Why are domain names 35 dollars? Don't we have the right to an itemized accounting of this charge? I personally would love to know where my hundreds of dollars go every year.
eBay squandered its potential, and I expect they will fade away as Google auctions take over. I think many like me have, either intentionally or not, are dissatisfied with eBay because of:
terrible customer service
out of control keyword spam and brand name misuse
clunky interface which has never been improved but just gotten clunkier and clunkier over the years
skyrocketing fees
MEGASELLERS who have taken over
banner ads
ridiculously unregulated auction 'descriptions' senselessly crammed with 350KB of junk HTML
and finally... "retaliatory feedback'. The roundhouse to the kneecaps that will topple ebay to the ground.
Your scepticism is correct, because it's definitely not the first banner ad. Prodigy, for one, had banner ads in 1993. This "Real Damion" fellow is Real Lost.
Google is a billion dollar company now -- they could at least poke at the issue. It's easy to see there are certain keywords and semantics that together are generally unique the editorial style. Surely there is a way for a bot to tell the difference. Afterall, you and I can tell the difference -- aren't we just big squishy bots ourselves? For god sakes ten female howler monkeys could devise a bot that could distinguish this this editorial from this news story.
Canadians have way more to be concerned about than overtime laws. Shouldn't these try to get their representatives to repeal or reduce some of their government's suffocating taxes first? Who elects these people?
It's really astounding how easily that angry little phrase rolls of the tounges of all these pothead disestablishmentarians. But aren't these the same junkies throwing molotov cocktails into Hummer dealers?
. . . 89. Freezing 90. Gas 3 dollars a liter 91. No football 92. Government spies on you and steals your money 93. Terrorists come and go as they please 94. Suffocating taxes on everything 95. The French . . .
It doesn't matter what you burn... the amount of carbon released by the reaction will always equal the amount of carbon you began with. So depending on whether you burn biodiesel or gasoline, the carbon will be released CO2, CO, CH4, etc. in ratios whose product equals 1 when multiplied by the ratios of the carbon fuel molecules you burned.
So you can burn diesel, and release a suite of much dirtier carbon compounds in addition to CO2, or you can burn fuel which has been masterfully refined in order to emit a carefully selected suite of carbon byproducts whose negative impacts on air quality -- such as smog and airborne poisonous compounds -- are minimal.
But I see you are attracted to the carbon in biodiesel fuel because it was produced by very recent photosynthetic reactions. I can understand that -- the idea is that you only put the carbon dioxide into the air that you just barely took out of it in the last growing season. A sort of delicate and harmonious balance between man, air, and nature.
Unfortunately just because the carbon in fossil fuel was not recently photosynthesized does not necessarily take it out of the carbon cycle, as you suppose. The fact of the matter is, the carbon was once in the atmosphere, then it was pulled out through photosynthesis, and then put back into atmosphere. And the ratios are identical whether it happened now, yesterday, or tomorrow.
My friend, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere oscillates with a magnitude far beyond any human being's ability to understand. One volcanic eruption, for example, can dump more CO2 into the atmosphere than all CO2 having been released throughout the entire industrial age.
Taking fuel from the ground does put CO2 back into the atmosphere that indeed hasn't been there for millions of years, but nevertheless the reaction in my world is still just as cyclical the reaction in your biodiesel-fueled world, with much less of the dirty compounds in the air and much, much less of the habit destruction caused by your boundless agriculture.
Re:Something I've always wonders about these displ
on
Big Screen for NYPD
·
· Score: -1
The main overview in one of the two installation examples in the article seems to consist of the weather channel, CNN headline news, two giant corporate logos, some sort of other generic news/bloomberg channel, and two big empty white placholder boxes. All of that trash together seems to be well over fity or sixty percent of the total screen area. And there's no way those folks are able to read what's left. Seems like a ridiculuous waste of money if you ask me. I would have just put a couple cheap seven inch lcds in everybody's cubicle if somebody had succeeded in convincing me those infotainment channels were somehow fundamentally integral to the operation of williams corp.
I would expect the NASA scientists to be considerably more cautious and not be making claims of conclusive evidence right off the bat.
Settle down... The author isn't claiming what you think he is. He is simply saying that "the possibility of cross-seeding" is now substatially greater than it was before this huge discovery.
There isn't any kind of evidence there ever was life on Mars.
There isn't any kind of evidence you have any idea what you're yakking about...
This article raises the speculation that life from Mars survived a high temp impact, ejection through the harsh radiation and temperatures of space and "cross-polinated" earth?
Yes, actually, that's exactly what it does. Well done U got it...
This is not supported by any facts and is pure speculation.
Specualtion in science is called "theory." The supporting facts are in the article, you must have missed them. Better read it again or something, I don't know. If I were you I'd give up and move on to something else...
Slashdot Mirror
Why are domain names 35 dollars? Don't we have the right to an itemized accounting of this charge? I personally would love to know where my hundreds of dollars go every year.
eBay squandered its potential, and I expect they will fade away as Google auctions take over. I think many like me have, either intentionally or not, are dissatisfied with eBay because of:
LOL. Genuninely not the first banner ad.
Your scepticism is correct, because it's definitely not the first banner ad. Prodigy, for one, had banner ads in 1993. This "Real Damion" fellow is Real Lost.
The student is Chinese.
Despite what you may have been told by our alarmist media, neither natural gas nor oil is scarce.
Oh man, can you picture it? A squadron of choppers with laser canons mounted on them, zapping up little terrorists in the desert? I love my military.
I can still walk on your own lawn, just don't step in the piles of shit my dog left everywhere. What's the big deal?
This absurd latency must explain why image results by Google's image search are regularly broken and missing.
Google is a billion dollar company now -- they could at least poke at the issue. It's easy to see there are certain keywords and semantics that together are generally unique the editorial style. Surely there is a way for a bot to tell the difference. Afterall, you and I can tell the difference -- aren't we just big squishy bots ourselves? For god sakes ten female howler monkeys could devise a bot that could distinguish this this editorial from this news story.
Canadians have way more to be concerned about than overtime laws. Shouldn't these try to get their representatives to repeal or reduce some of their government's suffocating taxes first? Who elects these people?
How does this paranoid hippie garbage get posted here? Somebody should revoke this poster's credentials.
the US government practices terrorism
It's really astounding how easily that angry little phrase rolls of the tounges of all these pothead disestablishmentarians. But aren't these the same junkies throwing molotov cocktails into Hummer dealers?
.
.
.
89. Freezing
90. Gas 3 dollars a liter
91. No football
92. Government spies on you and steals your money
93. Terrorists come and go as they please
94. Suffocating taxes on everything
95. The French
.
.
.
What revolution?
Great. Just when the whole video chat thing finally started materializing...
habitat destruction
It doesn't matter what you burn... the amount of carbon released by the reaction will always equal the amount of carbon you began with. So depending on whether you burn biodiesel or gasoline, the carbon will be released CO2, CO, CH4, etc. in ratios whose product equals 1 when multiplied by the ratios of the carbon fuel molecules you burned.
So you can burn diesel, and release a suite of much dirtier carbon compounds in addition to CO2, or you can burn fuel which has been masterfully refined in order to emit a carefully selected suite of carbon byproducts whose negative impacts on air quality -- such as smog and airborne poisonous compounds -- are minimal.
But I see you are attracted to the carbon in biodiesel fuel because it was produced by very recent photosynthetic reactions. I can understand that -- the idea is that you only put the carbon dioxide into the air that you just barely took out of it in the last growing season. A sort of delicate and harmonious balance between man, air, and nature.
Unfortunately just because the carbon in fossil fuel was not recently photosynthesized does not necessarily take it out of the carbon cycle, as you suppose. The fact of the matter is, the carbon was once in the atmosphere, then it was pulled out through photosynthesis, and then put back into atmosphere. And the ratios are identical whether it happened now, yesterday, or tomorrow.
My friend, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere oscillates with a magnitude far beyond any human being's ability to understand. One volcanic eruption, for example, can dump more CO2 into the atmosphere than all CO2 having been released throughout the entire industrial age.
Taking fuel from the ground does put CO2 back into the atmosphere that indeed hasn't been there for millions of years, but nevertheless the reaction in my world is still just as cyclical the reaction in your biodiesel-fueled world, with much less of the dirty compounds in the air and much, much less of the habit destruction caused by your boundless agriculture.
The main overview in one of the two installation examples in the article seems to consist of the weather channel, CNN headline news, two giant corporate logos, some sort of other generic news/bloomberg channel, and two big empty white placholder boxes. All of that trash together seems to be well over fity or sixty percent of the total screen area. And there's no way those folks are able to read what's left. Seems like a ridiculuous waste of money if you ask me. I would have just put a couple cheap seven inch lcds in everybody's cubicle if somebody had succeeded in convincing me those infotainment channels were somehow fundamentally integral to the operation of williams corp.
I disagree. Clearly the idea of this little robot is to save lives. Our lives and Arabian lives.
nope.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
Agreed... the world would be better off if "Comcast" focused it's weak little abuse department its way out of control SPAM crisis...
There isn't any kind of evidence you have any idea what you're yakking about... Yes, actually, that's exactly what it does. Well done U got it... Specualtion in science is called "theory." The supporting facts are in the article, you must have missed them. Better read it again or something, I don't know. If I were you I'd give up and move on to something else...the world's best primer on Mars