Shouldn't that be R-Type? An R-Type sticker would be awesome, though personally I always preferred Gradius.
Speaking of which, I've never thought of this before but maybe the nonsense word Gradius was really supposed to be Gladius, as in a sword, but suffered from poor Engrish translation just like the FFIV character who was obviously supposed to be named Lydia got translated as Rydia?
Actually now that I think about it, I want a Rydia sticker for my laptop.
Man, caffeine plus every anti-allergy medication you can get OTC and a couple you can't is an interesting combination.
There are precious few Climatologists on that admittedly incomplete list, but if I'm going to be impressed with the level of dissent by people who are versed enough in the science to have their dissent mean something to me, it should be stocked solely with climatologists. If there are too many of them to include in the list, then that'll be something. But of the ones on the list, their complaints as summarized read mostly that the IPCC projections are not likely to be accurate and that the outcome of warming is essentially unknown.
Which really is where the debate as it exists in science is mostly centered. Yes there is much debate and not a true consensus as such, but that debate is more around specific aspects of global warming and our ability to predict its effects and in analyze its causes in detail, and not the "Yes vs No" that is dominating the non-scientific public debate on places like/.
only one of my friends had any knowledge of the [flooding in ND/MN], out of about 15 people I asked.
That's just weird, since the flooding has made national news so even if that was their only source they should have heard about it. Are these major national and global events mostly political in nature? If they get their news from politically-focused sources, that might explain it.
Slashdot is a decent example of what journalism will come to resemble
Ugh that made my eyes tear up and some vomit come up my throat.
Journalism will become, much like graphic design, at least half or more self-employed or contract/temp work in the next ten years. And we'll come to know journalists by name, instead of by what network or paper they represent.
Yeah I think that's generally a good prediction. In the meantime, I noticed that your list omitted the "fail" option. That was always my favorite to pick, and honestly the one I think most news outlets and journalists formerly employed by them will end up following.:P
Of course, the real motivation here ought to be for the legislature to amend the law to define child pornography in a more sensible way but they have a good track record of messing these things up, so I'm not holding my breath.
Forget the tendency of politicians to muck things up even in those strange circumstances where their intentions are noble.
This will never happen, because "more sensible" in this case means "less draconian and Kafkaesque" and thus it'll never fly past the "Think of the Childrens!" crowd. Can you imagine re-election time for the Representative who voted for what could superficially but accurately be called weaker anti-child porn laws?
"That chode she's with? That's Phantom Limb. In college he was a scrawny little wuss. In a desperate attempt to be cooler than guys like me, he had his 12 year old roommate create a machine that speeds up the muscle building process. The machine worked so well that every molecule in his extremities was accelerated beyond the speed of light. There were two side effects. One! He could mess up a guy just by touching him. And two! He became a humorless dick!"
So, we should take the advice of a former politician who is now an environmentalist?
No, dumbass, you should take the advice of climatologists when it comes to the climate. If Al fucking Gore is not your preferred mechanism for finding out what climatologists say, then maybe you should try something else. I don't know, you could read a book or a journal or something. I hear scientists sometimes publish those.
As well he should, with regard to all matters of science, in particular in regards to physics, and in so much as either are stating their own views of science.
Al Gore doing a presentation that was created from the data of actual climatologists should have a lot more credibility than Dyson saying all those climatologists are wrong. One is a non-expert in the field quoting experts, the other is a non-expert in the field pontificating.
There's a difference here. Start looking at Mr. Gore as a spokesperson not a wanna-be climatologist and you'll get it better.
Don't forget the Ozone layer. We were all supposed to be long dead from skin cancer by now.
That makes as much sense as saying "Don't forget about leaded gasoline! We were all supposed to be dead from its emissions by now!"
What an amazing world we live in where: 1) Experts predict disaster if a problem is ignored. 2) Problem is solved rather than ignored. 3) Disaster is averted. 4) Mentally challenged "skeptics" believe the problem never existed in the first place.
I bet you think there was nothing to Y2K either, do you? Or think nothing has changed vis-a-vis smog since the 70s? Or that acid rain isn't a problem?
Hmmm. I wonder why I no longer buy it.
Because you have chosen to do so, and have quite effectively shielded yourself from seeing why you came to the exactly wrong conclusion.
I have never been a fan of one sided restrictions. They are unbalanced and often invite disaster.
On the day I receive a signed treaty from said invertebrates promising to never eat human flesh again I will seriously consider not eating them...quid pro quo, reciprocity and all that. Until then pass the calamari and Tako. I'm top of the food chain and I'm HUNGRY.
So you're cool with eating chimpanzee? They're extremely intelligent in very human-recognizable ways, but lack understanding of high-level human social constructs like "treaties", lack power structures which would allow one chimpanzee to speak for more than a few, and thus could never meaningfully sign one.
Someone with a nuanced view of ethics is capable of applying a higher standard to themselves than the other side, with the caveat that this arrangement only lasts until the other side's lack of ethics becomes a problem. A country can have a policy of non-aggression and peace, but still be prepared to defend themselves and even strike back against another country who lacks such a policy. Similarly, if I was ever in the ocean and a Humbolt Squid decided to try to eat my face, I would defend myself with lethal force if necessary. But justifying dragging them en-mass out of the ocean to make meals of them, on the basis that if they could come on land and drag you to the ocean they would, isn't very logical. What "disaster" is possibly going to occur because we had a rule against eating squid? Are they going to invade, and damn those squid-sympathizing pacifist hippies for tying our hands?
Just say "ethical consideration for animals isn't a big concern for me when it comes to food." It doesn't require justification and dubious reasoning, and sounds vastly more honest.
Octopi are smart as hell, but squid are stupid. Enjoy all the calamari you want.
That might be true if you're only talking about the tiny squid usually used in calamari, but by no means is that a true statement in general. Some squids engage in cooperative hunting -- the only invertebrates known to do so -- and others have color-based communication systems more complex than even octopi.
And the consumption of calamari encourages the exploitation of other cephalopods, so sorry, I can't in good conscience eat calamari even if that particular squid is no smarter than a bug.
I don't think that squid are actually supposed to be all that intelligent.
It's not as widespread as it is in ocptopi, but many do show similar levels. Really I'm not trying to make nuanced judgement calls here -- it's like primates, I'm not going to say oh the great apes are smart enough for respect but their dumber monkey cousins are fair game.
They also attack and frequently kill various kinds of marine life I am in favor of, so I eat squid at every opportunity.
Ah well that's fair just don't order the giant squid I want those around until we know something about em.:P
In addition, there's lots of other fish you should avoid for various reasons
No kidding, and that's really why I don't much seafood anymore at all.
* Irony is trying to teach Firefox, based on Mozilla, based on Godzilla, how to spell 'nigiri'. Loading a full romaji (there's another one) dictionary would be overkill, but come on!
That'd only be ironic if Godzilla knew how to spell 'nigiri', but I honestly don't think he ever spent enough time actually in Japan to pick up the language.
I didn't always feel this way. I used to really like octopus tentacle sashimi (and other dishes). Then I learned more about them, and decided to give up something I enjoyed.
Dolphins might be delicious -- I can't recall if Chicken of the Sea tasted different when I was a kid -- but I still won't eat them.
Compared to that most crab have a wonderfull life, they mature in open sea. Get fished up and a few hours later killed almost instantly.. Not bad if you look at the way animals are treated in industrial cattle farms.
Or how crabs are treated by their natural predators. I saw a documentary about arthropods once where a very large octopus was hiding in a crack in some rocks and grabbed a passing crab. The crab was too big to fit through the crack especially with its fat claw arms, so without actually leaving its hiding place the octopus used its other arms to tear the limbs off the crab so it'd fit through and the octo could then eat the crab alive.
Nature can be nasty.
On the other hand, I'm completely against eating octopi and squid because they are extremely intelligent, the dolphins or chimps of the invertebrate world as far as I'm concerned. Maybe not the tiny arthropods, sure, just personally I prefer not to encourage the trade at all so I don't eat any of them.
Knowing it's a social science is not the same as letting go of the assumption that the actors in the economy are rational. Greenspan even admitted that he failed to see the crisis coming because he had always assumed companies would act rationally in their own best interest. People's opinions of him may vary, but I'm pretty sure he's an economist and not an engineering dumbass, dumbass.
On the other hand, economics doesn't seem to really understand that it's dealing with complex dynamical systems
Gee, and I thought economics' main problem is that they still assume people and the businesses that are run by them are informed and rational, instead of admitting that what they are studying is a branch of sociology or psychology.
Nothing to see here... move along, and don't forget your towel.
Man, you hitchhikers always talk about your fucking towels and how important and awesome they are... Which as far as I can figure is just to draw our attentions away from your damn electronic thumb devices that'll actually get you off the damn rock when the Vogons come to blow it up. I don't see how a towel can save you from the destruction of a planet, unless you offer it in trade for a ride with a very moist species of alien.
(Except they're trying to come TO earth, but they can't, because they don't have the production budget, and they have to keep re-using the clips where they shoot Cylons down.)
Huh, that's funny, I was under the impression that they eventually made it to earth because they ran out of production budget.;)
Anyway.. there is definately something about feeling, but it's only really about what you are used to. I prefer a fujitsu 8725, a modern cheap-ass keyboard to more exensive ones, simply because I am used to it.
I don't know about that. I cut my teeth on rubber dimple keyboards, and went many years using a procession of them varying from extremely crappy to occasionally quite high quality ones. Yet from the moment I first tried typing on a Model M (coincidentally or not while interning at IBM) I was hooked.
Certainly at this point ten years later I'm "used" to the IBM and that may affect my opinion of anything new, but at the same time it was not anything like what I was used to and I found it completely and utterly superior. The tactile sense just feels right.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and if you really need a line, next time someone says its cute, respond with, "Yeah, it's a 10-incher, just like my cock." Problem solved!
This baby can go for 6 hours without a recharge... just like me!
Shouldn't that be R-Type? An R-Type sticker would be awesome, though personally I always preferred Gradius.
Speaking of which, I've never thought of this before but maybe the nonsense word Gradius was really supposed to be Gladius, as in a sword, but suffered from poor Engrish translation just like the FFIV character who was obviously supposed to be named Lydia got translated as Rydia?
Actually now that I think about it, I want a Rydia sticker for my laptop.
Man, caffeine plus every anti-allergy medication you can get OTC and a couple you can't is an interesting combination.
There are precious few Climatologists on that admittedly incomplete list, but if I'm going to be impressed with the level of dissent by people who are versed enough in the science to have their dissent mean something to me, it should be stocked solely with climatologists. If there are too many of them to include in the list, then that'll be something. But of the ones on the list, their complaints as summarized read mostly that the IPCC projections are not likely to be accurate and that the outcome of warming is essentially unknown.
Which really is where the debate as it exists in science is mostly centered. Yes there is much debate and not a true consensus as such, but that debate is more around specific aspects of global warming and our ability to predict its effects and in analyze its causes in detail, and not the "Yes vs No" that is dominating the non-scientific public debate on places like /.
Horrific Ethnic Stereotype
Sounds Swedish; what's he doing at a law firm?
only one of my friends had any knowledge of the [flooding in ND/MN], out of about 15 people I asked.
That's just weird, since the flooding has made national news so even if that was their only source they should have heard about it. Are these major national and global events mostly political in nature? If they get their news from politically-focused sources, that might explain it.
Slashdot is a decent example of what journalism will come to resemble
Ugh that made my eyes tear up and some vomit come up my throat.
Journalism will become, much like graphic design, at least half or more self-employed or contract/temp work in the next ten years. And we'll come to know journalists by name, instead of by what network or paper they represent.
Yeah I think that's generally a good prediction. In the meantime, I noticed that your list omitted the "fail" option. That was always my favorite to pick, and honestly the one I think most news outlets and journalists formerly employed by them will end up following. :P
Of course, the real motivation here ought to be for the legislature to amend the law to define child pornography in a more sensible way but they have a good track record of messing these things up, so I'm not holding my breath.
Forget the tendency of politicians to muck things up even in those strange circumstances where their intentions are noble.
This will never happen, because "more sensible" in this case means "less draconian and Kafkaesque" and thus it'll never fly past the "Think of the Childrens!" crowd. Can you imagine re-election time for the Representative who voted for what could superficially but accurately be called weaker anti-child porn laws?
"That chode she's with? That's Phantom Limb. In college he was a scrawny little wuss. In a desperate attempt to be cooler than guys like me, he had his 12 year old roommate create a machine that speeds up the muscle building process. The machine worked so well that every molecule in his extremities was accelerated beyond the speed of light. There were two side effects. One! He could mess up a guy just by touching him. And two! He became a humorless dick!"
So, we should take the advice of a former politician who is now an environmentalist?
No, dumbass, you should take the advice of climatologists when it comes to the climate. If Al fucking Gore is not your preferred mechanism for finding out what climatologists say, then maybe you should try something else. I don't know, you could read a book or a journal or something. I hear scientists sometimes publish those.
As well he should, with regard to all matters of science, in particular in regards to physics, and in so much as either are stating their own views of science.
Al Gore doing a presentation that was created from the data of actual climatologists should have a lot more credibility than Dyson saying all those climatologists are wrong. One is a non-expert in the field quoting experts, the other is a non-expert in the field pontificating.
There's a difference here. Start looking at Mr. Gore as a spokesperson not a wanna-be climatologist and you'll get it better.
Don't forget the Ozone layer. We were all supposed to be long dead from skin cancer by now.
That makes as much sense as saying "Don't forget about leaded gasoline! We were all supposed to be dead from its emissions by now!"
What an amazing world we live in where:
1) Experts predict disaster if a problem is ignored.
2) Problem is solved rather than ignored.
3) Disaster is averted.
4) Mentally challenged "skeptics" believe the problem never existed in the first place.
I bet you think there was nothing to Y2K either, do you? Or think nothing has changed vis-a-vis smog since the 70s? Or that acid rain isn't a problem?
Hmmm. I wonder why I no longer buy it.
Because you have chosen to do so, and have quite effectively shielded yourself from seeing why you came to the exactly wrong conclusion.
I have never been a fan of one sided restrictions. They are unbalanced and often invite disaster.
On the day I receive a signed treaty from said invertebrates promising to never eat human flesh again I will seriously consider not eating them...quid pro quo, reciprocity and all that. Until then pass the calamari and Tako. I'm top of the food chain and I'm HUNGRY.
So you're cool with eating chimpanzee? They're extremely intelligent in very human-recognizable ways, but lack understanding of high-level human social constructs like "treaties", lack power structures which would allow one chimpanzee to speak for more than a few, and thus could never meaningfully sign one.
Someone with a nuanced view of ethics is capable of applying a higher standard to themselves than the other side, with the caveat that this arrangement only lasts until the other side's lack of ethics becomes a problem. A country can have a policy of non-aggression and peace, but still be prepared to defend themselves and even strike back against another country who lacks such a policy. Similarly, if I was ever in the ocean and a Humbolt Squid decided to try to eat my face, I would defend myself with lethal force if necessary. But justifying dragging them en-mass out of the ocean to make meals of them, on the basis that if they could come on land and drag you to the ocean they would, isn't very logical. What "disaster" is possibly going to occur because we had a rule against eating squid? Are they going to invade, and damn those squid-sympathizing pacifist hippies for tying our hands?
Just say "ethical consideration for animals isn't a big concern for me when it comes to food." It doesn't require justification and dubious reasoning, and sounds vastly more honest.
Octopi are smart as hell, but squid are stupid. Enjoy all the calamari you want.
That might be true if you're only talking about the tiny squid usually used in calamari, but by no means is that a true statement in general. Some squids engage in cooperative hunting -- the only invertebrates known to do so -- and others have color-based communication systems more complex than even octopi.
And the consumption of calamari encourages the exploitation of other cephalopods, so sorry, I can't in good conscience eat calamari even if that particular squid is no smarter than a bug.
in reality it is just a matter of their competition trying to get a piece of the action.
If a bunch of companies want to gang up on the big dogs, and their chosen weapon is openness, I don't really have a problem with that.
Of course that's only if it ends up really open, but IBM and SUN have done it before.
I don't think that squid are actually supposed to be all that intelligent.
It's not as widespread as it is in ocptopi, but many do show similar levels. Really I'm not trying to make nuanced judgement calls here -- it's like primates, I'm not going to say oh the great apes are smart enough for respect but their dumber monkey cousins are fair game.
They also attack and frequently kill various kinds of marine life I am in favor of, so I eat squid at every opportunity.
Ah well that's fair just don't order the giant squid I want those around until we know something about em. :P
In addition, there's lots of other fish you should avoid for various reasons
No kidding, and that's really why I don't much seafood anymore at all.
* Irony is trying to teach Firefox, based on Mozilla, based on Godzilla, how to spell 'nigiri'. Loading a full romaji (there's another one) dictionary would be overkill, but come on!
That'd only be ironic if Godzilla knew how to spell 'nigiri', but I honestly don't think he ever spent enough time actually in Japan to pick up the language.
I didn't always feel this way. I used to really like octopus tentacle sashimi (and other dishes). Then I learned more about them, and decided to give up something I enjoyed.
Dolphins might be delicious -- I can't recall if Chicken of the Sea tasted different when I was a kid -- but I still won't eat them.
Except there's a third criteria: is the animal tasty enough to disregard the other two criteria.
Well thank goodness humanity isn't tasty enough to meet that criteria.
And seriously if anyone wants to disagree, don't kid yourself. You are not very delicious.
Compared to that most crab have a wonderfull life, they mature in open sea. Get fished up and a few hours later killed almost instantly.. Not bad if you look at the way animals are treated in industrial cattle farms.
Or how crabs are treated by their natural predators. I saw a documentary about arthropods once where a very large octopus was hiding in a crack in some rocks and grabbed a passing crab. The crab was too big to fit through the crack especially with its fat claw arms, so without actually leaving its hiding place the octopus used its other arms to tear the limbs off the crab so it'd fit through and the octo could then eat the crab alive.
Nature can be nasty.
On the other hand, I'm completely against eating octopi and squid because they are extremely intelligent, the dolphins or chimps of the invertebrate world as far as I'm concerned. Maybe not the tiny arthropods, sure, just personally I prefer not to encourage the trade at all so I don't eat any of them.
Digital Rights Mauling
as in the DRM software mauls your digital rights.
Ah, I thought that was when you make an unapproved use of the media and a bear comes and mauls you.
That's about the only way DRM could be worse. On the plus side, that would totally get Colbert on our side of the fight.
Knowing it's a social science is not the same as letting go of the assumption that the actors in the economy are rational. Greenspan even admitted that he failed to see the crisis coming because he had always assumed companies would act rationally in their own best interest. People's opinions of him may vary, but I'm pretty sure he's an economist and not an engineering dumbass, dumbass.
You need a reason?
On the other hand, economics doesn't seem to really understand that it's dealing with complex dynamical systems
Gee, and I thought economics' main problem is that they still assume people and the businesses that are run by them are informed and rational, instead of admitting that what they are studying is a branch of sociology or psychology.
Nothing to see here... move along, and don't forget your towel.
Man, you hitchhikers always talk about your fucking towels and how important and awesome they are... Which as far as I can figure is just to draw our attentions away from your damn electronic thumb devices that'll actually get you off the damn rock when the Vogons come to blow it up. I don't see how a towel can save you from the destruction of a planet, unless you offer it in trade for a ride with a very moist species of alien.
Ooh that's cool. Thanks for the link!
(Except they're trying to come TO earth, but they can't, because they don't have the production budget, and they have to keep re-using the clips where they shoot Cylons down.)
Huh, that's funny, I was under the impression that they eventually made it to earth because they ran out of production budget. ;)
Anyway.. there is definately something about feeling, but it's only really about what you are used to. I prefer a fujitsu 8725, a modern cheap-ass keyboard to more exensive ones, simply because I am used to it.
I don't know about that. I cut my teeth on rubber dimple keyboards, and went many years using a procession of them varying from extremely crappy to occasionally quite high quality ones. Yet from the moment I first tried typing on a Model M (coincidentally or not while interning at IBM) I was hooked.
Certainly at this point ten years later I'm "used" to the IBM and that may affect my opinion of anything new, but at the same time it was not anything like what I was used to and I found it completely and utterly superior. The tactile sense just feels right.