And I have an astrophysics friend who just told me that the university we attend (grad students) will be putting up a new satellite that can generate 30TBs of data in one night (Full Sky Scan!). Wow.
Maybe the micro/macro distinction is false, but it conveys a valid point--within species change is pretty darn well documented. ALL the evidence is in favor, whereas we can argue all day about evidence concerning species shift (I am aware of ring-species!), which is much harder to prove. Even if, and that's a big if, you prove cross-species, then you have to demonstrate cross-family, cross-genus, and cross-kingdom (and all the other classification levels) shifting, which is going to be really difficult to demonstrate empirically due to the amount of time needed for this type of thing to actually happen.
Either way, I think the general point is pretty valid--there is still a LOT that we simply don't know about the beginnings of life on this earth (or anything else, to be honest), and I get a bit tetchy when idiots start arguing about things that no one completely understands, but argue as if everything about their side of the debate was perfectly understood.
The truth is, even those who accept a Biblical account of the beginnings of earth have a lot to explain before they can claim that the version presented is complete. Big Bang/Old Earth is probably as good as we are going to get for a long time, but anyone who thinks that science is going to prove anything about deity needs to really reconsider their logic classes.
Fortunately, most of the real psych out there isn't as looney as the pop-psych stuff like this. Note I said most. There are still a few moonbats, but most are safely hidden away where they can't do much real damage.
(Pet psychology indeed! Don't get me started!)
(Oh, did I mention that I am in an Applied Psych PhD program? Yeah, well, okay, now I have, but I still like what my dad told me when I asked him why he switched majors away from psych-"Too many cooks" (as in loonies!).)
I think the point is that he could live much more extravagantly than he does. He could have built a house the size of the Biltmore Estate, and done some really crazy stuff, but he didn't. Yes, his house is expensive and more than most of use will ever come close to--but that doesn't mean it's even in the running for the nicest house on the planet.
I think you misunderstood a few things about the Milgram studies:
First: informed consent was not what we know today. At that point, you essentially signed a form that said "I agree to participate", and that was it. Deception was key to the whole thing, and people thought they were in a learning study, not an authority study.
Second: the labels did not have actual voltages, but rather "pain-levels" or "danger-levels".
Third: individuals were debriefed (largely because of how disturbing this was) and asked about the deception. Most indicated that they had no idea that they were not really shocking someone. The whole experiment hinges on this, and they went to great lengths that it was believable.
Fourth, the whole idea was that the "actor" was telling them to comply with the experiment. The idea is that if you are continually told to do something by an authority you will be more likely to do it.
Finally, we cannot replicate the study. It is considered unethical in the way it treated people, and so no ethics board will approve it. Thus we cannot redo it with better experiments, better controls, etc.
First, since the US has been more religious than most of Europe (surveys of national levels of religiosity typically exclude certain Meditaranean (I can't spell it!) countries such as Greece) for quite some time, the idea that the US will somehow NOW begin to lose ground against more secular countries in Europe goes counter to the evidence. The evidence is that one of the most Christian countries on the planet has been out-performing other countries for quite some time now. Explain to me how this works. US is more religious, and has led the world in many respects for quite some time. Now suddenly because Europe is becoming more secular, the world is going to suddenly reverse this trend? You'll need some other variable to explain this.
Second, the idea that people donate money to charity because they can use it as a tax write-off is simply ludicrous. You NEVER gain ground in this scheme. You actually end up spending MORE money than if you just paid the original taxes due. You give to charity, and then use the write-off if you like. It's pretty simple. Making a donation to charity or anything like that is not a good way to save money. It is a way to avoid giving as much to the government, but you are still out more money than if you had just paid your taxes in the first place. Arguments against this are just ignoring the facts. If you think I'm wrong, you'll need to cite tax codes and set up a full example. Otherwise, I think this point should be obvious.
Third, the idea that 'it makes them feel better about screwing people' it also patently absurd. It assumes that only Republicans that are arrogant jerks that are willing to crush everything in their path to succeed ever give money to charity. I suspect, however, that some people here would actually wonder if there were Republicans that weren't arrogant jerks, but that's another story. The truth is that there are some VERY inconsistent beliefs that people hold regarding Republicans. The idea that people vote Republican because they are stupid religious idiots is inconsistent with the idea that they are all about screwing people over as they grip corporate America by the balls. Either Republicans are dumb and ignorant or they are capable and greedy. How does this work. Only the capable, greedy crooks ever give money to charity? Except that some people in this thread (not you), have stated that Dems earn more. If Dems, on average, earn more, then obviously if they cared about the poor (as you seem to think they do), they should give more to charity. Oh, wait--the Dems just give more to the gov't and expect politicians to be fair in handing it out.
Fourth, making yourself look better to "people too stupid to read between the lines" is hardly a profitable venture. Most of the people who actually KNOW about charity donations are usually the ones who care. Most people don't vote because a politician gave so many millions to an orphanage.
Gah, this is crazy. Your post is simply an attempt to make it look like Republicans never do anything because they care about others. This could have been done simply by stating: Republicans==Bad; Democrats==Good. What a bunch of looney garbage! Anyone who thinks that way needs to check their brain in at the door--they obviously aren't using it.
The fact is that there are good, decent people at all points in the political spectrum. There are also evil, twisted scum at all points. Finally, there are really looney nuts at all points as well. No political party has a monopoly on good, bad, ugly, crazy or plain weird people. Thank goodness too.
Some Republicans give for the reasons you state. So do some Democrats. And some Libertarians, Green Party folks, and independents. Some of each also give for other reasons, such as human compassion.
As for the Museum itself? Sounds loony to me! I'm a Christian (Mormon, in point of fact), but I think that the whole debate is rather pointless in any case. Micro-evolution is real and pr
He actually had the balls to tell another author that he writes "serious fantasy", and that what they wrote was just garbage. Donaldson's work is interesting and entertaining, but hardly Tolkien in quality. Let me give you just one example of the problems he faces: when Covenant visits the elohim, they are essentially elves. The word, however, means 'gods'. It is a terrible thing to do, and I think it is a bad idea to change the name of a race, or invent a new race, and use a word that has a meaning in a real language other than the one you are trying to impart.
Admittedly, I liked the Thomas Covenant series, but Donaldson, like David & Leigh Eddings, is obviously far too pleased with his own genius. Most authors tend to be arrogant to some degree, like many scientists and university professors. (Tolkien, I understand, was not immune to this). I just don't think Donaldson is the best out there or the current great writer.
Good fantasy? Michael Moorcock's (sp?) work is very good. He at least has some reasonably unique themes. He occasionally delves into some rather dark musings, but for a Donaldson fan that shouldn't be an issue.
Eddings is good, as long as you don't read too much. Read either the Elenium & Tamuli OR the Belgariad & Mallorean, as Eddings has a very formulaic approach to character-building and world-creation. If you want to save time, read The Redemption of Althalus instead of teh Elenium & Tamuli.
Tad Williams is probably more interesting than any of the above (save Tolkien, of course) in the Memory, Sorrow & Thorn trilogy (the third book, which is unarguably HUGE, got split). He is certainly better than Robert Jordan (please FINISH THE STORY!), and, imho, Terry Goodkind (FINISH IT! MOVE ON!), or even Terry Brooks (I've had enough of Shanara). I read a lot of Feist, but I think that Williams is probably a better author. Feist may be reaching the limits of good taste with his latest series--after all, I often like authors to write about something new. Pug is getting OLD. I'll admit, though, that I'll read Feist until he quits writing.
David Farland has an interesting series, but I'm not sure I will read it again.
Finally Christopher Paolini is an interesting author that REALLY needs to finish his next book. I think it twenty years he'll be pretty good if he doesn't get caught up with the movies too much. He should have finished the book before doing the movie.
I could list more, but I don't have the time (i've used more than I really had anyway). The point is that is lots of good fantasy out there, but you occasionally need to wade through some real crap to find it. Good luck.
When I saw this topic, the last thing I expected was a pseudo-debate on the validity of religion.
I have a really hard time understanding why atheists care if I choose to believe in something they consider to be a fairy-tale. Or why religious folks get upset that someone chooses not to revere their chosen deity.
There are a lot of ignorant people in this world, both atheist and religious. There are lots of smart people that believe in God, just as there are plenty of smart people that don't.
Similarly, there are plenty of rich folks that are religious, and plenty that are atheist.
My point is that despite the statistics quoted in the religiosity & intelligence article on wikipedia, there are enough problems with most of the surveys (sampling issues, for instance) that that should ALL be taken with a grain of salt. (Another major point that the wikipedia article fails to address is the severity of the debate about intelligence--most people that are informed know that it is a bad idea to simply accept IQ test scores at face value.)
Frankly, as a religious person, I have no objection to an atheist president--provided he keeps his bias against religion out of his politics, and that his atheism is a considered and rational decision. In fact, I feel the same way about religious presidents as well. That said, it doesn't mean that either needs to hide their viewpoints. I would rather a known position than an unknown. Bush's use of his religion is unsurprising, but I would rather he had simply said something like, "Yes, I believe in God, and spend time in personal and public worship. Yes I pray about decisions, and that's what I do".
Now, I don't care about Bill Gates' views about religion. I would, however, strenuously object to him as a presidential candidate. He would be far too pro-business, and pro-monopoly. Frankly, the idea frightens me, since the way that microsoft tries to control actions is very invasive. I don't think he would abandon that philosophy as president.
The fact is, that I don't particularly like a lot of the government's policies, and I have no trouble saying so. Think about the anti-Bush articles, posts, and comments that you have seen in various locations, and then ask yourself this: would I make this comment from North Korea or China regarding the illustrious leader of that country?
Let me put it this way: Slashdot could not have the comment system it does in a lot of countries and remain in business for long. They would have been arrested and possibly executed.
Do journalists have a right/responsibility to protect their sources? That's an interesting debate, and I don't know how to feel about it. Let's consider a likely scenario: a reporter is offered an interview with a man who claims to have killed 15 young children, and is shown incontrovertible evidence of that person's guilt, but are asked to remain silent about their source of knowledge about the killings--they know where to find the killer, but are asked to remain silent. Is it journalistic integrity to remain silent (and thus allowing the killer to continue), or is it better to go to the police and reveal what they know? If you are a reporter and offered an interview with a known killer and terrorist, what do you do? Should you accept the offer? Or should you accept it while working with the police to determine the person's location?
A judge should be politically neutral and rule according to the laws that are on the books. That is the role of a judge--to decide guilt or innocence based on the law and the evidence. A judge should only care about civil liberties in the sense that they uphold the law. If a judge feels strongly that a law is unconstitutional, then they should be prepared to say so. This is not, however, the same as creating, by precedence, new laws and philosophies.
If you think that the supreme court justices newly appointed are anti-civil liberties, I can only say that I need evidence, not just your opinion.
That's because we want people who come to the US to be productive members of society, not leeches that live off welfare. Additionally, it has long been the case that immigrants need to demonstrate some degree of proficiency in English.
With those two requirements in mind, I say that anyone who wants to come in should be allowed, provided they don't have a criminal record in a reasonable country, or for a violation of our laws (sorry, if you've been convicted of murder, we don't really want you!).
This is to make sure that those coming to the country are not going to provide additional strain on our already limited resources.
I don't know what is typical, but I've never had trouble with any Antec product, (I have an Antec case and PSU). I realize that I am dealing with a limited sample, but all the same, I've not had any trouble.
My experience with their customer service (my children busted the front USB ports on the case) was positive and reasonably responsive.
Of course, I wasn't dealing with them in volume, and I have only had the one incident, so I may have gotten the one good guy, but I don't know.
If what you said was true, then I would agree, but the truth is more complicated--often downloading results in very little or no monetary damage to the actual artists. It is fairly well known that most artists make the majority (but not all) of their true earnings on proceeds from concerts and tours--not from cd sales. Several artists have tested this, and are doing well enough.
I have a great deal of respect for artists that are willing/able to break with the RIAA, and allow their music to be downloaded, secure that they have a great product and people will come to their concerts and support them.
I still feel that copyright infringement is technically different from theft. Furthermore, I am also uncertain that downloading is technically illegal. I think that it is a valid reading of the law, but I am also valid to say that downloading falls under fair-use technically. In other words, I feel that the law is ambiguous on this point, the DMCA not withstanding.
I will say that with the advent of iTunes, I have certainly decreased the rate at which I download songs--because iTunes makes it easy to get what I want at a reasonable price. That said, when I see that a band is directly selling their songs (Bare Naked Ladies being a good example of this) or concert recordings, I will buy direct from the artist rather than some other distribution channel, because that way the artist gets (hopefully) a larger chunk of the proceeds.
It is a well known fact among experts that computers do not function properly until an appropriate amount of blood has been sacrificed in any particular machine's honor. Apparently this is also true of cars and trucks, as well as most mechanical devices. This is why true enthusiasts always build their own machines--this way they can be certain that enough blood has been spilled. With a pre-built machine, there is a chance that no blood was spilled, and you will certainly end up with a dud. Which is, of course, why Dell's are so bad. IBM's, on the other hand, look like they had to have had blood spilled, and are generally much better.
Apple computers, OTOH, look deceptively mild, but I'm told that each one has a kitten killed over it before shipping.
----
On topic, however, Steve will be greatly missed, and I hope that the world remembers him properly.
You bring up a vital point: check the mAh on your batteries. I buy almost nothing but rechargeable these days because there is a 400 to 500 boost on the mAh over regular use-and-toss batteries. It's also easier on the environment to keep batteries.
I get about 3 months on my rechargeable, but who cares? If I get two months, I'm happy enough. Considering it only takes 3-4 hours to charge, I wouldn't care if they only lasted a week or two.
Those are two classic works. Vroom has another book, but it is more of a jobplace-oriented work.
Keep in mind if you read Vroom's 1964 book: it is dated in certain ways, and the times come out rather strong when you are reading his comments about work-roles for men and women. I suspect his ideas have changed considerably since that time.
Unfortunately there isn't a really good comprehensive text on motivation. Knowing your authors helps a lot though. I'll post a list of good works on motivation and behavior, which are really the same thing.
One of the axioms of motivation theory is that ALL behavior is motivated by something. Hedonic theories (which I think are pretty solid) state that all behavior is motivated by our prediction of enjoyment of the outcome of that behavior. This gets tricky, since the act of the behavior produces physical as well as psychological outcomes just from performing the act, and this gets factored into our decision about what to do. Think of two ways to get ten dollars, but one of them requires much more effort. Assume that the extra effort is unpleasant, but the time requirement is about the same. A good theory will predict that most people will choose the method that requires less effort, providing that there are not hidden costs. A good scenario is one method being carrying a 100 pound rock 50 feet versus sitting in a chair for five minutes. Assuming you are capable of both, I would predict that the vast majority of people would rather sit in the chair. Of course, personality differences would influence actual behavior, but that's getting a bit complicated.
The idea is that all behavior is motivated, and if we have a good theory of motivation/behavior, then we can predict behavior to a degree that we know the variables involved. A few people (including the person that wrote the textbook I'll be teaching from) have used this to theorize that this means that there is no such thing as free will. I don't think that it necessarily follows, but oh well.
Oh, and thanks for the vote--it doesn't seem to have helped, though.
As for other salts than table salt--maybe. I've had some 'low-sodium' salts that were just plain nasty. Others, I'm sure, are much tastier. In order for salt to do what I want, it has to have the right flavor. I cook a fair bit, so I don't mind the artisian salts that are available--they mostly have a neat flavor, but I won't touch a salt that doesn't taste good.
I like "American Bacon", and I consistently forget that this is an international forum.
But, my point remains: why would i want low-fat "American Bacon"? That is an object that really does contain more fat than meat.
As I recall, however, when I was in Portugal, the bacon there was more like what I got here than what you describe coming from England. Of course, "Canadian" Bacon has its place, and is very tasty in its own right.
This is the reason that most linux desktop environments are switching to SVG for their icons. SVG is fairly compact and scales perfectly (as long as some goofball doesn't link a raster image into a native SVG doc), and is fairly good about compressing (svgz). Take a 4MB file, which is 7200x7200 (or rather, I am printing @ 300 dpi for 24 inches), and exports to a BMP at 150MB, but compresses down to a mere 800KB. This is how it should be. Even more importantly, I could run a white space removal tool on the file and probably get it down to 500KB after zipping.
SVG is the best way to go for icons. Another vector format would be just as good, I think, but why bother? SVG does everything that an icon should do (and can, from what I understand, support rollover and such).
Insightful and funny: wish I had mod points and there wasn't a +5 limit...
Although, if we are giving out free clones, I want Drew Barrymore. She still gets me excited. Fionna Apple would be a good choice too. I like the 'cute' ones like that. Oh, and can we add an Irish accent mod? And a bust-size upgrade (Drew with DD's? I think so!).
Okay, now I've thought about this way too much.
Your point, however, is well put. Jobs has done his job, and quite well. I would love to work for Apple, and if I ever see a job there that I'm qualified for, I'll apply.
Slashdot Mirror
And I have an astrophysics friend who just told me that the university we attend (grad students) will be putting up a new satellite that can generate 30TBs of data in one night (Full Sky Scan!). Wow.
Show me a politician that is really about not taking away rights, and I'll gladly vote for them.
We need less laws, not more.
We need more private citizens involved, not less.
Neither seems to be happening.
Maybe the micro/macro distinction is false, but it conveys a valid point--within species change is pretty darn well documented. ALL the evidence is in favor, whereas we can argue all day about evidence concerning species shift (I am aware of ring-species!), which is much harder to prove. Even if, and that's a big if, you prove cross-species, then you have to demonstrate cross-family, cross-genus, and cross-kingdom (and all the other classification levels) shifting, which is going to be really difficult to demonstrate empirically due to the amount of time needed for this type of thing to actually happen.
Either way, I think the general point is pretty valid--there is still a LOT that we simply don't know about the beginnings of life on this earth (or anything else, to be honest), and I get a bit tetchy when idiots start arguing about things that no one completely understands, but argue as if everything about their side of the debate was perfectly understood.
The truth is, even those who accept a Biblical account of the beginnings of earth have a lot to explain before they can claim that the version presented is complete. Big Bang/Old Earth is probably as good as we are going to get for a long time, but anyone who thinks that science is going to prove anything about deity needs to really reconsider their logic classes.
Fair enough.
I also suppose that while I'm living in the area (roughly--I'm in SC), I should visit the Biltmore Estate.
Fortunately, most of the real psych out there isn't as looney as the pop-psych stuff like this. Note I said most. There are still a few moonbats, but most are safely hidden away where they can't do much real damage.
(Pet psychology indeed! Don't get me started!)
(Oh, did I mention that I am in an Applied Psych PhD program? Yeah, well, okay, now I have, but I still like what my dad told me when I asked him why he switched majors away from psych-"Too many cooks" (as in loonies!).)
I think the point is that he could live much more extravagantly than he does. He could have built a house the size of the Biltmore Estate, and done some really crazy stuff, but he didn't. Yes, his house is expensive and more than most of use will ever come close to--but that doesn't mean it's even in the running for the nicest house on the planet.
They land in the Ha'tak, just in the Al'kesh or Death Gliders. Come on! This is simple stuff!
The Goa'uld only landed after their Jaffa had properly enslaved the people and had the pyramid built.
I think you misunderstood a few things about the Milgram studies:
First: informed consent was not what we know today. At that point, you essentially signed a form that said "I agree to participate", and that was it. Deception was key to the whole thing, and people thought they were in a learning study, not an authority study.
Second: the labels did not have actual voltages, but rather "pain-levels" or "danger-levels".
Third: individuals were debriefed (largely because of how disturbing this was) and asked about the deception. Most indicated that they had no idea that they were not really shocking someone. The whole experiment hinges on this, and they went to great lengths that it was believable.
Fourth, the whole idea was that the "actor" was telling them to comply with the experiment. The idea is that if you are continually told to do something by an authority you will be more likely to do it.
Finally, we cannot replicate the study. It is considered unethical in the way it treated people, and so no ethics board will approve it. Thus we cannot redo it with better experiments, better controls, etc.
Oh well--you probably do not care.
Your lack of logic astounds me.
First, since the US has been more religious than most of Europe (surveys of national levels of religiosity typically exclude certain Meditaranean (I can't spell it!) countries such as Greece) for quite some time, the idea that the US will somehow NOW begin to lose ground against more secular countries in Europe goes counter to the evidence. The evidence is that one of the most Christian countries on the planet has been out-performing other countries for quite some time now. Explain to me how this works. US is more religious, and has led the world in many respects for quite some time. Now suddenly because Europe is becoming more secular, the world is going to suddenly reverse this trend? You'll need some other variable to explain this.
Second, the idea that people donate money to charity because they can use it as a tax write-off is simply ludicrous. You NEVER gain ground in this scheme. You actually end up spending MORE money than if you just paid the original taxes due. You give to charity, and then use the write-off if you like. It's pretty simple. Making a donation to charity or anything like that is not a good way to save money. It is a way to avoid giving as much to the government, but you are still out more money than if you had just paid your taxes in the first place. Arguments against this are just ignoring the facts. If you think I'm wrong, you'll need to cite tax codes and set up a full example. Otherwise, I think this point should be obvious.
Third, the idea that 'it makes them feel better about screwing people' it also patently absurd. It assumes that only Republicans that are arrogant jerks that are willing to crush everything in their path to succeed ever give money to charity. I suspect, however, that some people here would actually wonder if there were Republicans that weren't arrogant jerks, but that's another story. The truth is that there are some VERY inconsistent beliefs that people hold regarding Republicans. The idea that people vote Republican because they are stupid religious idiots is inconsistent with the idea that they are all about screwing people over as they grip corporate America by the balls. Either Republicans are dumb and ignorant or they are capable and greedy. How does this work. Only the capable, greedy crooks ever give money to charity? Except that some people in this thread (not you), have stated that Dems earn more. If Dems, on average, earn more, then obviously if they cared about the poor (as you seem to think they do), they should give more to charity. Oh, wait--the Dems just give more to the gov't and expect politicians to be fair in handing it out.
Fourth, making yourself look better to "people too stupid to read between the lines" is hardly a profitable venture. Most of the people who actually KNOW about charity donations are usually the ones who care. Most people don't vote because a politician gave so many millions to an orphanage.
Gah, this is crazy. Your post is simply an attempt to make it look like Republicans never do anything because they care about others. This could have been done simply by stating: Republicans==Bad; Democrats==Good. What a bunch of looney garbage! Anyone who thinks that way needs to check their brain in at the door--they obviously aren't using it.
The fact is that there are good, decent people at all points in the political spectrum. There are also evil, twisted scum at all points. Finally, there are really looney nuts at all points as well. No political party has a monopoly on good, bad, ugly, crazy or plain weird people. Thank goodness too.
Some Republicans give for the reasons you state. So do some Democrats. And some Libertarians, Green Party folks, and independents. Some of each also give for other reasons, such as human compassion.
As for the Museum itself? Sounds loony to me! I'm a Christian (Mormon, in point of fact), but I think that the whole debate is rather pointless in any case. Micro-evolution is real and pr
Donaldson? That self-righteous, arrogant jerk?
He actually had the balls to tell another author that he writes "serious fantasy", and that what they wrote was just garbage. Donaldson's work is interesting and entertaining, but hardly Tolkien in quality. Let me give you just one example of the problems he faces: when Covenant visits the elohim, they are essentially elves. The word, however, means 'gods'. It is a terrible thing to do, and I think it is a bad idea to change the name of a race, or invent a new race, and use a word that has a meaning in a real language other than the one you are trying to impart.
Admittedly, I liked the Thomas Covenant series, but Donaldson, like David & Leigh Eddings, is obviously far too pleased with his own genius. Most authors tend to be arrogant to some degree, like many scientists and university professors. (Tolkien, I understand, was not immune to this). I just don't think Donaldson is the best out there or the current great writer.
Good fantasy? Michael Moorcock's (sp?) work is very good. He at least has some reasonably unique themes. He occasionally delves into some rather dark musings, but for a Donaldson fan that shouldn't be an issue.
Eddings is good, as long as you don't read too much. Read either the Elenium & Tamuli OR the Belgariad & Mallorean, as Eddings has a very formulaic approach to character-building and world-creation. If you want to save time, read The Redemption of Althalus instead of teh Elenium & Tamuli.
Tad Williams is probably more interesting than any of the above (save Tolkien, of course) in the Memory, Sorrow & Thorn trilogy (the third book, which is unarguably HUGE, got split). He is certainly better than Robert Jordan (please FINISH THE STORY!), and, imho, Terry Goodkind (FINISH IT! MOVE ON!), or even Terry Brooks (I've had enough of Shanara). I read a lot of Feist, but I think that Williams is probably a better author. Feist may be reaching the limits of good taste with his latest series--after all, I often like authors to write about something new. Pug is getting OLD. I'll admit, though, that I'll read Feist until he quits writing.
David Farland has an interesting series, but I'm not sure I will read it again.
Finally Christopher Paolini is an interesting author that REALLY needs to finish his next book. I think it twenty years he'll be pretty good if he doesn't get caught up with the movies too much. He should have finished the book before doing the movie.
I could list more, but I don't have the time (i've used more than I really had anyway). The point is that is lots of good fantasy out there, but you occasionally need to wade through some real crap to find it. Good luck.
When I saw this topic, the last thing I expected was a pseudo-debate on the validity of religion.
I have a really hard time understanding why atheists care if I choose to believe in something they consider to be a fairy-tale. Or why religious folks get upset that someone chooses not to revere their chosen deity.
There are a lot of ignorant people in this world, both atheist and religious. There are lots of smart people that believe in God, just as there are plenty of smart people that don't.
Similarly, there are plenty of rich folks that are religious, and plenty that are atheist.
My point is that despite the statistics quoted in the religiosity & intelligence article on wikipedia, there are enough problems with most of the surveys (sampling issues, for instance) that that should ALL be taken with a grain of salt. (Another major point that the wikipedia article fails to address is the severity of the debate about intelligence--most people that are informed know that it is a bad idea to simply accept IQ test scores at face value.)
Frankly, as a religious person, I have no objection to an atheist president--provided he keeps his bias against religion out of his politics, and that his atheism is a considered and rational decision. In fact, I feel the same way about religious presidents as well. That said, it doesn't mean that either needs to hide their viewpoints. I would rather a known position than an unknown. Bush's use of his religion is unsurprising, but I would rather he had simply said something like, "Yes, I believe in God, and spend time in personal and public worship. Yes I pray about decisions, and that's what I do".
Now, I don't care about Bill Gates' views about religion. I would, however, strenuously object to him as a presidential candidate. He would be far too pro-business, and pro-monopoly. Frankly, the idea frightens me, since the way that microsoft tries to control actions is very invasive. I don't think he would abandon that philosophy as president.
Please explain, cite evidence, etc.
The fact is, that I don't particularly like a lot of the government's policies, and I have no trouble saying so. Think about the anti-Bush articles, posts, and comments that you have seen in various locations, and then ask yourself this: would I make this comment from North Korea or China regarding the illustrious leader of that country?
Let me put it this way: Slashdot could not have the comment system it does in a lot of countries and remain in business for long. They would have been arrested and possibly executed.
Do journalists have a right/responsibility to protect their sources? That's an interesting debate, and I don't know how to feel about it. Let's consider a likely scenario: a reporter is offered an interview with a man who claims to have killed 15 young children, and is shown incontrovertible evidence of that person's guilt, but are asked to remain silent about their source of knowledge about the killings--they know where to find the killer, but are asked to remain silent. Is it journalistic integrity to remain silent (and thus allowing the killer to continue), or is it better to go to the police and reveal what they know? If you are a reporter and offered an interview with a known killer and terrorist, what do you do? Should you accept the offer? Or should you accept it while working with the police to determine the person's location?
A judge should be politically neutral and rule according to the laws that are on the books. That is the role of a judge--to decide guilt or innocence based on the law and the evidence. A judge should only care about civil liberties in the sense that they uphold the law. If a judge feels strongly that a law is unconstitutional, then they should be prepared to say so. This is not, however, the same as creating, by precedence, new laws and philosophies.
If you think that the supreme court justices newly appointed are anti-civil liberties, I can only say that I need evidence, not just your opinion.
That's because we want people who come to the US to be productive members of society, not leeches that live off welfare. Additionally, it has long been the case that immigrants need to demonstrate some degree of proficiency in English.
With those two requirements in mind, I say that anyone who wants to come in should be allowed, provided they don't have a criminal record in a reasonable country, or for a violation of our laws (sorry, if you've been convicted of murder, we don't really want you!).
This is to make sure that those coming to the country are not going to provide additional strain on our already limited resources.
I don't know what is typical, but I've never had trouble with any Antec product, (I have an Antec case and PSU). I realize that I am dealing with a limited sample, but all the same, I've not had any trouble.
My experience with their customer service (my children busted the front USB ports on the case) was positive and reasonably responsive.
Of course, I wasn't dealing with them in volume, and I have only had the one incident, so I may have gotten the one good guy, but I don't know.
Just my experience.
If what you said was true, then I would agree, but the truth is more complicated--often downloading results in very little or no monetary damage to the actual artists. It is fairly well known that most artists make the majority (but not all) of their true earnings on proceeds from concerts and tours--not from cd sales. Several artists have tested this, and are doing well enough.
I have a great deal of respect for artists that are willing/able to break with the RIAA, and allow their music to be downloaded, secure that they have a great product and people will come to their concerts and support them.
I still feel that copyright infringement is technically different from theft. Furthermore, I am also uncertain that downloading is technically illegal. I think that it is a valid reading of the law, but I am also valid to say that downloading falls under fair-use technically. In other words, I feel that the law is ambiguous on this point, the DMCA not withstanding.
I will say that with the advent of iTunes, I have certainly decreased the rate at which I download songs--because iTunes makes it easy to get what I want at a reasonable price. That said, when I see that a band is directly selling their songs (Bare Naked Ladies being a good example of this) or concert recordings, I will buy direct from the artist rather than some other distribution channel, because that way the artist gets (hopefully) a larger chunk of the proceeds.
It is a well known fact among experts that computers do not function properly until an appropriate amount of blood has been sacrificed in any particular machine's honor. Apparently this is also true of cars and trucks, as well as most mechanical devices. This is why true enthusiasts always build their own machines--this way they can be certain that enough blood has been spilled. With a pre-built machine, there is a chance that no blood was spilled, and you will certainly end up with a dud. Which is, of course, why Dell's are so bad. IBM's, on the other hand, look like they had to have had blood spilled, and are generally much better.
Apple computers, OTOH, look deceptively mild, but I'm told that each one has a kitten killed over it before shipping.
----
On topic, however, Steve will be greatly missed, and I hope that the world remembers him properly.
You bring up a vital point: check the mAh on your batteries. I buy almost nothing but rechargeable these days because there is a 400 to 500 boost on the mAh over regular use-and-toss batteries. It's also easier on the environment to keep batteries.
I get about 3 months on my rechargeable, but who cares? If I get two months, I'm happy enough. Considering it only takes 3-4 hours to charge, I wouldn't care if they only lasted a week or two.
Wireless is the way to go, however.
Those are two classic works. Vroom has another book, but it is more of a jobplace-oriented work.
Keep in mind if you read Vroom's 1964 book: it is dated in certain ways, and the times come out rather strong when you are reading his comments about work-roles for men and women. I suspect his ideas have changed considerably since that time.
Unfortunately there isn't a really good comprehensive text on motivation. Knowing your authors helps a lot though. I'll post a list of good works on motivation and behavior, which are really the same thing.
One of the axioms of motivation theory is that ALL behavior is motivated by something. Hedonic theories (which I think are pretty solid) state that all behavior is motivated by our prediction of enjoyment of the outcome of that behavior. This gets tricky, since the act of the behavior produces physical as well as psychological outcomes just from performing the act, and this gets factored into our decision about what to do. Think of two ways to get ten dollars, but one of them requires much more effort. Assume that the extra effort is unpleasant, but the time requirement is about the same. A good theory will predict that most people will choose the method that requires less effort, providing that there are not hidden costs. A good scenario is one method being carrying a 100 pound rock 50 feet versus sitting in a chair for five minutes. Assuming you are capable of both, I would predict that the vast majority of people would rather sit in the chair. Of course, personality differences would influence actual behavior, but that's getting a bit complicated.
The idea is that all behavior is motivated, and if we have a good theory of motivation/behavior, then we can predict behavior to a degree that we know the variables involved. A few people (including the person that wrote the textbook I'll be teaching from) have used this to theorize that this means that there is no such thing as free will. I don't think that it necessarily follows, but oh well.
Oh, and thanks for the vote--it doesn't seem to have helped, though.
Can you drink H2O2? Isn't it poisonous?
As for other salts than table salt--maybe. I've had some 'low-sodium' salts that were just plain nasty. Others, I'm sure, are much tastier. In order for salt to do what I want, it has to have the right flavor. I cook a fair bit, so I don't mind the artisian salts that are available--they mostly have a neat flavor, but I won't touch a salt that doesn't taste good.
I like "American Bacon", and I consistently forget that this is an international forum.
But, my point remains: why would i want low-fat "American Bacon"? That is an object that really does contain more fat than meat.
As I recall, however, when I was in Portugal, the bacon there was more like what I got here than what you describe coming from England. Of course, "Canadian" Bacon has its place, and is very tasty in its own right.
This is the reason that most linux desktop environments are switching to SVG for their icons. SVG is fairly compact and scales perfectly (as long as some goofball doesn't link a raster image into a native SVG doc), and is fairly good about compressing (svgz). Take a 4MB file, which is 7200x7200 (or rather, I am printing @ 300 dpi for 24 inches), and exports to a BMP at 150MB, but compresses down to a mere 800KB. This is how it should be. Even more importantly, I could run a white space removal tool on the file and probably get it down to 500KB after zipping.
SVG is the best way to go for icons. Another vector format would be just as good, I think, but why bother? SVG does everything that an icon should do (and can, from what I understand, support rollover and such).
Insightful and funny: wish I had mod points and there wasn't a +5 limit...
Although, if we are giving out free clones, I want Drew Barrymore. She still gets me excited. Fionna Apple would be a good choice too. I like the 'cute' ones like that. Oh, and can we add an Irish accent mod? And a bust-size upgrade (Drew with DD's? I think so!).
Okay, now I've thought about this way too much.
Your point, however, is well put. Jobs has done his job, and quite well. I would love to work for Apple, and if I ever see a job there that I'm qualified for, I'll apply.
That's all.
Wait: low sodium salts!?
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
What's next? Low hydrogen water? Or maybe fat-free bacon? (actually I think that they already have that--bacon is fat!)
This world is for no good.
The arguments about why you can't do this legally are interesting, but I've yet to hear an argument about WHY you would even WANT to.
Someone please help.
Hopefully for truly sensitive apps, you would need to also type a password, which is much more secure.