I believe it is pronounced so that it rhymes with 'error'. That's the common pronunciation here in Columbus, Ohio. Not 'error' like 'Air-Or' but rather 'Air-Er', and then 'There-Er'
Also, note that contractions also take out spaces too.
I guess it's a matter of semantics. I would call those people visionary leaders. Because, someone who can lead people through to the completion of a project is, in my mind, primarily a leader. If they have a great vision they are trying to implement, they are a visionary leader.
How do you find out if someone is a genius or visionary in the course of an interview? I think a true genius or visionary would come off as a nut, or at least someone who is unable to work in a team, in an interview. It seems to me that the interview process is designed to filter out geniuses and visionaries.
No, FDR's New Deal made sure that a good portion of the profit from WWII made its way to the middle class. If we didn't have the New Deal programs in place, the Robber Barons would have taken all the profit for themselves, and the US would have been a corrupt kleptocracy like most of the countries in the Americas. *ALL* modern industrialized countries (Canada, the US, Japan, Australia, Europe) have New Deal-like social programs, and the dirt-poor countries of South and Central America have no social programs.
Answer me this: Why does Canada, with its extensive social programs, have a large middle class, like the United States? Why is it a modern, industrialized country? Why do all of these Central and South American bananna republics, which have little to no social programs and a free market economy, have such large poverty and disparity of wealth?
A. Because in a free market, the powerful business people are going to keep all of the money for themselves. A middle class cannot exist without unionized labor, a social security-like retirement program, and at least some welfare and government-sponsored health insurance. When there is a totally free market economy, all of the captains of industry will keep the lion's share wealth for themselves, and nobody else has any means of getting any of that wealth from them.
I suggest you travel the world a little and see how different political systems pan out. You will probably come to the realization that:
1. Communism doesn't work. Old News.
2. Capitalist countries with social services and little governmental corruption do the best for their average citizen -- i.e. Japan, Australia, Northern European countries. They have a large middle class, with social mobility.
3. Purely capitalist countries fare the worst -- they have no middle class. Most of the people live literally on the street or in shanties -- I'm not talking crazy homeless guy, but mom, dad, and kids. There is a small class of wealthy elite who run the entire economy and government, and they keep it all for themselves. It never trickles down. They have unchecked power, and they have no interest in letting go of *any* of their power and money.
You want to know what country has the most productive economy? Finland. Yes, Finland, a country with cradle-to-grave social services. It also has a high standard of living and a large middle class.
I'm sick of these neocon hucksters trying to destroy the middle class. If you like corruption and business elites running everything, MOVE TO SOUTH AMERICA. You are trying to destroy the American dream. You and your ilk have worn out your welcome.
"'Clinton never lied to the people...'...never? I seem to recall he lied about several things...blow job ring a bell?"
You are misrepresenting my statement. I said "Clinton never lied about the reasons for the US to go to war in Kosovo. You are a Clinton-basher and you do a bad job of disguising it. It really comes out later when you cry about being "sick and tired of arguing with angry Democrats".
"He developed weapons of mass destructions and USED THEM to gas his people."
Bush told us we were going to war because Saddam was an IMMINENT THREAT to THE US, not because he gassed his own people back when Reagan was supporting him. Bush LIED to us. He lied to you and he lied to me. I hate him for it, and you lick it up like a lap dog. It's disgusting how you refuse to hold Bush accountable to that.
"Furthermore, we did NOT go into the war with Saadam only with Britain...that's insulting to all of the 30 other countries in the UN that agreed..."
"...he forgot about Poland!" Those countries supported us in name only. They didn't put troops on the ground.
"So, please give me a freaking break and get of your damn soap-box and stop whining how your idiot Kerry got robbed and should be president. Go whine somewhere else."
You again are misrepresenting me. I never mentioned Kerry in my original post. You are using a straw-man argument.
Bush and his cronies have been creating fake intelligence since they got into office. They relied on intelligence from Curveball, who has been roundly discredited. They relied on intelligence from Ahmed Chalabi, who was the darling of the Neocons. He has fallen out of favor since the Iraq invasion because he was spying on us for Iran, and Bush had the naivete to seat Chalabi next to his wife. What kind of sucker president seats a spy next to the first lady? What a joke.
Well, what I'm wondering is if the program made some assumptions about dental and facial bone structure when analyzing Mona Lisa's smile. I think those are probably safe to make about the forehead, eye sockets, and cheeks, but you can't assume that she had all of her teeth, they were all straight, etc. It's an open question under those lips.
IIRC, the theory was that she was missing her canines. That would affect her smile, and all of her expressions, because they are at the very 'corner' of the mouth's rounded edges. If she's missing both, her smile would still be symmetrical, but it would be odd in a way you probably couldn't place your finger on. It might come of as an ambiguous expression or emotion, which sounds a lot like "83% happy and 9% disgusted".
"I don't support Bush, but he's no better than Clinton..."
I disagree. Look at their wars:
Cliton got us into Kosovo.
We acted in concord with NATO, the UN, and our allies, and we got the job done without alienated every other country in the world.
We are *done* in Kosovo. When Clinton was selling the war to the American people, all the Republican congresspeople and right-wing pundits said this was going to be Clinton's Vietnam, that we were entering a quagmire, etc. etc. Guess what? Situation is peaceful.
We have had no combat fatalities in Kosovo. We are done and the war is over. Service people have died, but not because of enemy combatants and insurgents
Clinton never lied to the American people, and never relied on cooked up intelligence to sell the war. We went in to stop genocide and get rid of the bad guy. We did just that.
Bush got us into Iraq.
Bush alienated every country except Britain getting us into Iraq. We are now a pariah at the UN.
Bush lied to us about why we were going in and used false intelligence to build the case. Bush's said reasons for going into Iraq have changed several times since he first started selling the war
Bush's team had absolutely no plan for reconstructing Iraq, and they have no plan to this day. This has resulted in about 9 billion dollars dissapearing from the budget in fraud and corruption.
2000+ soldiers have died, and there is no end in sight. The violence it getting worse, not better. The military is stretched to their limits. This cannot continue without instituting a draft
"Both parties are power hungry and both push their powers as far as they can."
Yes, but power-hungry Democrats have actually helped this country and its people. FDR packed the supreme court and installed himself for an unprecedented 3rd time. Talk about abuse of power. But, he got us in a good position to win WWII, and his New Deal programs modernized the US, so that now America is a modern industrial country like those in Europe, instead of a corrupt, poor backwater bananna republic like in Central and South America.
Yes, politicians are power-hungry and corruptable. However, your average American fares far better under Democratic presidents than they do under Republican presidents. Politicans aren't all the same. Bush is *much* worse than Clinton.
At one time, The Americans really were the good guys. During WWII, Nazi troops chose to surrender to the Americans over the Russians. They did this because their fathers told them that the Americans had treated them very well as POWs in WWI.
So let me make this straight: Americans were the good guys in WWI and WWII. Germans actually chose to surrender to us because they knew we would treat them well as POWs.
Now we are torturing and killing 'detainees' and keeping people locked up indefinitely. George Bush and all of his Neocon cronies should be executed for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
... well, maybe. I guess the question is would Leonardo have corrected it?
If you look at Leonardo's sketches, he does anatomical drawings from the bones up -- including muscles, organs, tendons, ligaments, up to the skin. My guess is he was probably capable of drawing someone's skull and skeleton by looking at them nude.
If he chose Mona Lisa as a model, he probably wanted her smile as is, and he wouldn't correct it.
If she really had a 'abnormality', it doesn't make her bad or ugly, it just makes her look interesting. Maybe she was known for her intriguing smile, or maybe Leonardo noticed it and wanted to capture it.
Nowadays, artists are unleashed and they do whatever crazy thing comes into their head. Back then, artists viewed themselves as philosopher/scientists, and they tried to make accurate portrayals of the universe (where to them, accurate is beautiful, because to them, the universe, by definition, is beautiful). Anyways, they tried to make their paintings as realistic as possible. It was only after photography was invented that artists were replaced by machines, and they began to paint crazy things. Before that, artists really were trying to be photographers.
Of course, that doesn't mean that artists didn't 'photoshop' their images back then, but I don't think that Lenoardo was into that. I don't know, maybe he did. But Mona Lisa's smile is so intriguing, I have to think that Lenoardo was capturing something in nature that he encoutered, rather than making it up.
Hey, Bush WON, and he can do WHATEVER HE WANTS. He is the PRESIDENT, and we HAVE TO SUPPORT HIM.
I was going to make a sarcasm tag, but slashdot is stripping my fake tag apparently. What gives? Anyways, impeach this fucker now. He's screwing EVERYTHING up.
I remember reading a theory some years back that claimed that Mona Lisa might be missing teeth. Does this emotion analysis take into account different teeth structures she may have had? Remember, they didn't have braces and orthodontics back then.
Because back then people called it 'arthritis', and when you couldn't type anymore, they found someone else to do it?
Nowadays, every office worker has to be on the computer *all the time*. Typing isn't just a "Secretary, type this memo up" half-hour deal anymore. It's a 9-5 thing for everyone in the office. If you can't type anymore, you might lose your job.
"There is always a plethora of pedantic jackasses on Slashdot. First off- try quoting everything I said and not what you want to cherry pick."
And there is always a bunch of loudmouths who go off half-cocked and say things *that they don't actually mean*.
"Let me restate this in a way that will make you happy- "The government has ABSOLUTELY no right to UNILATERALLY log or monitor the calls of it's citizens."
OK, if that's what you MEAN, then that's what you should TYPE. This is the internet. We can't read your mind, all we have is your words. If you mean "unilaterally" then SAY "unilaterally". We can't know what you mean if you don't type what you mean. You sounded like an extreme libertarian or anarchist, saying that the government *never* listen in on a conversation.
The term 'absolute' can have no modifiers. It's either absolute or it's not. A phrase like 'Absolutely, but' is a logical contradiction, like 'partially destroyed'.
These sentences have the same meaning:
"They have absolutely no business listening in on private communications until they have probable cause."
"They have no business listening in on private communications until they have probable cause."
In the first sentence, the word 'absolute' adds nothing. If you're looking for emphasis, pick another word.
Slashdot Mirror
'There are' minus 'a' becomes 'There're'.
I believe it is pronounced so that it rhymes with 'error'. That's the common pronunciation here in Columbus, Ohio. Not 'error' like 'Air-Or' but rather 'Air-Er', and then 'There-Er'
Also, note that contractions also take out spaces too.
No, it's a contaction of there are.
They look identical to mind control waves to me.
I agree with you. All I'm saying is that geniuses and visionaries are probably most productive as loners. They really don't belong in organizations.
I guess it's a matter of semantics. I would call those people visionary leaders. Because, someone who can lead people through to the completion of a project is, in my mind, primarily a leader. If they have a great vision they are trying to implement, they are a visionary leader.
How do you find out if someone is a genius or visionary in the course of an interview? I think a true genius or visionary would come off as a nut, or at least someone who is unable to work in a team, in an interview. It seems to me that the interview process is designed to filter out geniuses and visionaries.
You could build long-lasting icebergs (or floating platforms) using Pykrete.
However, I can't help but think building lots of icebergs will affect the weather in some way, probably negative. Let's just build like two or three.
Yes, I set a trap. This Clinton-basher took my bait. They are usually easy picking.
No, FDR's New Deal made sure that a good portion of the profit from WWII made its way to the middle class. If we didn't have the New Deal programs in place, the Robber Barons would have taken all the profit for themselves, and the US would have been a corrupt kleptocracy like most of the countries in the Americas. *ALL* modern industrialized countries (Canada, the US, Japan, Australia, Europe) have New Deal-like social programs, and the dirt-poor countries of South and Central America have no social programs.
Answer me this: Why does Canada, with its extensive social programs, have a large middle class, like the United States? Why is it a modern, industrialized country? Why do all of these Central and South American bananna republics, which have little to no social programs and a free market economy, have such large poverty and disparity of wealth?
A. Because in a free market, the powerful business people are going to keep all of the money for themselves. A middle class cannot exist without unionized labor, a social security-like retirement program, and at least some welfare and government-sponsored health insurance. When there is a totally free market economy, all of the captains of industry will keep the lion's share wealth for themselves, and nobody else has any means of getting any of that wealth from them.
You sound like an armchair fiscal conservative.
I suggest you travel the world a little and see how different political systems pan out. You will probably come to the realization that:
1. Communism doesn't work. Old News.
2. Capitalist countries with social services and little governmental corruption do the best for their average citizen -- i.e. Japan, Australia, Northern European countries. They have a large middle class, with social mobility.
3. Purely capitalist countries fare the worst -- they have no middle class. Most of the people live literally on the street or in shanties -- I'm not talking crazy homeless guy, but mom, dad, and kids. There is a small class of wealthy elite who run the entire economy and government, and they keep it all for themselves. It never trickles down. They have unchecked power, and they have no interest in letting go of *any* of their power and money.
You want to know what country has the most productive economy? Finland. Yes, Finland, a country with cradle-to-grave social services. It also has a high standard of living and a large middle class.
I'm sick of these neocon hucksters trying to destroy the middle class. If you like corruption and business elites running everything, MOVE TO SOUTH AMERICA. You are trying to destroy the American dream. You and your ilk have worn out your welcome.
"'Clinton never lied to the people...'...never? I seem to recall he lied about several things...blow job ring a bell?"
You are misrepresenting my statement. I said "Clinton never lied about the reasons for the US to go to war in Kosovo. You are a Clinton-basher and you do a bad job of disguising it. It really comes out later when you cry about being "sick and tired of arguing with angry Democrats".
"He developed weapons of mass destructions and USED THEM to gas his people."
Bush told us we were going to war because Saddam was an IMMINENT THREAT to THE US, not because he gassed his own people back when Reagan was supporting him. Bush LIED to us. He lied to you and he lied to me. I hate him for it, and you lick it up like a lap dog. It's disgusting how you refuse to hold Bush accountable to that.
"Furthermore, we did NOT go into the war with Saadam only with Britain...that's insulting to all of the 30 other countries in the UN that agreed..."
"...he forgot about Poland!" Those countries supported us in name only. They didn't put troops on the ground.
"So, please give me a freaking break and get of your damn soap-box and stop whining how your idiot Kerry got robbed and should be president. Go whine somewhere else."
You again are misrepresenting me. I never mentioned Kerry in my original post. You are using a straw-man argument.
Bush and his cronies have been creating fake intelligence since they got into office. They relied on intelligence from Curveball, who has been roundly discredited. They relied on intelligence from Ahmed Chalabi, who was the darling of the Neocons. He has fallen out of favor since the Iraq invasion because he was spying on us for Iran, and Bush had the naivete to seat Chalabi next to his wife. What kind of sucker president seats a spy next to the first lady? What a joke.
Well, what I'm wondering is if the program made some assumptions about dental and facial bone structure when analyzing Mona Lisa's smile. I think those are probably safe to make about the forehead, eye sockets, and cheeks, but you can't assume that she had all of her teeth, they were all straight, etc. It's an open question under those lips.
IIRC, the theory was that she was missing her canines. That would affect her smile, and all of her expressions, because they are at the very 'corner' of the mouth's rounded edges. If she's missing both, her smile would still be symmetrical, but it would be odd in a way you probably couldn't place your finger on. It might come of as an ambiguous expression or emotion, which sounds a lot like "83% happy and 9% disgusted".
I disagree. Look at their wars:
Cliton got us into Kosovo.
- We acted in concord with NATO, the UN, and our allies, and we got the job done without alienated every other country in the world.
- We are *done* in Kosovo. When Clinton was selling the war to the American people, all the Republican congresspeople and right-wing pundits said this was going to be Clinton's Vietnam, that we were entering a quagmire, etc. etc. Guess what? Situation is peaceful.
- We have had no combat fatalities in Kosovo. We are done and the war is over. Service people have died, but not because of enemy combatants and insurgents
- Clinton never lied to the American people, and never relied on cooked up intelligence to sell the war. We went in to stop genocide and get rid of the bad guy. We did just that.
Bush got us into Iraq."Both parties are power hungry and both push their powers as far as they can."
Yes, but power-hungry Democrats have actually helped this country and its people. FDR packed the supreme court and installed himself for an unprecedented 3rd time. Talk about abuse of power. But, he got us in a good position to win WWII, and his New Deal programs modernized the US, so that now America is a modern industrial country like those in Europe, instead of a corrupt, poor backwater bananna republic like in Central and South America.
Yes, politicians are power-hungry and corruptable. However, your average American fares far better under Democratic presidents than they do under Republican presidents. Politicans aren't all the same. Bush is *much* worse than Clinton.
At one time, The Americans really were the good guys. During WWII, Nazi troops chose to surrender to the Americans over the Russians. They did this because their fathers told them that the Americans had treated them very well as POWs in WWI.
So let me make this straight: Americans were the good guys in WWI and WWII. Germans actually chose to surrender to us because they knew we would treat them well as POWs.
Now we are torturing and killing 'detainees' and keeping people locked up indefinitely. George Bush and all of his Neocon cronies should be executed for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
I was being sarcastic. I pretty much agree with everything you say.
... well, maybe. I guess the question is would Leonardo have corrected it?
If you look at Leonardo's sketches, he does anatomical drawings from the bones up -- including muscles, organs, tendons, ligaments, up to the skin. My guess is he was probably capable of drawing someone's skull and skeleton by looking at them nude.
If he chose Mona Lisa as a model, he probably wanted her smile as is, and he wouldn't correct it.
If she really had a 'abnormality', it doesn't make her bad or ugly, it just makes her look interesting. Maybe she was known for her intriguing smile, or maybe Leonardo noticed it and wanted to capture it.
Nowadays, artists are unleashed and they do whatever crazy thing comes into their head. Back then, artists viewed themselves as philosopher/scientists, and they tried to make accurate portrayals of the universe (where to them, accurate is beautiful, because to them, the universe, by definition, is beautiful). Anyways, they tried to make their paintings as realistic as possible. It was only after photography was invented that artists were replaced by machines, and they began to paint crazy things. Before that, artists really were trying to be photographers.
Of course, that doesn't mean that artists didn't 'photoshop' their images back then, but I don't think that Lenoardo was into that. I don't know, maybe he did. But Mona Lisa's smile is so intriguing, I have to think that Lenoardo was capturing something in nature that he encoutered, rather than making it up.
Hey, Bush WON, and he can do WHATEVER HE WANTS. He is the PRESIDENT, and we HAVE TO SUPPORT HIM.
I was going to make a sarcasm tag, but slashdot is stripping my fake tag apparently. What gives? Anyways, impeach this fucker now. He's screwing EVERYTHING up.
I remember reading a theory some years back that claimed that Mona Lisa might be missing teeth. Does this emotion analysis take into account different teeth structures she may have had? Remember, they didn't have braces and orthodontics back then.
So how can "She" have a gender if "She" is just paint?
If you can see a woman's face in the paint, why couldn't you see emotions on that face?
Because back then people called it 'arthritis', and when you couldn't type anymore, they found someone else to do it?
Nowadays, every office worker has to be on the computer *all the time*. Typing isn't just a "Secretary, type this memo up" half-hour deal anymore. It's a 9-5 thing for everyone in the office. If you can't type anymore, you might lose your job.
"Glad to hear one us sounds like a libertarian. "
My problem is that he *sounds* like a libertarian, but he's actually not, as he says later. He's just muddying the waters. You can't get a fix on him.
"There is always a plethora of pedantic jackasses on Slashdot. First off- try quoting everything I said and not what you want to cherry pick."
And there is always a bunch of loudmouths who go off half-cocked and say things *that they don't actually mean*.
"Let me restate this in a way that will make you happy- "The government has ABSOLUTELY no right to UNILATERALLY log or monitor the calls of it's citizens."
OK, if that's what you MEAN, then that's what you should TYPE. This is the internet. We can't read your mind, all we have is your words. If you mean "unilaterally" then SAY "unilaterally". We can't know what you mean if you don't type what you mean. You sounded like an extreme libertarian or anarchist, saying that the government *never* listen in on a conversation.
The term 'absolute' can have no modifiers. It's either absolute or it's not. A phrase like 'Absolutely, but' is a logical contradiction, like 'partially destroyed'.
These sentences have the same meaning:
"They have absolutely no business listening in on private communications until they have probable cause."
"They have no business listening in on private communications until they have probable cause."
In the first sentence, the word 'absolute' adds nothing. If you're looking for emphasis, pick another word.
"And if you have probable cause then get a warrant and tap the line."
That sounds quite a bit different than "[w]hat I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business."
So which is it? Do they have ABSOLUTELY no business, or do they have business if they get a warrant?
Yeah! Props to Chuck Chunder! You tell that coward!