You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, but I don't actually think you're trolling.
George W. Bush was lambasted during the race because he had a C average. Most people held Kerry to be more intellectual than Bush. Thus, it comes as some surprise that Bush indeed earned higher grades than Kerry, though they both had a C average.
Yes, I do think that he 'earned' Cs. You can get by at Yale without trying too hard and still earn Cs.
Nothing need be 'very true'; true is one of two binary states. Just as you don't say, 'that bit is very 0", you also don't need to say "that observation is very true."
Chill, you're going to great effort to continue to fail to understand. The law is that set of documents and precedents that save us from total relativism. Vigilante justice lies outside the law, and is thus not subject to absolute-ish (if arbitrary) interpretation. There is no universal code by which vigilantes must live, and thus the results of vigilantism is also much more varied. They might see something to be a crime that you think to be just fine, and vice versa.
The whole idea of any algorithm is fundamentally flawed. Any input error into, say, a math equation can be propagated throughout the whole equation, giving a wrong answer!
Every time someone uses their hands to touch an envelope or their tongue to seal it, they are probably leaving trace amounts of *gasp* DNA on the envelope. OH NO! There's probably DNA floating around EVERYWHERE by now!
And what if they sneezed a little virus particle onto the letter that they wrote to you!?
"Gates do good marketing job in Microsoft". This last comment is disputed by retired Microsoft researcher Karen Jensen, who developed part of the underlying technology; "Only by knowing that 'Gates' probably refers to Bill Gates -- and not to the plural of the movable portion of a fence -- would the program know to suggest using 'does' instead."
OK, fair point. Now let's reinterpret: "Gates do good marketing job in Microsoft." Let's change 'Gates', so you don't think about Bill, to 'people'.
New sentence: "People do good marketing job in Microsoft."
Karen Jensen thinks that THIS would be OK??? That sentence is by no means any better than the original. I have personally met monkeys with a better grasp of grammar.
No, the man is not concerned because nobody has taken the time to produce a copy of the law. It is my understanding that he is concerned because the law is being withheld from inspection.
Sure, the law is in print somewhere (ostensibly), but no layperson knows precisely what it says. In essence, we are being held accountable to rules that we cannot know.
While it is true that scoring well on examinations does involve rudimentary direction-following, it is not true that exams don't test some form of knowledge. They test what they aim to test; to wit, memorization skills, problem solving skills, critical thinking skills, etc.
Poor performance due to ignoring the directions could indeed be seen as a legitimate lack of an important form of intelligence. Even entrepreneurs, for example, have to follow rules (namely, the law) if they hope to continue to succeed.
No offense intended, but the high school math could use some work.
25 pixels per (square) inch implies that there will be 1 pixel per 1/5th of a square inch. (Square root of 1/25). That's like a splitting a square inch up into a Cartesian plane 5 units long and 5 units high, with each unit containing a point of light.
Each 1/8th of a square inch will contain ~ 0.39 pixel. Put more usefully, as I stated before, each 1/5th of a square inch will contain 1 pixel.
The mechanism for getting cancer through sunlight exposure is direct DNA damage via ionizing radiation, either through breakage of the backbone or through dimerization of pyrimidines.
Ionization of water is not the mechanism by which water heats, by the way. The energy put out by a microwave is enough to put molecules into a higher level energy state (the vibrational state), but it is not high enough to break covalent bonds.
Also, a 100 watt lightbulb pointed directly at your skin for 100 years will never cause cancer; the quanta of energy are not additive. If a device is not bleeding energy at an ionizing frequency, then the amount of exposure is irrelevant. (In reference to your 'this power has an effect on the environment' statement.)
If you actually do the math to determine how much force on your DNA is provided by these ridiculously high EMF fields at a distance, you see that indeed the force is negligible. I'm talking orders of magnitude below that needed to overcome the phosphodiester bond strength. The notion that EMF from power stations, etc., causes cancer is both under debate and not commonly accepted in the science community.
One Four Letter Word: P O R N
on
Is IRC All Bad?
·
· Score: 1
This guy was obviously doing all of the wrong searches. Last time I was on IRC, I tried to get help with my Linux box but somehow got a cyber-bj. It's a jungle in there!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but now I'll be able to get subtitles for all those pirated Chinese-language movies that I've been watching on mute!
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, but I don't actually think you're trolling.
George W. Bush was lambasted during the race because he had a C average. Most people held Kerry to be more intellectual than Bush. Thus, it comes as some surprise that Bush indeed earned higher grades than Kerry, though they both had a C average.
Yes, I do think that he 'earned' Cs. You can get by at Yale without trying too hard and still earn Cs.
As was noted in a recent CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/07/kerry.grad es.ap/index.html) George W Bush actually had higher grades than Kerry while they were both undergrads at Yale.
And, thanks to totally unscientific nature of the tests, the bloatware really doesn't come out looking any worse than OpenOffice.org!
Nothing need be 'very true'; true is one of two binary states. Just as you don't say, 'that bit is very 0", you also don't need to say "that observation is very true."
True, most PhDs didn't go to any medical school.
Chill, you're going to great effort to continue to fail to understand. The law is that set of documents and precedents that save us from total relativism. Vigilante justice lies outside the law, and is thus not subject to absolute-ish (if arbitrary) interpretation. There is no universal code by which vigilantes must live, and thus the results of vigilantism is also much more varied. They might see something to be a crime that you think to be just fine, and vice versa.
Yeah, the grammar in that post is so bad that it's almost unintelligible. I actually had to RTFA!
Project Orion is sweet - mod parent up!
The whole idea of any algorithm is fundamentally flawed. Any input error into, say, a math equation can be propagated throughout the whole equation, giving a wrong answer!
I thought that Internet Wave audio had the first live streaming. Maybe it wasn't truly streaming?
YES! Now, instead of turning a doorhandle, I can reach into my pocket and turn on a flashlight. I can't wait to buy the batteries.
Every time someone uses their hands to touch an envelope or their tongue to seal it, they are probably leaving trace amounts of *gasp* DNA on the envelope. OH NO! There's probably DNA floating around EVERYWHERE by now!
And what if they sneezed a little virus particle onto the letter that they wrote to you!?
"Gates do good marketing job in Microsoft". This last comment is disputed by retired Microsoft researcher Karen Jensen, who developed part of the underlying technology; "Only by knowing that 'Gates' probably refers to Bill Gates -- and not to the plural of the movable portion of a fence -- would the program know to suggest using 'does' instead."
OK, fair point. Now let's reinterpret:
"Gates do good marketing job in Microsoft." Let's change 'Gates', so you don't think about Bill, to 'people'.
New sentence:
"People do good marketing job in Microsoft."
Karen Jensen thinks that THIS would be OK??? That sentence is by no means any better than the original. I have personally met monkeys with a better grasp of grammar.
No, the man is not concerned because nobody has taken the time to produce a copy of the law. It is my understanding that he is concerned because the law is being withheld from inspection.
Sure, the law is in print somewhere (ostensibly), but no layperson knows precisely what it says. In essence, we are being held accountable to rules that we cannot know.
While it is true that scoring well on examinations does involve rudimentary direction-following, it is not true that exams don't test some form of knowledge. They test what they aim to test; to wit, memorization skills, problem solving skills, critical thinking skills, etc.
Poor performance due to ignoring the directions could indeed be seen as a legitimate lack of an important form of intelligence. Even entrepreneurs, for example, have to follow rules (namely, the law) if they hope to continue to succeed.
Damn, I thought this was going to be a real case of 'In Soviet Russia, the search engines operate themselves (and you)'.
Describe the physics that describe the creation of those magnetic fields?
Yes: Bloody difficult.
Yeah nevermind; I could use some work on elementary school level reading. You had already converted to a linear scale when doing your calculations.
Each 1/8 inch square will contain 9 pixels.
Each 1/8 of a square inch (note that these are not the same) will contain 78 pixels.
No offense intended, but the high school math could use some work.
25 pixels per (square) inch implies that there will be 1 pixel per 1/5th of a square inch. (Square root of 1/25). That's like a splitting a square inch up into a Cartesian plane 5 units long and 5 units high, with each unit containing a point of light.
Each 1/8th of a square inch will contain ~ 0.39 pixel. Put more usefully, as I stated before, each 1/5th of a square inch will contain 1 pixel.
If you take two light bulbs and put them in the same room, do you get a dark spot in the middle?
"you are using genetics to create a sub-human hybrid, for what purpose?"
I guess that's the point of R'ing TFA
The mechanism for getting cancer through sunlight exposure is direct DNA damage via ionizing radiation, either through breakage of the backbone or through dimerization of pyrimidines.
Ionization of water is not the mechanism by which water heats, by the way. The energy put out by a microwave is enough to put molecules into a higher level energy state (the vibrational state), but it is not high enough to break covalent bonds.
Also, a 100 watt lightbulb pointed directly at your skin for 100 years will never cause cancer; the quanta of energy are not additive. If a device is not bleeding energy at an ionizing frequency, then the amount of exposure is irrelevant. (In reference to your 'this power has an effect on the environment' statement.)
If you actually do the math to determine how much force on your DNA is provided by these ridiculously high EMF fields at a distance, you see that indeed the force is negligible. I'm talking orders of magnitude below that needed to overcome the phosphodiester bond strength. The notion that EMF from power stations, etc., causes cancer is both under debate and not commonly accepted in the science community.
This guy was obviously doing all of the wrong searches. Last time I was on IRC, I tried to get help with my Linux box but somehow got a cyber-bj. It's a jungle in there!