We have an estimate to question one. Everything else is nothing more than pure guesswork.
Re:Similarities between democrat party, communists
on
Joe Trippi Interviewed
·
· Score: 1
--- Wait a minute, weren't you just claiming how high unemployment was during the Clinton administration? ---
No I wasn't (another liberal problem: they don't know how to read.)
I was stating that 5.6% unemployment under Bush is an economy in shambles. 5.6% unemployment under Clinton was considered a booming economy.
It's called a double-standard.
--- Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. ---
Not at all. You don't like the fact that "rich" people got more of their money back than you think they should have. That basically tells me you're a nosy busybody who wants to tell other people how much money they should have and what they should do with it.
You imply the tax cuts are unfair because people who pay ten times what everyone else does got twice back of THEIR OWN MONEY than everyone else did.
This means that you think the money shouldn't belong to them. This means you think you have the moral authority to dictate how much of their money should belong to them, and how much should belong to the state. This means you are a marxist and a tyrant because you favor the confiscation of personal wealth for the "greater good," greater good being defined as giving you some of their money.
Re:Similarities between democrat party, communists
on
Joe Trippi Interviewed
·
· Score: 1
We do. And we love Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams, and the handful of conservative college professors out there. Heck, I even like liberal professors if they can justify their viewpoint. However, these are the exception.
Most just go on brainless rants and regurgitate non-thinking asinine statements like America being the focus of evil in the world, or the 9/11 attacks being justified, or the current economy is in a shambles, or the ultra-wealthy (I never listen to the rest, because I know I'm talking to some ass of a Marxist when I hear that phrase).
Re:Similarities between democrat party, communists
on
Joe Trippi Interviewed
·
· Score: 1
---
Unemployment was never above 5.6% in his second term. ---
That would be when the Republicans got control of Congress, right?
--- No, I mean the extreme upper class (>$311k) that got almost twice the tax cut percentage wise (3.6% vs. 2%)that everybody else did. ---
Well since they pay 10 TIMES the tax everyone else does, I have no problem with that. You just don't like rich people.
P.S. When was the last time a poor guy offered you a job?
--- so fuck you and your hilarious liberal bias ---
More kind words from the party of compassion and tolerance.
Re:Similarities between democrat party, communists
on
Joe Trippi Interviewed
·
· Score: 1
Doesn't it bother you at all that you are a totally brainwashed dupe repeating liberal talking points?
Unemployment is below 6%. Under Clinton, that was considered full employment. In the Bush world it's a shambles?
Extreme upper class? you mean a family of four making $40,000 or more per year? What do you do for a living, flip burgers at McDonalds? No, wait, that would be honest work. Let me guess; you're a college professor.
Prude like John Ashcroft? Patior Act an obscenity against the Bill of Rights? Does the inherent contradiction in your statement and the fact you made the statement and are not dead or in jail even make a dent in your brainwashing?
--- P.S. To the press: Ask the tough questions, and demand answers. Thanks. ---
I'm with you there. I'm still waiting for the press to ask why the h*** Gorelick, who formed the policy that created the wall between the FBI and CIA in the first place, was on the 9/11 commission.
While I'm dreaming, it would also be nice to see CBS lead with the story on how the British inquiry into Iraq totally discredits Joe Wilson's testimony on Niger and Yellowcake Uranium.
Or how about Good Morning America or the Today Show interviewing the 17 officers who served with Kerry in Vietnam who have stated he is unfit to be CIC.
And idiots actually try to maintain there is no liberal bias in the mainstream press.
What the Dean campaign showed was that the internet can be a political magnifying glass. It lets a fringe group (radical, anti-war Bush-hating liberal democrat zealots) seem much more influential and powerful than they really are.
This is catalized by the early primaries, which tend to attract the more zealous members of a political party, but as the time comes to select a candidate that can grab enough votes to get a majority of electors, the fringe group and their candidates vanish in a puff of reality.
This is what happened to Dean. He appealed to a radical fringe. The Internet made the fringe seem louder and more powerful than it was. Once Dean had to step into the real world, just how weak his support was became apparent.
1. All molecules are formed by chance. The respective building blocks (elements or other molecules) must meet with the proper energy and orientation in order to combine. All the talk of activation energies, intermediary stability, etc. are just ways to quantize and categorize the probability of formation.
2. No. The calculation is based on the chemicals required to create RNA strands, which is the only currently known way for biological replication to occur (replication is required for evolution) and for biological information to be stored. Thinking up "just so" scenarios for molecules based on what they might do is bad science.
3. No. The calculation of odds is for RNA, which is the simplest molecule we know of that can replicate and pass on information.
4. No. Innumerable trials would NOT be occurring simultaneously. A finite number of trials would be occurring simultaneously.
The chemistry here is pretty straightforward. When you start looking at the actual chemicals required and not just some hypothetical substance A, compound B, etc. the probabilities of these chemicals, according to the laws of chemistry, forming RNA is vanishingly small.
I don't care if you have 10^30 simultaneous trials going on. If the odds against it happening once are 10^80, you still have a statistically insignificant chance of abiogenesis occurring once, let alone twice within the same universe.
You might as well start talking with a straight face about the real possibility of 747s full of encyclopedia salesmen named Bob flying out of black holes. (It is statistically possible, you know.)
What? It's a problem with religion that science can't disprove the unprovable?
Physical science operates from the paradigm that there is no God (or that he is completely immaterial to the formation and operation of creation - a distinction without a difference). How then can it ever expect to explain God one way or the other, and how can religion be criticized for the failure of science in this regard?
Sheesh. People act like science is the ultimate finder of all truth. Science is simply a tool that tries to explain the observable world. Things which cannot be observed and measured can never be explained by science. That is not the problem with the thing that cannot be measured or explained, it is simply a limitation of the tool being used.
From a naturalistic point of view, the odds are very good that Earth is the only planet in our galaxy with life (unless life is carried from world to world as spores).
In the naturalistic paradigm, the only way life can get started is by abiogenesis, and evlolutionary pressures do NOT play on this. If you look at the actual chemicals required to form a strand of RNA (hint, you can't just put the amino acids in a pond and stir), you'll find the odds of an RNA molecule capable of reproducing forming at all are huge (something like 10^80 against).
Dawkins talks around this by saying: Well, with enough worlds and enough time, it's gotta happen somewhere. Which is basically another way of saying, odds are, we're the only world with life.
Good grief. Where do you people get this stuff? Water is incredibly common in our solar system. For crying out loud, we have entire moons made of water and water ice.
The question as it pertains to Mars is: Does Mars have enough gravity to hang on to water and water ice given the amount of solar heating it gets?
There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to know where to begin.
First, 51% percent of the MP3 market already is iPods. So your snobbery take is simply wrong. It may have started that way, but now it's become the "me too" syndrome. You aren't hip unless you have an iPod just like your friends.
Second, Alpine will soon be offering an iPod compatible sound system for you car, so there goes your second elitist argument.
Thirdly, iPods are enjoying triple-digit sales growth right now (last quarter sales were 180% above same quarter, previous year sales). Now, please tell me why a company that has 51% of the market, and is STILL enjoying triple-digit growth rates needs to change their pricing structure at all?
Sigh. Why do the great posts always happen when I have no Mod points?
The parent's post is just another example of how the typical slashdotter lives in a little egomaniac world where he thinks he is way more important than he actually is.
Slashdot Mirror
We have an estimate to question one. Everything else is nothing more than pure guesswork.
---
Wait a minute, weren't you just claiming how high unemployment was during the Clinton administration?
---
No I wasn't (another liberal problem: they don't know how to read.)
I was stating that 5.6% unemployment under Bush is an economy in shambles. 5.6% unemployment under Clinton was considered a booming economy.
It's called a double-standard.
---
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.
---
Not at all. You don't like the fact that "rich" people got more of their money back than you think they should have. That basically tells me you're a nosy busybody who wants to tell other people how much money they should have and what they should do with it.
You imply the tax cuts are unfair because people who pay ten times what everyone else does got twice back of THEIR OWN MONEY than everyone else did.
This means that you think the money shouldn't belong to them. This means you think you have the moral authority to dictate how much of their money should belong to them, and how much should belong to the state. This means you are a marxist and a tyrant because you favor the confiscation of personal wealth for the "greater good," greater good being defined as giving you some of their money.
We do. And we love Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams, and the handful of conservative college professors out there. Heck, I even like liberal professors if they can justify their viewpoint. However, these are the exception.
Most just go on brainless rants and regurgitate non-thinking asinine statements like America being the focus of evil in the world, or the 9/11 attacks being justified, or the current economy is in a shambles, or the ultra-wealthy (I never listen to the rest, because I know I'm talking to some ass of a Marxist when I hear that phrase).
---
Unemployment was never above 5.6% in his second term.
---
That would be when the Republicans got control of Congress, right?
---
No, I mean the extreme upper class (>$311k) that got almost twice the tax cut percentage wise (3.6% vs. 2%)that everybody else did.
---
Well since they pay 10 TIMES the tax everyone else does, I have no problem with that. You just don't like rich people.
P.S. When was the last time a poor guy offered you a job?
---
so fuck you and your hilarious liberal bias
---
More kind words from the party of compassion and tolerance.
Doesn't it bother you at all that you are a totally brainwashed dupe repeating liberal talking points?
Unemployment is below 6%. Under Clinton, that was considered full employment. In the Bush world it's a shambles?
Extreme upper class? you mean a family of four making $40,000 or more per year? What do you do for a living, flip burgers at McDonalds? No, wait, that would be honest work. Let me guess; you're a college professor.
Prude like John Ashcroft? Patior Act an obscenity against the Bill of Rights? Does the inherent contradiction in your statement and the fact you made the statement and are not dead or in jail even make a dent in your brainwashing?
---
P.S. To the press: Ask the tough questions, and demand answers. Thanks.
---
I'm with you there. I'm still waiting for the press to ask why the h*** Gorelick, who formed the policy that created the wall between the FBI and CIA in the first place, was on the 9/11 commission.
While I'm dreaming, it would also be nice to see CBS lead with the story on how the British inquiry into Iraq totally discredits Joe Wilson's testimony on Niger and Yellowcake Uranium.
Or how about Good Morning America or the Today Show interviewing the 17 officers who served with Kerry in Vietnam who have stated he is unfit to be CIC.
And idiots actually try to maintain there is no liberal bias in the mainstream press.
It's called guilt. They feel guilty about being rich. Of course, the class warfare constantly engaged in by the Democratic party doesn't help.
Note, however, that they assuage their guilt by spending OTHER people's money.
What the Dean campaign showed was that the internet can be a political magnifying glass. It lets a fringe group (radical, anti-war Bush-hating liberal democrat zealots) seem much more influential and powerful than they really are.
This is catalized by the early primaries, which tend to attract the more zealous members of a political party, but as the time comes to select a candidate that can grab enough votes to get a majority of electors, the fringe group and their candidates vanish in a puff of reality.
This is what happened to Dean. He appealed to a radical fringe. The Internet made the fringe seem louder and more powerful than it was. Once Dean had to step into the real world, just how weak his support was became apparent.
...separate us from animals. One, we use cutlery. And, two, we can rationalize anything.
High road my Aunt Fanny's Brass Dentures.
Why should the Oxygen isotopes be different in different parts of the solar system? Didn't we supposedly all coalesce out of the same cloud of stuff?
1. All molecules are formed by chance. The respective building blocks (elements or other molecules) must meet with the proper energy and orientation in order to combine. All the talk of activation energies, intermediary stability, etc. are just ways to quantize and categorize the probability of formation.
2. No. The calculation is based on the chemicals required to create RNA strands, which is the only currently known way for biological replication to occur (replication is required for evolution) and for biological information to be stored. Thinking up "just so" scenarios for molecules based on what they might do is bad science.
3. No. The calculation of odds is for RNA, which is the simplest molecule we know of that can replicate and pass on information.
4. No. Innumerable trials would NOT be occurring simultaneously. A finite number of trials would be occurring simultaneously.
The chemistry here is pretty straightforward. When you start looking at the actual chemicals required and not just some hypothetical substance A, compound B, etc. the probabilities of these chemicals, according to the laws of chemistry, forming RNA is vanishingly small.
I don't care if you have 10^30 simultaneous trials going on. If the odds against it happening once are 10^80, you still have a statistically insignificant chance of abiogenesis occurring once, let alone twice within the same universe.
You might as well start talking with a straight face about the real possibility of 747s full of encyclopedia salesmen named Bob flying out of black holes. (It is statistically possible, you know.)
~= is enough to make or break a patent lawsuit. If the patent says web based, and Apple shows theirs is not, that may be all it takes.
Venus' cloud layers are sulfuric acid. Chemical formula for Sulfuric acid: H2SO4.
There's lots of water still on Venus. It's locked up in the cloud layer in the form of Sulfuric acid (H2SO4).
You know, it's kind of tough to fool a spectrograph.
Yeah, and given enough time, a 747 full of encylcopedia salesmen name Bob will fly out of a black hole.
The key concept you're missing here is meaningful or statistically significant.
What? It's a problem with religion that science can't disprove the unprovable?
Physical science operates from the paradigm that there is no God (or that he is completely immaterial to the formation and operation of creation - a distinction without a difference). How then can it ever expect to explain God one way or the other, and how can religion be criticized for the failure of science in this regard?
Sheesh. People act like science is the ultimate finder of all truth. Science is simply a tool that tries to explain the observable world. Things which cannot be observed and measured can never be explained by science. That is not the problem with the thing that cannot be measured or explained, it is simply a limitation of the tool being used.
From a naturalistic point of view, the odds are very good that Earth is the only planet in our galaxy with life (unless life is carried from world to world as spores).
In the naturalistic paradigm, the only way life can get started is by abiogenesis, and evlolutionary pressures do NOT play on this. If you look at the actual chemicals required to form a strand of RNA (hint, you can't just put the amino acids in a pond and stir), you'll find the odds of an RNA molecule capable of reproducing forming at all are huge (something like 10^80 against).
Dawkins talks around this by saying: Well, with enough worlds and enough time, it's gotta happen somewhere. Which is basically another way of saying, odds are, we're the only world with life.
Good grief. Where do you people get this stuff? Water is incredibly common in our solar system. For crying out loud, we have entire moons made of water and water ice.
The question as it pertains to Mars is: Does Mars have enough gravity to hang on to water and water ice given the amount of solar heating it gets?
There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to know where to begin.
First, 51% percent of the MP3 market already is iPods. So your snobbery take is simply wrong. It may have started that way, but now it's become the "me too" syndrome. You aren't hip unless you have an iPod just like your friends.
Second, Alpine will soon be offering an iPod compatible sound system for you car, so there goes your second elitist argument.
Thirdly, iPods are enjoying triple-digit sales growth right now (last quarter sales were 180% above same quarter, previous year sales). Now, please tell me why a company that has 51% of the market, and is STILL enjoying triple-digit growth rates needs to change their pricing structure at all?
Sigh. Why do the great posts always happen when I have no Mod points?
The parent's post is just another example of how the typical slashdotter lives in a little egomaniac world where he thinks he is way more important than he actually is.
Since people spend hours in front of the computer screen looking at the UI, fun and colorful is a legitimate UI concern.
They bought a Mac; of course they're smarter. Is this a trick question?
Asimov did that himself with that atrocity called Foundation's Edge.