"I have no idea why they needed to specifically point out when the user was female."
What if the user had been a drunk black amputee midget jew? You would pass up an opportunity like that?
Actually, that appears to be the case with most of the other wav files in the Windows directory. If you check out the text at the bottom, there are references to people and groups who turn out to be providers of sound effects and music for games, software, etc.
So, most likely, somebody at one of these companies used a cracked version to create these files. I mean, this music doesn't sound like the sorta thing that your average coder can throw together.
Don't Vote It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in 2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start mattering now.
Last time around, everything came down to Florida, where Bush's official margin was 537 votes. (Yes, yes, I know, if they'd been counted differently there'd have been a different margin and perhaps a different outcome. But that's not what this column is about.) If any one of Florida's 6 million voters had stayed home, Bush's margin would have been 536 or 538 votes, and he'd still have won. Even if you voted in the most hotly disputed state in the mostly hotly disputed election in American history, your vote did not change the outcome.
Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will matter only if your state tips the balance in the electoral college.) What are the odds of that? Well, let's suppose you live in Florida and that Florida's 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided--meaning that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of voting for either Bush or Kerry--the statistical equivalent of a coin toss. Then the probability you'll break a tie is equal to the probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up heads. That's about 1 in 3,100--roughly the same as the probability you'll be murdered by your mother.
And that's surely a gross overestimate of your influence, because it assumes there's no bias at all in your neighbors' preferences. Even a slight change in that assumption leads to a dramatic change in the conclusion. If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 10 to the 1,046th power--approximately the same chance you have of winning the Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row.
For those of us who live in New York State, the situation is far worse. Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 10 to the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election's outcome. Which makes it pretty hard to see why I should vote.
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought like that...." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million and use it to advance your causes--and all with an almost indescribably greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240
Don't VoteIt makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in 2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start mattering now.
Last time around, everything came down to Florida, where Bush's official margin was 537 votes. (Yes, yes, I know, if they'd been counted differently there'd have been a different margin and perhaps a different outcome. But that's not what this column is about.) If any one of Florida's 6 million voters had stayed home, Bush's margin would have been 536 or 538 votes, and he'd still have won. Even if you voted in the most hotly disputed state in the mostly hotly disputed election in American history, your vote did not change the outcome.
Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will matter only if your state tips the balance in the electoral college.) What are the odds of that? Well, let's suppose you live in Florida and that Florida's 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided--meaning that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of voting for either Bush or Kerry--the statistical equivalent of a coin toss. Then the probability you'll break a tie is equal to the probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up heads. That's about 1 in 3,100--roughly the same as the probability you'll be murdered by your mother.
And that's surely a gross overestimate of your influence, because it assumes there's no bias at all in your neighbors' preferences. Even a slight change in that assumption leads to a dramatic change in the conclusion. If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 10 to the 1,046th power--approximately the same chance you have of winning the Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row.
For those of us who live in New York State, the situation is far worse. Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 10 to the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election's outcome. Which makes it pretty hard to see why I should vote.
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought like that...." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million and use it to advance your causes--and all with an almost indescribably greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
"Our intention is that new audiences should be able to follow this, but they will have to concentrate hard."
He also says that the miniseries will "bring Farscape to a place in the big story where we could now go in lots of different directions. We could make a movie, we could make a spin-off series, and I hope to do all of those things."
This all depends on the success of the miniseries though, so even if you're new, even if you're a Trekkie, you should still tune in. Give SciFi a reason to stop making the sub-B garbage they're constantly spewing out and stick with what works.
Even if you don't plan on using the screensave, please fill out the form (bogus info if you want) and download it. Increase their download count so they know people are interested in the show. They've already contacted the likes of UPN to say that they would advertise on the network if they picked up Farscape.
So, show them you care, even if you don't. The more money that goes to Farscape, the less that goes to SciFi's sub-B "Original" movies.
My guess is that SciFi has determined that most of their audience doesn't spend most of the day watching only SciFi. People probably tune in for something they want to watch (such as Pythons 2, or the masterpiece Avalanche: Unleashed) then turn it off when the other garbage (Stargate, Farscape) is on. So, they're just trying to pull in everyone they can.
From what Brian Henson said here, it doesn't sound like they're trying to wrap it up:
"Part of the plan was to bring Farscape to a place in the big story where we could now go in lots of diffrent directions. We could make a movie, we could make a spin-off series, and I hope to do all of those things."
I don't think they've ever done a "this is all a dream" type of episode. Several of them came close, but at the end it turns out to be part of the plot, and important.
SPOILERS:
My guess is either they were cloned at some point, or those laser blasters teleported them somewhere and left fake shells behind to be destroyed, so that everyone will think they're dead. It's also possible that the John and Aeryn you see at the end of the episode are actually those robotic replacements we've seen before (Aeryn, Stark).
From SciFi UK's website, it doesn't look like they'll be playing the Farscape miniseries. Another brilliant move on their part. They obviously needed the money to finish up their next masterpiece, Avalanche: Nature Unleashed In the Form of a Steaming Pile of Shit.
Agreed. Stargate is definitely episodic. This is part of the reason why I like Farscape more. The characters in Farscape are also more realistic/human. They are not perfect logical beings always making the right decision at every moment. Most of the time, they don't know what the right decision is, so they just go with the flow and hope for the best. Contrast this with Stargate or Star Trek, where every move is perfect, everyone talks like they've got PhD's, and although mistakes can be made, they are always fixed by the end of the episode. Stargate is alright, just not in large doses.
He was supposed to be on Fox News as well, according to watchfarscape.com but they only ended up showing a plug for the new miniseries. Apparently, he was on the Late Late Show yesterday, though I missed it.
"Our intention is that new audiences should be able to follow this, but they will have to concentrate hard."
He also says that the miniseries will "bring Farscape to a place in the big story where we could now go in lots of different directions. We could make a movie, we could make a spin-off series, and I hope to do all of those things."
This all depends on the success of the miniseries though, so even if you're new, even if you're a Trekkie, you should still tune in. Give SciFi a reason to stop making the sub-B garbage they're constantly spewing out and stick with what works.
so that's why our tuition shot up to $24,000 a year.. so that Case (formerly CWRU) could make the slashdot headlines.
(estimated cost of attendance is ~$34,000 btw)
light and time don't stop. once you cross the event horizon, it appears (from the outside), that it takes you an infinite amount of time (if the black hole doesn't evaporate) to cross the event horizon. from your view, though, you cross it and go to the center to be crushed in a fraction of a second (in an ideal black hole, at least). you'd probably be ripped to pieces much sooner than that, due to tidal forces.
your concept of dark matter is incorrect. dirt is not dark matter. it emits black body radiation.
I believe you are also confusing "radioactive" with "radiative".
The Theory of Evolution doesn't deal with the Universe, or anything that you say is "biological" in it, besides the Earth, and the Evolution of life on the Earth.
I do not believe there is truly a difference between living and non-living, besides complexity, but that's just me.
The universe is a biological being, you are just too small to realize.
Yeah, I am pretty short.
Slashdot Mirror
"I have no idea why they needed to specifically point out when the user was female." What if the user had been a drunk black amputee midget jew? You would pass up an opportunity like that?
Actually, that appears to be the case with most of the other wav files in the Windows directory. If you check out the text at the bottom, there are references to people and groups who turn out to be providers of sound effects and music for games, software, etc.
So, most likely, somebody at one of these companies used a cracked version to create these files. I mean, this music doesn't sound like the sorta thing that your average coder can throw together.
This is a lie. Deepz0ne was not one of the original soundforge authors.
Check out the interview with Radium's cofounder Sandor:
[_KaY_] Was it hard to create this group, i mean was it hard to find suppliers, good crackers...?
[Sandor] Yes actually. At first it was just Deepz0ne and myself, and we released together a little number of programs like soundforge cd architect.
So, Deepz0ne was one of the original crackers of soundforge, NOT one of its creators.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240
... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens of millions.
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in 2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start mattering now.
Last time around, everything came down to Florida, where Bush's official margin was 537 votes. (Yes, yes, I know, if they'd been counted differently there'd have been a different margin and perhaps a different outcome. But that's not what this column is about.) If any one of Florida's 6 million voters had stayed home, Bush's margin would have been 536 or 538 votes, and he'd still have won. Even if you voted in the most hotly disputed state in the mostly hotly disputed election in American history, your vote did not change the outcome.
Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will matter only if your state tips the balance in the electoral college.) What are the odds of that? Well, let's suppose you live in Florida and that Florida's 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided--meaning that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of voting for either Bush or Kerry--the statistical equivalent of a coin toss. Then the probability you'll break a tie is equal to the probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up heads. That's about 1 in 3,100--roughly the same as the probability you'll be murdered by your mother.
And that's surely a gross overestimate of your influence, because it assumes there's no bias at all in your neighbors' preferences. Even a slight change in that assumption leads to a dramatic change in the conclusion. If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 10 to the 1,046th power--approximately the same chance you have of winning the Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row.
For those of us who live in New York State, the situation is far worse. Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 10 to the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election's outcome. Which makes it pretty hard to see why I should vote.
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought like that
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million and use it to advance your causes--and all with an almost indescribably greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240 Don't Vote It makes more sense to play the lottery. By Steven E. Landsburg We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in 2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start mattering now. Last time around, everything came down to Florida, where Bush's official margin was 537 votes. (Yes, yes, I know, if they'd been counted differently there'd have been a different margin and perhaps a different outcome. But that's not what this column is about.) If any one of Florida's 6 million voters had stayed home, Bush's margin would have been 536 or 538 votes, and he'd still have won. Even if you voted in the most hotly disputed state in the mostly hotly disputed election in American history, your vote did not change the outcome. Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will matter only if your state tips the balance in the electoral college.) What are the odds of that? Well, let's suppose you live in Florida and that Florida's 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided--meaning that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of voting for either Bush or Kerry--the statistical equivalent of a coin toss. Then the probability you'll break a tie is equal to the probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up heads. That's about 1 in 3,100--roughly the same as the probability you'll be murdered by your mother. And that's surely a gross overestimate of your influence, because it assumes there's no bias at all in your neighbors' preferences. Even a slight change in that assumption leads to a dramatic change in the conclusion. If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 10 to the 1,046th power--approximately the same chance you have of winning the Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row. For those of us who live in New York State, the situation is far worse. Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 10 to the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election's outcome. Which makes it pretty hard to see why I should vote. The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million and use it to advance your causes--and all with an almost indescribably greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
As I stated in an above post:
From Brian Henson's statements:
"Our intention is that new audiences should be able to follow this, but they will have to concentrate hard."
He also says that the miniseries will "bring Farscape to a place in the big story where we could now go in lots of different directions. We could make a movie, we could make a spin-off series, and I hope to do all of those things."
This all depends on the success of the miniseries though, so even if you're new, even if you're a Trekkie, you should still tune in. Give SciFi a reason to stop making the sub-B garbage they're constantly spewing out and stick with what works.
KFC has released a new Farscape screensaver here
Even if you don't plan on using the screensave, please fill out the form (bogus info if you want) and download it. Increase their download count so they know people are interested in the show. They've already contacted the likes of UPN to say that they would advertise on the network if they picked up Farscape.
So, show them you care, even if you don't. The more money that goes to Farscape, the less that goes to SciFi's sub-B "Original" movies.
My guess is that SciFi has determined that most of their audience doesn't spend most of the day watching only SciFi. People probably tune in for something they want to watch (such as Pythons 2, or the masterpiece Avalanche: Unleashed) then turn it off when the other garbage (Stargate, Farscape) is on. So, they're just trying to pull in everyone they can.
From what Brian Henson said here, it doesn't sound like they're trying to wrap it up:
"Part of the plan was to bring Farscape to a place in the big story where we could now go in lots of diffrent directions. We could make a movie, we could make a spin-off series, and I hope to do all of those things."
I don't think they've ever done a "this is all a dream" type of episode. Several of them came close, but at the end it turns out to be part of the plot, and important.
SPOILERS:
My guess is either they were cloned at some point, or those laser blasters teleported them somewhere and left fake shells behind to be destroyed, so that everyone will think they're dead. It's also possible that the John and Aeryn you see at the end of the episode are actually those robotic replacements we've seen before (Aeryn, Stark).
In other news, Space Soldier seriously thinks he's gonna get a free ipod outta that bullshit scam.
From SciFi UK's website, it doesn't look like they'll be playing the Farscape miniseries. Another brilliant move on their part. They obviously needed the money to finish up their next masterpiece, Avalanche: Nature Unleashed In the Form of a Steaming Pile of Shit.
Agreed. Stargate is definitely episodic. This is part of the reason why I like Farscape more. The characters in Farscape are also more realistic/human. They are not perfect logical beings always making the right decision at every moment. Most of the time, they don't know what the right decision is, so they just go with the flow and hope for the best. Contrast this with Stargate or Star Trek, where every move is perfect, everyone talks like they've got PhD's, and although mistakes can be made, they are always fixed by the end of the episode. Stargate is alright, just not in large doses.
He was supposed to be on Fox News as well, according to watchfarscape.com but they only ended up showing a plug for the new miniseries. Apparently, he was on the Late Late Show yesterday, though I missed it.
My guess is that she's blind, or had to have new eyes put in. Watch the last episode of Farscape.
From Brian Henson's statements here:
"Our intention is that new audiences should be able to follow this, but they will have to concentrate hard."
He also says that the miniseries will "bring Farscape to a place in the big story where we could now go in lots of different directions. We could make a movie, we could make a spin-off series, and I hope to do all of those things."
This all depends on the success of the miniseries though, so even if you're new, even if you're a Trekkie, you should still tune in. Give SciFi a reason to stop making the sub-B garbage they're constantly spewing out and stick with what works.
so that's why our tuition shot up to $24,000 a year.. so that Case (formerly CWRU) could make the slashdot headlines. (estimated cost of attendance is ~$34,000 btw)
Anyone else find this movie to be cheap and pointless? Bowling for Columbine was better.
There's a difference between the acceleration due to gravity and the speed of gravity.
gravity doesn't warp space-time, matter does. gravity is the warpage.
light and time don't stop. once you cross the event horizon, it appears (from the outside), that it takes you an infinite amount of time (if the black hole doesn't evaporate) to cross the event horizon. from your view, though, you cross it and go to the center to be crushed in a fraction of a second (in an ideal black hole, at least). you'd probably be ripped to pieces much sooner than that, due to tidal forces.
your concept of dark matter is incorrect. dirt is not dark matter. it emits black body radiation. I believe you are also confusing "radioactive" with "radiative".
The problem is that it's taught as more true than religion
Rightly so. The theory of evolution better explains the course of events of living beings, and has evidence to back it up.
and the atheism aspect of evolution ("man evolved from apes")
How is this an "atheism aspect" of evolution? The Theory of Evolution says nothing about how life originated, just how it has changed over time.
The Theory of Evolution doesn't deal with the Universe, or anything that you say is "biological" in it, besides the Earth, and the Evolution of life on the Earth. I do not believe there is truly a difference between living and non-living, besides complexity, but that's just me. The universe is a biological being, you are just too small to realize. Yeah, I am pretty short.
The theory of evolution deals with biological evolution only, though.