Dale is confused. He's mis-framed his argument, based on the presumption that (American) public schools are intended to spawn entrepreneurs, inventors, and creators. Unfortunately, that's not true, and never was. They're designed to create a competent workforce and serve a lowest common denominator, nothing more. Now, we can argue all week long about whether a "conspiracy" brought about this particular evolution, but it doesn't change the design. The emergence of those entrepreneurs, inventors, and creators is simply left to chance, assuming that the inherent ambition and drive such people possess will speed them along to success in those endeavors, as opposed to nine-to-five employment. That in fact is also substantially true, though there are undoubtedly edge cases of the sort that Dale is fretting about here.
It brings to mind the lyrics of an old Rush song from the Eighties, Mission.
I've used Google Earth and NASA World Wind in the past to visually find some clear-cutting, but it's not up-to-date and hit-and-miss and not exactly... clear-cut. This tool seems much MUCH better adapted.
So that gibberish my wife spouts when she's pissed is really volumes of highly advanced information in disguise? Where do I get a decoder ring for that?
Not stupid at all. There was no broadcast. We were listening with our hands to our ears, not trying to phone them up. We were hoping to hear something from 20 years ago. That's a heartbeat on the scale of sapient civilizations. The likelihood that they'd develop radio sources precisely during the 20 years just before we start listening is pretty slim. More likely is that they heard US first and have 'gone dark' to keep us from hearing them when we'd inevitably get curious.
24 ounces of a soft drink or 'fruit' juice with sugar or fructose or HFCS is still quite unhealthy. In the case of the ones containing fructose or HFCS, doing that ritually could wind up overwhelming and damaging your kidneys, since fructose is initially metabolized as if it were a toxin.
Control your literalism. Both soft drinks and beer are carbonated. Both have an enormous amount of empty calories. Why target one and not the other? My implication is that the latter is too sacred a cow to get equal treatment. Same goes for the worst of the 'fruit' juices, which may not be carbonated but have been identified by others as contributory to childhood obesity. I stopped short of mentioning wine, in part because I don't drink at all and have forgotten some of the chemistry involved.
Sooo... JUST carbonated soft drinks? Does that mean he's banning beer, too? The phrase "beer gut" didn't just arbitrarily appear in dictionaries. What about those "fruit juices" spiked with fructose, the nicotine of food additives?
So what if you e-polled your constituents about, say, reinstating slavery, public segregation, revocation of black voting rights, or renewed forced sterilization of mentally ill people, and a majority responded in favor of it? Would you slavishly honor the will of that misguided majority, or would you try to inject a little meta-parental oversight into it?
Democracy ain't perfect. I hope this dude recognizes that, aside from his little publicity stunt.
... holding off on a necessary purchase doesn’t make much sense.
Where did the author of those words learn economic theory? Holding off - or rather out - is the ONLY response that makes any sense. What other motivation will these One-Percenter manufacturers have to reduce prices if not the direct loss of market if they don't? Have we learned nothing at all from the message that the Occupy movement(s) are trying to spread?
Sounds perfectly rational to me. I've been fine for decades with a single in-the-bristles squirt, but if I ever brux myself to the point of needing the anesthetic toothpaste I might try splitting the job, too. I wonder if you could get by skipping the special toothpaste and gargling for the same period with Chloraseptic (phenol)? I don't know exactly what agents go into Sensodyne-type products, but I'd guess the active ingredient might be phenol as a mild anesthetic.
Toothpaste is 3D for me because I apply it (sparingly) INTO the bristles, where it can't simply disintegrate into fragments as I try to brush. Of course I'm using so much less than depicted that it isn't likely anyway, but just resting it on the bristles is ineffective regardless. Is it really this hard for humans to figure out how to use toothpaste optimally without rote memorization of some TV commercial? So much for that H. sapiens superior intelligence.
That story has only a chance to be true if people are actually mimicking the excessive way they've seen actors applying it in commercials: a big fat strip resting on the bristles. That's the dumbest fucking way you could possibly do it, even aside from the wastefulness; the paste will separate from the brush immediately and you'll have little gobs of unlathered paste all over your mouth. No, the right way to apply it is to squeeze the paste INTO the bristles, and only a tenth or less what the actors imply you should have used.
Applied that way, a larger tube opening is merely an annoyance, not an invitation to more excess.
... but it's not, not to the people running the companies that sell the condiments and spec the packaging. They WANT people to waste the product, because that means the companies can sell more, and it's far cheaper for those companies to make more than it is for consumers to waste it. Guess who winds up profiting from the waste?
Another example: something so mundane as toothpaste. For decades there have been TV commercials and print ads depicting actors using completely obscene amounts of the stuff, literally an order of magnitude more than is required for an effective result. Colgate and other companies have been encouraging that waste for decades, and that stuff has consequences when it winds up in bodies of water. I also suspect there was a bit of sinister collaboration in the design of at least one electric toothbrush, again intended to manipulate people to use more toothpaste than required: one model originally had just the useful rotating circular head, but then later added a fixed-bristle region adjacent for - you guessed it - holding more toothpaste.
The final insult: at least one of those makers decided to tinker with the diameter of the toothpaste tube opening, which had been a de facto standard for decades. I have a backpacking/travel toothbrush that I bought in the Eighties, which included its own mini-tube that had to be refilled by screwing a tube of toothpaste into one end and squeezing; this was only made feasible because all tubes of toothpaste used exactly the same opening diameter and thread spacing. Fast forward to 2010 and my purchase of toothpaste made by Church-Dwight, and my subsequent angry discovery that they had increased the diameter of the tube opening such that it no longer fit my old travel toothbrush. Now why would they increase the diameter of the opening? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with promoting incidental waste and selling more tubes of product, could it?
I'm a perennial cynic and skeptic, but I doubt these superhydrophobic containers will ever be used for condiments. Not only would the more expensive packaging cut into profits, the reduced waste would make a dent in them, too.
The OP's comment wasn't intended to be a comparative statement or campaign endorsement one way or the other, so why do you insist on trying to twist it into one? It was observations of simple fact based on readily available public information. Had you been paying attention since his inauguration, you would have noticed that it's not the Big Banks that have this President and Vice President in their back pockets... it's Big Media, Big Content that are really pulling the strings. It's been evident from the very beginning. Joseph Biden in particular might as well drop the pretense and just admit he's a sock puppet for the MPAA. Mark my words, Biden is envious of Chris Dodd's current job title.
Slashdot Mirror
Dale is confused. He's mis-framed his argument, based on the presumption that (American) public schools are intended to spawn entrepreneurs, inventors, and creators. Unfortunately, that's not true, and never was. They're designed to create a competent workforce and serve a lowest common denominator, nothing more. Now, we can argue all week long about whether a "conspiracy" brought about this particular evolution, but it doesn't change the design. The emergence of those entrepreneurs, inventors, and creators is simply left to chance, assuming that the inherent ambition and drive such people possess will speed them along to success in those endeavors, as opposed to nine-to-five employment. That in fact is also substantially true, though there are undoubtedly edge cases of the sort that Dale is fretting about here.
It brings to mind the lyrics of an old Rush song from the Eighties, Mission.
I hope she happened to have a copy of the book Robinson Crusoe on hand to take her mind off of her predicament.
I've used Google Earth and NASA World Wind in the past to visually find some clear-cutting, but it's not up-to-date and hit-and-miss and not exactly... clear-cut. This tool seems much MUCH better adapted.
Those idiots you're dealing with might be alien immigrants with really good plastic surgeons.
So that gibberish my wife spouts when she's pissed is really volumes of highly advanced information in disguise? Where do I get a decoder ring for that?
Not stupid at all. There was no broadcast. We were listening with our hands to our ears, not trying to phone them up. We were hoping to hear something from 20 years ago. That's a heartbeat on the scale of sapient civilizations. The likelihood that they'd develop radio sources precisely during the 20 years just before we start listening is pretty slim. More likely is that they heard US first and have 'gone dark' to keep us from hearing them when we'd inevitably get curious.
They might actually still be there and just be maintaining radio silence. We'll hear them eventually... when they show up in orbit around Earth.
Guess which 'environment' they're trying to protect?
That's right: the oil fields environment!
24 ounces of a soft drink or 'fruit' juice with sugar or fructose or HFCS is still quite unhealthy. In the case of the ones containing fructose or HFCS, doing that ritually could wind up overwhelming and damaging your kidneys, since fructose is initially metabolized as if it were a toxin.
Right, and I'm guessing the reason for his curious selectivity might have something to do with where some of his fortune is invested....
Control your literalism. Both soft drinks and beer are carbonated. Both have an enormous amount of empty calories. Why target one and not the other? My implication is that the latter is too sacred a cow to get equal treatment. Same goes for the worst of the 'fruit' juices, which may not be carbonated but have been identified by others as contributory to childhood obesity. I stopped short of mentioning wine, in part because I don't drink at all and have forgotten some of the chemistry involved.
In the arena of software design, nothing undercuts the Windows Registry as the Worst Idea Ever (for consumers, anyway).
So no more beer boobs?
FTFY. Oh, noes!
Sooo... JUST carbonated soft drinks? Does that mean he's banning beer, too? The phrase "beer gut" didn't just arbitrarily appear in dictionaries. What about those "fruit juices" spiked with fructose, the nicotine of food additives?
What a hypocrite.
Maybe the problem is people who take religious texts literally and not the tenets of the religion itself.
Fixed.
So what if you e-polled your constituents about, say, reinstating slavery, public segregation, revocation of black voting rights, or renewed forced sterilization of mentally ill people, and a majority responded in favor of it? Would you slavishly honor the will of that misguided majority, or would you try to inject a little meta-parental oversight into it?
Democracy ain't perfect. I hope this dude recognizes that, aside from his little publicity stunt.
Geeks should keep to hacking away at code and circuits and not hacking at the carcasses of dead critters.
... holding off on a necessary purchase doesn’t make much sense.
Where did the author of those words learn economic theory? Holding off - or rather out - is the ONLY response that makes any sense. What other motivation will these One-Percenter manufacturers have to reduce prices if not the direct loss of market if they don't? Have we learned nothing at all from the message that the Occupy movement(s) are trying to spread?
Sounds perfectly rational to me. I've been fine for decades with a single in-the-bristles squirt, but if I ever brux myself to the point of needing the anesthetic toothpaste I might try splitting the job, too. I wonder if you could get by skipping the special toothpaste and gargling for the same period with Chloraseptic (phenol)? I don't know exactly what agents go into Sensodyne-type products, but I'd guess the active ingredient might be phenol as a mild anesthetic.
Toothpaste is 3D for me because I apply it (sparingly) INTO the bristles, where it can't simply disintegrate into fragments as I try to brush. Of course I'm using so much less than depicted that it isn't likely anyway, but just resting it on the bristles is ineffective regardless. Is it really this hard for humans to figure out how to use toothpaste optimally without rote memorization of some TV commercial? So much for that H. sapiens superior intelligence.
That story has only a chance to be true if people are actually mimicking the excessive way they've seen actors applying it in commercials: a big fat strip resting on the bristles. That's the dumbest fucking way you could possibly do it, even aside from the wastefulness; the paste will separate from the brush immediately and you'll have little gobs of unlathered paste all over your mouth. No, the right way to apply it is to squeeze the paste INTO the bristles, and only a tenth or less what the actors imply you should have used.
Applied that way, a larger tube opening is merely an annoyance, not an invitation to more excess.
... but it's not, not to the people running the companies that sell the condiments and spec the packaging. They WANT people to waste the product, because that means the companies can sell more, and it's far cheaper for those companies to make more than it is for consumers to waste it. Guess who winds up profiting from the waste?
Another example: something so mundane as toothpaste. For decades there have been TV commercials and print ads depicting actors using completely obscene amounts of the stuff, literally an order of magnitude more than is required for an effective result. Colgate and other companies have been encouraging that waste for decades, and that stuff has consequences when it winds up in bodies of water. I also suspect there was a bit of sinister collaboration in the design of at least one electric toothbrush, again intended to manipulate people to use more toothpaste than required: one model originally had just the useful rotating circular head, but then later added a fixed-bristle region adjacent for - you guessed it - holding more toothpaste.
The final insult: at least one of those makers decided to tinker with the diameter of the toothpaste tube opening, which had been a de facto standard for decades. I have a backpacking/travel toothbrush that I bought in the Eighties, which included its own mini-tube that had to be refilled by screwing a tube of toothpaste into one end and squeezing; this was only made feasible because all tubes of toothpaste used exactly the same opening diameter and thread spacing. Fast forward to 2010 and my purchase of toothpaste made by Church-Dwight, and my subsequent angry discovery that they had increased the diameter of the tube opening such that it no longer fit my old travel toothbrush. Now why would they increase the diameter of the opening? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with promoting incidental waste and selling more tubes of product, could it?
I'm a perennial cynic and skeptic, but I doubt these superhydrophobic containers will ever be used for condiments. Not only would the more expensive packaging cut into profits, the reduced waste would make a dent in them, too.
The OP's comment wasn't intended to be a comparative statement or campaign endorsement one way or the other, so why do you insist on trying to twist it into one? It was observations of simple fact based on readily available public information. Had you been paying attention since his inauguration, you would have noticed that it's not the Big Banks that have this President and Vice President in their back pockets... it's Big Media, Big Content that are really pulling the strings. It's been evident from the very beginning. Joseph Biden in particular might as well drop the pretense and just admit he's a sock puppet for the MPAA. Mark my words, Biden is envious of Chris Dodd's current job title.
You really don't have a clue to offer, apparently. I don't care how long your penis is.
They'd have the skinny on pouches for sure.