Interestingly enough, Anabasis was the not so subtle inspiration for Sol Yurick's novel "The Warriors", which was turned into a 70s cult classic of the same name, and recently revived as a video game by the GTA crew.
I seriously doubt it. As the prices come down and solutions become more reasonable, the U.S. will jump on board rapidly. A series of solar company executives, mostly from Europe, were recently asked who the next big "solar" power would be (right now Germany leads per capita), and most of them mentioned the United States. They all said once the U.S. commits, they will ramp up extremely quickly. So I really think you're overplaying your point.
You do realize that the U.S. Senate and House approved a stem cell funding bill, right? It was vetoed by Bush (the only veto of his entire tenure in the White House). It was simply that the houses didnt have enough votes to override the veto. That may change today.
Well, not quite. He's planning on giving away 85% of a 40 billion fortune.
That leaves an estimated six billion dollars to his heirs, who I expect also have their own stakes in the company as well.
I already routinely order groceries from Fresh Direct http://www.freshdirect.com/ . Its huge in the NYC area, the selection is broad (far broader than what Amazon is offering), the service is excellent, and the overall experience is excellent.
And when I'm traveling, or otherwise far away from my recordings, I'm supposed to just run home and load up my SD card, then make the trip back to wherever I was originally in order to watch video? That really makes no sense whatsoever, it solves a different problem altogether.
Mapquest had satellite imagery years ago, but they removed it about a year ago. So its definitely not an industry first. I even remember the old microsoft terraserver having the option to use a classic map view to navigate before switching to satellite images based overhead views.
Just a quick note, in the 22MB mac mini servicing PDF that has come out, they note that the putty knife apple is distributing is modified in that the edge is beveled. They suggest that anyone using a 3rd party putty knife file one side of the knife with 150 grit sandpaper to create a beveled edge that more easily fits in the gap between the housings.
Dumb question from a bio neophyte, but wouldnt you already know the structure if you knew the sequence, since you would have an example of the protein, and the sequence supposedly more or less determines the structure?
It's amusing, really. You aren't criticizing the poll, but you aren't criticizing me, either. You're simply embarassing yourself. You make ridiculous assumptions that reveal negative, petty insights into your nature in the very act of attempting to impugn mine. Fact one. The entire point of posting the link was to provide written evidence referencing the poll. An actual poll (not "my poll", incidentally, as you wrote). You then commit multiple logical fallacies. First of all, you assume that I am a reader of the National Review (I am not, I simply googled for written references to teh SI poll). Then, you go on to assume that anyone who reads that source is somehow intellectually shallow. Steereopying, based on incorrect information. Your point is absolutely terrible, incorrect, and reveals a shallow inability to debate a topic on its merits. And clearly, you are the one unable to follow nuances in an argument, or to properly identify relevant nuances, if you are ridiculous enough to attempt to argue on the aforementioned grounds. Really, really embarassing for you.
And back to the term. It is not offensive, and it is not murderous. And the majority of the target population doesn't find it to be offensive. We've established all of this. Weakly repeating the charge, while failing to support your position doesn't help your case. Yes, you do "wish to portray" the term as a slur. Its not a slur. Plain and simple. Its is completely absurd to assume that the team would base the name of the team on a slur, for reasons already discussed. So we have your final argument, complete ignorance as to the meaning of the term, despite a national trademark, Indian members, support from the Indian population, and relevant historical references of the time showing no offensive nature in the comments.
Terrible, terrible argument on your part. Just awful, really. And I'm sure you think yourself to be quite moral and enlightened, don't you? That makes your stance just that much worse. By attempting to incorrectly caste things in the light of offense, you lump situations together which aren't remotely within similar classifications. By doing so, you do incredible damages to other, just, serious, needy causes that need to be addressed. But I supposed thats far too nuanced for you. I guess I shouldn't expect you to be capable of comprehending something that requires any consderation beyond that of a kneejerk.
There are several issues at hand here, all of which work against you.
That those against whom the slur, if it was in fact a slur would be directed against don't find it objectionable suggests that it is not in fact a slur, despite what you wish to portray.
That the name was cast upon a team at all suggests that it was not a slur at the time, as it would be the height of absurdity to posit that a team would name itself after something disrespectful, disdainful, or flawed in character. That the head coach of the team was being honored in the subsequent naming of the team just drives that point home.
Additionally, The Kotelly case found that the term has been deprecated in usage over the past half century outside of its use in the team's name, and that previous to that, the evidence cannot remotely conclude that it was instantiated as a slur at the time.
So we know it wasn't a slur at the time, and we know that Native Americans don't consider it to be a slur now.
Incidentally, its quite the sign of being on shaky ground when you attempt to condemn the source considering the article commented on another party, Sports Illustrated, that commissioned a survey by a survey group, to poll the relevant population. But I don't have to tell you that. You know you haven't any ground to stand on.
Actually, its not. If you read the following article, you'll see that an actual survey (as opposed to an anecdotal web messageboard post) suggests that 4 out of 5 Native Americans don't want the names changed.
http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller030802. asp
So.... we have a few points
1) Why would a team choose to name itself after something it found to be disrespectful and derogatory? It defies logic.
2) We know that the team was named after a Native American head coach of the team.
3) We know that 30-40 years ago, the Redskins changed their helmets to a design that simply had an R on it, and Native Americans visited the team and asked for the return of Native American Imagery.
4) We know that the majority of Native Americans do NOT find the term offensive.
In total, the conclusion is PAINFULLY obvious, and CLEARLY evident. There's not much of an argument, really.
You are absolutely wrong. American Indians don't consider it to be a slur. A broad survey of American Indians showed that they Liked the name, and had positive associations with it. Thats what matters. That's all you need. They do consider it to be a tribute.
They don't consider it to be offensive. When you say "they", you refer to a ridiculously small group of people who are absolutely not representative of the American Indian population.
You are simply, completley, flat out, wrong.
Too bad you are way off on the Washington Redskins remark. Complete and utter crap, really.
[quote]The Washington franchise originally was located in Boston and was called the Braves until it was purchased by George Preston Marshall in 1932. He changed the name to the Boston Redskins in honor of the team's head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, who was an American Indian. The team moved to Washington in 1937 and was renamed the Washington Redskins.[/quote]
Dietz came from a tribe known for smearing red warpaint on their faces. It is an honorable term.
Beyond that, you'd have you have your head up your ass to think a team would want its namesake to be something that they didn't respect, or considered a slur. Its the height of absurdity.
We could go on and on, noting that the vast majority of AMERICAN INDIANS don't consider the name offensive. The only people who consider it so are caucasian troublemakers. And any dictionary references regarding the term redskins as offensive are recent alterations to the record by said troublemaking, ignorant caucasians, as shown in the Trademark case rulings presided over by Judge Kotelly.
So in short, STFU and educate yourself before trying to be high and mighty.
Thirty-five years ago, Mr. Lowry, who is now 71, patented a method of cleaning up NASA's live televised transmissions from the moon. Six years ago, as the DVD took off, he set up Lowry Digital -- then a two-man R & D shop -- to apply his techniques to digital restoration.
He hired a photographer to make a short 35-millimeter film clip of some children playing soccer on a lakeshore. He paid a local lab to transfer the film to digital video, using a 4K scanner. The picture was clear, sharp, detailed. He then processed the images with his film-restoration software, which he'd programmed onto some Macintosh G4 computers. (The effort took months, as the faster G5's weren't out yet.)The processed picture was clearer, sharper and more detailed still. He could see every divot on the turf. What had once looked like a smudge in the background was now recognizable as a boat on the lake.
In January 2000, some executives from Warner Brothers saw his demo. They were so impressed, they faxed him an order the same day to restore the masters for three DVD's: "Gone With the Wind," "Now Voyager" and "North by Northwest." With the advance money, he bought the computers he needed to do the job.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly enough, Anabasis was the not so subtle inspiration for Sol Yurick's novel "The Warriors", which was turned into a 70s cult classic of the same name, and recently revived as a video game by the GTA crew.
Oh come on. My freaking Verizon RAZR V3c loads web pages considerably faster at EVDO speeds than 1x speeds. That seems like a really silly argument.
Your information regarding sulfur content in the United States is out of date. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/ 20061104/AUTO03/611040301/1149
The U.S. uses diesel fuel with only 15ppm now.
I seriously doubt it. As the prices come down and solutions become more reasonable, the U.S. will jump on board rapidly. A series of solar company executives, mostly from Europe, were recently asked who the next big "solar" power would be (right now Germany leads per capita), and most of them mentioned the United States. They all said once the U.S. commits, they will ramp up extremely quickly. So I really think you're overplaying your point.
You do realize that the U.S. Senate and House approved a stem cell funding bill, right? It was vetoed by Bush (the only veto of his entire tenure in the White House). It was simply that the houses didnt have enough votes to override the veto. That may change today.
Don't confuse the construction of domestic plants with companies like G.E. that build plants for worldwide use.
Well, not quite. He's planning on giving away 85% of a 40 billion fortune. That leaves an estimated six billion dollars to his heirs, who I expect also have their own stakes in the company as well.
I already routinely order groceries from Fresh Direct http://www.freshdirect.com/ . Its huge in the NYC area, the selection is broad (far broader than what Amazon is offering), the service is excellent, and the overall experience is excellent.
And when I'm traveling, or otherwise far away from my recordings, I'm supposed to just run home and load up my SD card, then make the trip back to wherever I was originally in order to watch video? That really makes no sense whatsoever, it solves a different problem altogether.
Perhaps this NY Times article will satisfy your skepticism. http://nytimes.com/2005/12/16/technology/16cnd-aol .html
Its only flipped in the preview window on the sending end, not on the receiving end.
Mitch: "And Kent, one more thing..."
Kent: "Yes?"
Mitch: "Stop masturbating!"
Kent, looking up: "It really is God!"
Mapquest had satellite imagery years ago, but they removed it about a year ago. So its definitely not an industry first. I even remember the old microsoft terraserver having the option to use a classic map view to navigate before switching to satellite images based overhead views.
Just a quick note, in the 22MB mac mini servicing PDF that has come out, they note that the putty knife apple is distributing is modified in that the edge is beveled. They suggest that anyone using a 3rd party putty knife file one side of the knife with 150 grit sandpaper to create a beveled edge that more easily fits in the gap between the housings.
After living in New York for awhile, I think I'd rather trust the computer than a NYC taxi driver. Some of those guys are insane.
Dumb question from a bio neophyte, but wouldnt you already know the structure if you knew the sequence, since you would have an example of the protein, and the sequence supposedly more or less determines the structure?
I agree. That's why I personally think we'll never see satellites in orbit, either.
It's amusing, really. You aren't criticizing the poll, but you aren't criticizing me, either. You're simply embarassing yourself. You make ridiculous assumptions that reveal negative, petty insights into your nature in the very act of attempting to impugn mine. Fact one. The entire point of posting the link was to provide written evidence referencing the poll. An actual poll (not "my poll", incidentally, as you wrote). You then commit multiple logical fallacies. First of all, you assume that I am a reader of the National Review (I am not, I simply googled for written references to teh SI poll). Then, you go on to assume that anyone who reads that source is somehow intellectually shallow. Steereopying, based on incorrect information. Your point is absolutely terrible, incorrect, and reveals a shallow inability to debate a topic on its merits. And clearly, you are the one unable to follow nuances in an argument, or to properly identify relevant nuances, if you are ridiculous enough to attempt to argue on the aforementioned grounds. Really, really embarassing for you.
And back to the term. It is not offensive, and it is not murderous. And the majority of the target population doesn't find it to be offensive. We've established all of this. Weakly repeating the charge, while failing to support your position doesn't help your case. Yes, you do "wish to portray" the term as a slur. Its not a slur. Plain and simple. Its is completely absurd to assume that the team would base the name of the team on a slur, for reasons already discussed. So we have your final argument, complete ignorance as to the meaning of the term, despite a national trademark, Indian members, support from the Indian population, and relevant historical references of the time showing no offensive nature in the comments.
Terrible, terrible argument on your part. Just awful, really. And I'm sure you think yourself to be quite moral and enlightened, don't you? That makes your stance just that much worse. By attempting to incorrectly caste things in the light of offense, you lump situations together which aren't remotely within similar classifications. By doing so, you do incredible damages to other, just, serious, needy causes that need to be addressed. But I supposed thats far too nuanced for you. I guess I shouldn't expect you to be capable of comprehending something that requires any consderation beyond that of a kneejerk.
There are several issues at hand here, all of which work against you. That those against whom the slur, if it was in fact a slur would be directed against don't find it objectionable suggests that it is not in fact a slur, despite what you wish to portray. That the name was cast upon a team at all suggests that it was not a slur at the time, as it would be the height of absurdity to posit that a team would name itself after something disrespectful, disdainful, or flawed in character. That the head coach of the team was being honored in the subsequent naming of the team just drives that point home. Additionally, The Kotelly case found that the term has been deprecated in usage over the past half century outside of its use in the team's name, and that previous to that, the evidence cannot remotely conclude that it was instantiated as a slur at the time. So we know it wasn't a slur at the time, and we know that Native Americans don't consider it to be a slur now. Incidentally, its quite the sign of being on shaky ground when you attempt to condemn the source considering the article commented on another party, Sports Illustrated, that commissioned a survey by a survey group, to poll the relevant population. But I don't have to tell you that. You know you haven't any ground to stand on.
Actually, its not. If you read the following article, you'll see that an actual survey (as opposed to an anecdotal web messageboard post) suggests that 4 out of 5 Native Americans don't want the names changed. http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller030802. asp
So.... we have a few points
1) Why would a team choose to name itself after something it found to be disrespectful and derogatory? It defies logic.
2) We know that the team was named after a Native American head coach of the team.
3) We know that 30-40 years ago, the Redskins changed their helmets to a design that simply had an R on it, and Native Americans visited the team and asked for the return of Native American Imagery.
4) We know that the majority of Native Americans do NOT find the term offensive.
In total, the conclusion is PAINFULLY obvious, and CLEARLY evident. There's not much of an argument, really.
In case you'd like to learn something before you spew, here are some links....
0 2. asp
m e= article&node=&contentId=A40891-2002Jan25¬Found= true
f _f ame/inductees2002.htm
Incidentally, if you'd like to read up on the matter, here you go.
http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller0308
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagena
http://www.ricelake.k12.wi.us/rlasddepts/hall_o
You are absolutely wrong. American Indians don't consider it to be a slur. A broad survey of American Indians showed that they Liked the name, and had positive associations with it. Thats what matters. That's all you need. They do consider it to be a tribute. They don't consider it to be offensive. When you say "they", you refer to a ridiculously small group of people who are absolutely not representative of the American Indian population. You are simply, completley, flat out, wrong.
Too bad you are way off on the Washington Redskins remark. Complete and utter crap, really. [quote]The Washington franchise originally was located in Boston and was called the Braves until it was purchased by George Preston Marshall in 1932. He changed the name to the Boston Redskins in honor of the team's head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, who was an American Indian. The team moved to Washington in 1937 and was renamed the Washington Redskins.[/quote] Dietz came from a tribe known for smearing red warpaint on their faces. It is an honorable term. Beyond that, you'd have you have your head up your ass to think a team would want its namesake to be something that they didn't respect, or considered a slur. Its the height of absurdity. We could go on and on, noting that the vast majority of AMERICAN INDIANS don't consider the name offensive. The only people who consider it so are caucasian troublemakers. And any dictionary references regarding the term redskins as offensive are recent alterations to the record by said troublemaking, ignorant caucasians, as shown in the Trademark case rulings presided over by Judge Kotelly. So in short, STFU and educate yourself before trying to be high and mighty.
Thirty-five years ago, Mr. Lowry, who is now 71, patented a method of cleaning up NASA's live televised transmissions from the moon. Six years ago, as the DVD took off, he set up Lowry Digital -- then a two-man R & D shop -- to apply his techniques to digital restoration.
He hired a photographer to make a short 35-millimeter film clip of some children playing soccer on a lakeshore. He paid a local lab to transfer the film to digital video, using a 4K scanner. The picture was clear, sharp, detailed. He then processed the images with his film-restoration software, which he'd programmed onto some Macintosh G4 computers. (The effort took months, as the faster G5's weren't out yet.)The processed picture was clearer, sharper and more detailed still. He could see every divot on the turf. What had once looked like a smudge in the background was now recognizable as a boat on the lake.
In January 2000, some executives from Warner Brothers saw his demo. They were so impressed, they faxed him an order the same day to restore the masters for three DVD's: "Gone With the Wind," "Now Voyager" and "North by Northwest." With the advance money, he bought the computers he needed to do the job.