond of marriage. He creates man and woman and marriage seems to just come naturally from that. He then condemns adultery.
The obsession with marriage as some sort of perfect union is a very new thing among evangelicals. Christians have traditionally (since Augustine) viewed marriage as a necessary evil, not as the apotheosis of christian living.
I repeat:
read
This is not true, not true at all. In many states (like Washington) homosexuals are NOT a protected class. That means you CAN fire someone or not hire them because they are gay. You can deny them a loan or housing because of their orientation. Homosexuals would not get "special" rights under this bill. They would get the right to be treated the same as everyone else. Which many in the christian lunatic fringe have decided to label as anti christian bigotry.
relevant comic
I am getting the impression that they aren't generating a junk file with the same hash, but some how SPOOFING the hash. I have no idea how one would do this, but I suppose it would be feasible with a special client.
There is a light that does a good job: HMI. Its an arc lamp that produces a spectrum very close to that of sunlight. Only problem is the fact that they cost a fortune, are quite dangerous and require a large ballast.
Things that change shape in the body under different situations are VERY useful in medicine. Very common right now are Nitinol devices, which can "remember" a previous geometry. Nitinol stents are saving lives today. I can imagine a polymer that changed shape when exposed to light could be quite useful, as it could be inserted in a catheter and then deployed with a light emiting catheter. Or there may be other reasons to use these polymers. Its a bit early to dismiss their medical use just because light doesn't reach inside your body.
This is how you make that kind of money. Consulting, its better than a money tree!
So much british humour is about losers, morons, ugly people, rude people and bad people. Conventional wisdom in hollywoods is that no one wants to see ugly, rude, stupid losers. Or if they do there should be some sort of "likeable" character in all that. Or the loser should become a hero. This kills british humour. See: Men Behaving Badly british version vs American version. Also note the shortage of unattractive people in American sitcoms. (but note the number of unattractive people in SUCCESSFUL American sitcoms...)
The PCBs are printed on with a photographic process. It is a lot simpler to manufactur than you might think.
Amateurs never use a boom mic. I don't know why, but they don't. They also seem to very rarely monitor audio through headphones when shooting. Another mistake.
I am going to assume that this deal goes both ways. If you spring for the stand-alone tivo box I hope it will actually support comcast digital cable, including OnDemand from the same interface, which would rock. I can't see how this is bad news for tivo users.
Mod parent up! Its physics for dummies! And I'm a dummy...
No. That is a bad idea. This is what happens when too many lay people try to understand quantum physics.