Well, since it wasn't the paint that went up initially, your argument is bogus. EVERY investigator except this one crackpot scientist has concluded it was a hydrogen fire.
This tired old discredited theory is STILL making the rounds?
You've got one crackpot scientist who's also a rabid hydrogen economy activist basically saying that ALL the investigators who looked into the disaster were ALL part of a secret conspiracy to hide the real reason for the explosion.
If you actually take time to read this guy's paper, you'll find he's nothing more than a conspiracy kook.
The Hindenberg went up because the hydrogen ignited. It wasn't the first time it happened. Goodyear had a very ugly hydrogren dirigible accident a few years previously. Killed a lot of people and destroyed a very large building right here in the US of A
Believe whatever you want. What you believe has no bearing on what is. All the junk that came out after Blair was fired showed the Times knew he was making up stuff. He was reprimanded for it in internal memos. Just before he was promoted.
In a lot of ways journalists are like cops. They cover for their own.
The Times knew about Blair for a long time. It was only when folks outside the newspaper started learning about it that they finally sacked the guy. The Times winked at Balir's behavior because he's black and they wanted a "diverse" company, it's no more complicated than that.
Do you think the push for AI in robotics is an attempt by people to find God? A being with all the human virtues and none of the human foibles that will come and bring utopia to our world?
I'm a big fan of Taxcut. They'll refund your efilling fees, give you a rebate on the software and refund the cost of the state package. And it's about $20 cheaper than turbotax right off the shelf.
In this case, the knowledge Microsoft has contributed is trivial. A completely straight forward way to solve the problem.
Stating your opinion as fact does not make it so.
Re:hey cool yet something else 90% of us have...
on
GNOME for Grandma
·
· Score: 1
It's not any harder than Windows boxes...
That's like saying chicken crap doesn't smell any worse than cow crap. It's still crap.
Re:Won't grandma be surprised
on
GNOME for Grandma
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That's because Win95's implementation was broken. Having all the widgets of a browser (menu bar, shortcut buttons, etc.) breaks the paradigm. Instead of opening folders, you're just opening more and more browser windows.
There's a reason Apple puts a global menu bar across the top of the screen and not in every window that appears on the screen.
If you're going to give lessons, get them right. Chemical equilibrium is the state at which products and reactants are formed at the same rate, making the net production of products/reactants zero.
Removing either products or reactants from an equilibrium system will cause a shift in the amount of reactant/product present until equilibrium is re-established.
The reactants are solar radiation and oxygen. The product is ozone.
Removing ozone shifts the equilibrium in favor of products. In other words, more ozone will be created from the reactants (radiation and oxygen) until the equilibrium state is achieved or until the reactants are completely consumed.
This is a simplified model, but essentially accurate.
Yeah, except for the rather obvious fact that ozone is constantly created by the bombardment of solar radiation on atompsheric oxygen. The only way to get rid of ozone is to eliminate all atmospheric oxygen. Not even the environmental wackos are saying that Haliburton or Bush can do that. Yet.
It doesn't matter what you think of Stern, he should still be allowed to speak.
Like many free speech advocates, you completey misunderstand what free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution. It's political free speech and political free speech only. This concept has been totally turned on its head. So people like you scream and holler when Stern is yanked off the air for obscenity, then cheer when the government bans political ads 60 days before an election.
Which one is really more dangerous to your freedoms? Think about it.
But you feel perfectly justified in pushing yours down mine, eh? You say I have to tolerate a piece of human debris like Howard Stern and if I don't like it, leave.
I'm telling you, no. I am not going to tolerate a piece of human debris like Howard Stern and I'm not going to leave; he is.
And since your views are inferior to mine because you actually condone and support the filth human garbage like Stern promotes, it is my views that we'll be promoting, not yours.
The moment the huge media conglomerate can issue warrants for search, seizure or arrest and use a police force to enforce them.
Until then, it's just a company. Companies are designed to make money. Companies don't make money by antagonizing their customers.
Governments are designed to wield power. Governments wield more power when they can subjugate their citizenry. Governments can subjugate their citizenry most effectively when they can create a focus of hate for the citizenry to rally against. It's even better when they can get the people doing the hating to feel morally superior and say that the object of the hate deserves it.
And, it's most effective when the people doing the hating actually blame the hated group for setting the whole thing up in the first place and cry for the destruction of freedom to punish the evildoers.
Example: I hate George Bush, republicans, evangelical christians and all their corporate cronies. They're destroying our freedoms by getting us all to hate Islamic terrorists just so they can trample our freedoms. We need to impeach Bush, outlaw republicans, shut down all evangelical Christian political movements, and jail those corrupt corporations. Then our freedoms will be safe.
Ah, nothing like a good fallacy of false equivalence to promote your argument.
The idea of cultural context, would, of course, point out how ridiculous our comparison is, so we'll just pretend there is no such thing, and count on uneducated idiots quoting us while thinking they are somehow being profound.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, since it wasn't the paint that went up initially, your argument is bogus. EVERY investigator except this one crackpot scientist has concluded it was a hydrogen fire.
This tired old discredited theory is STILL making the rounds?
You've got one crackpot scientist who's also a rabid hydrogen economy activist basically saying that ALL the investigators who looked into the disaster were ALL part of a secret conspiracy to hide the real reason for the explosion.
If you actually take time to read this guy's paper, you'll find he's nothing more than a conspiracy kook.
The Hindenberg went up because the hydrogen ignited. It wasn't the first time it happened. Goodyear had a very ugly hydrogren dirigible accident a few years previously. Killed a lot of people and destroyed a very large building right here in the US of A
Apple a major Ad buyer in PC magazine. That's a good one. Too bad I don't have mod points to mod you up funny...
Believe whatever you want. What you believe has no bearing on what is. All the junk that came out after Blair was fired showed the Times knew he was making up stuff. He was reprimanded for it in internal memos. Just before he was promoted.
In a lot of ways journalists are like cops. They cover for their own.
Rendezvous will not work in your setup, so your solution is useless for environments that require Rendezvous.
The Times knew about Blair for a long time. It was only when folks outside the newspaper started learning about it that they finally sacked the guy. The Times winked at Balir's behavior because he's black and they wanted a "diverse" company, it's no more complicated than that.
The Airport Base Stations also BRIDGE the wireless to wired connections. Most wireless routers do not bridge.
Bridging is essential if you want Rendezvous to work properly between your wired and wireless machines.
Do you think the push for AI in robotics is an attempt by people to find God? A being with all the human virtues and none of the human foibles that will come and bring utopia to our world?
I'm a big fan of Taxcut. They'll refund your efilling fees, give you a rebate on the software and refund the cost of the state package. And it's about $20 cheaper than turbotax right off the shelf.
Wish I had mods points to counter all the flamebait and troll mods you're going to get for this one...
Labeling something specious just because you don't like it doesn't make it so.
If it was so stinking obvious, why aren't you the one holding the patent?
In this case, the knowledge Microsoft has contributed is trivial. A completely straight forward way to solve the problem.
Stating your opinion as fact does not make it so.
It's not any harder than Windows boxes...
That's like saying chicken crap doesn't smell any worse than cow crap. It's still crap.
That's because Win95's implementation was broken. Having all the widgets of a browser (menu bar, shortcut buttons, etc.) breaks the paradigm. Instead of opening folders, you're just opening more and more browser windows.
There's a reason Apple puts a global menu bar across the top of the screen and not in every window that appears on the screen.
If you're going to give lessons, get them right. Chemical equilibrium is the state at which products and reactants are formed at the same rate, making the net production of products/reactants zero.
Removing either products or reactants from an equilibrium system will cause a shift in the amount of reactant/product present until equilibrium is re-established.
The reactants are solar radiation and oxygen. The product is ozone.
Removing ozone shifts the equilibrium in favor of products. In other words, more ozone will be created from the reactants (radiation and oxygen) until the equilibrium state is achieved or until the reactants are completely consumed.
This is a simplified model, but essentially accurate.
Yeah, except for the rather obvious fact that ozone is constantly created by the bombardment of solar radiation on atompsheric oxygen. The only way to get rid of ozone is to eliminate all atmospheric oxygen. Not even the environmental wackos are saying that Haliburton or Bush can do that. Yet.
Now we can run 5 100-watt light bulbs per square meter in death valley in full sunlight.
It doesn't matter what you think of Stern, he should still be allowed to speak.
Like many free speech advocates, you completey misunderstand what free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution. It's political free speech and political free speech only. This concept has been totally turned on its head. So people like you scream and holler when Stern is yanked off the air for obscenity, then cheer when the government bans political ads 60 days before an election.
Which one is really more dangerous to your freedoms? Think about it.
I don't hang out with the ultra-conservative religious right, but I hardly consider that group a bellwether of the opinion of the public at large.
You can always tell a good liberal by their love of labels like ultra-conservative religious right. Make sure you say it like a swear word.
The outrage was all over the press, or did you miss the part about CBS' phones melting down due to outraged viewers calling in?
It wasn't just Janet's little expose. The entire show was nothing but bump and grind, obscene lyrics and inuendo, crotch grabbing, etc.
I'll assume you actually didn't watch the halftime show or read reports on it and are just ignorant instead of deliberately deceitful.
I do. You don't, or you would realize your post does not illustrate a logical fallacy.
But you feel perfectly justified in pushing yours down mine, eh? You say I have to tolerate a piece of human debris like Howard Stern and if I don't like it, leave.
I'm telling you, no. I am not going to tolerate a piece of human debris like Howard Stern and I'm not going to leave; he is.
And since your views are inferior to mine because you actually condone and support the filth human garbage like Stern promotes, it is my views that we'll be promoting, not yours.
The moment the huge media conglomerate can issue warrants for search, seizure or arrest and use a police force to enforce them.
Until then, it's just a company. Companies are designed to make money. Companies don't make money by antagonizing their customers.
Governments are designed to wield power. Governments wield more power when they can subjugate their citizenry. Governments can subjugate their citizenry most effectively when they can create a focus of hate for the citizenry to rally against. It's even better when they can get the people doing the hating to feel morally superior and say that the object of the hate deserves it.
And, it's most effective when the people doing the hating actually blame the hated group for setting the whole thing up in the first place and cry for the destruction of freedom to punish the evildoers.
Example: I hate George Bush, republicans, evangelical christians and all their corporate cronies. They're destroying our freedoms by getting us all to hate Islamic terrorists just so they can trample our freedoms. We need to impeach Bush, outlaw republicans, shut down all evangelical Christian political movements, and jail those corrupt corporations. Then our freedoms will be safe.
Ah, nothing like a good fallacy of false equivalence to promote your argument.
The idea of cultural context, would, of course, point out how ridiculous our comparison is, so we'll just pretend there is no such thing, and count on uneducated idiots quoting us while thinking they are somehow being profound.