It doesn't matter whether you're blaming people or things as long as its irratational blame. Besides, when it comes down to blaming things, people are really blaming the people who produce those things. And when people are blaming other people, they're blaming the things that they produce.
Case in point. Hillary is blaming EA, and Rockstart games for producing this. Joe Lieberman loved to blame film makers. Those are people. Rick Santorum says he doesn't hate gay people and says that individual gay people can be virtuous, he hates and blames gay culture and gay sex. Those are things.
It's irrational on both sides and frankly just dumb. It's just pandering to the lowest common denominator voter. And usually it's the same voter both sides are going after.
It's funny how the most leftist of politicians do exactly the sorts of things that they accuse the right of.
And you think Bill Frist, Tom Delay, and Rick Santorum disagree with her? Hillary isn't truly on the left, she's center right if anything. The fact of the matter is that most politicians will do stupid things to pander to stupid voters. If it stopped working, they wouldn't do it. Unfortunately there is a large, vocal, voting block that wants exactly what she's doing. And if you stand up against it you'll be shouted down with cries of "think of the children!"
Hillary specifically, and Democrats in general, have a long history of blaiming _things_ for the actions of people.
Everyone is blaming someone. Conservatives are blaming gay people for trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage and blaming liberals for aiding and abetting terrorists. Like I said, they're mostly the same. You can say one side is really better than the other on this. What you can do is write to your politicians, you newspaper, post on your blog, talk to other people, and educate them on the important stuff.
In the US not only is the price of sugar artificially high, HFCS is artificially low. These two things combined is what led to the explosion of sugary goods in the US.
hey're also wrong. There is really very little difference between cane sugar & high fructose corn syrup. From The Straight Dope:
I believe they are right, but for the wrong reasons. It doesn't have anything to do with the way HFCS is absorbed.
Such a small difference isn't going to cause an obesity epidemic, unless you're consuming gallons of soda each day.
Bingo! You see HFCS is cheap. Far cheaper than sugar. Therefore, it was all of a sudden possible to have many more items that are filled with sugar. Now people eat tons of snacky cakes and drink gallons of soda. that's why they are obese.
But they aren't documenting this first of all. Which they should be required to do. And since the AMD chip and the Intel Chip are BINARY COMPATIBLE, it makes absolutely no sense to do what they are doing UNLESS THEY ARE DELIBERATELY TORPEDOING THE COMPETITION.
But when there optimizations work fine on the AMD chips, I call it a deliberate torpedo. At worst they should print a disclaimer in their documentation about this fact, and have a compiler switch to turn the optimized code on and off.
That's not what AMD is saying. RTFA. AMD is saying that their chip will run the same binary code produced for the Intel chip. They are saying that Intel deliberately creates substandard code when it detects and AMD chip.
he wasn't talking about humans splitting from gorilla's recently. He was talking about human pubic lice splitting from gorilla lice recently. He was trying to subtley say that we got crabs from fucking gorillas.
We don't have to hunt everyone. If the large animal only has offspring once every 2-3 years, takes 10 years to become sexually mature, and has a litter of one; you don't have to kill too many until you put a large dent in their reproductive rate.
I bash LOTR all the time... I hated the first one, didn't think it did justice to the books... turned off the second one half way through and never did see the third.
G = 6.67x10^-11
massEarth = 5.9736x10^24 kg
massMoon = 7.349x10^22 kg
d = 3.844x10^8 m
F = 1.982x10^20 N
Now lets say we remove 1% of the moons mass.
massMoon = 7.27551x10^22 kg
massRemoved = 7.349x10^20 kg
If we use the F from the previous solution and solve for d:
d = 382437 km
That's an increase of 13 meters. I'm sure my rounding is off a little but that gives you an idea.
Now to change the orbit 13 meters we have to remove 7.349x10^20 kg of material from the moon. That is 810,000,000,000,000,000 tons of material. If you were to unload 1000 tons a day it would still take 2,220,000,000,000 years to take that much.
So my original answer of no stands. We have nothing to worry about.
Now you're either misconstruing my point or you didn't read the article. It said people were unable to get their photo's printed because the labs decided they were to good and must be professional. My point is that if you got a high res image from the photographer and that photographer didn't want you to make prints, then the photographer was stupid. Therefore, the fact that you are going to the photolab with a high res image should be proof enough that you have permission to print it.
Did she give you permission to make extra prints? I was talking about a case where a phtographer gives you an 8 megapixel image and then cries foul when you make a print. Giving someone a high resolution image is exactly the same as giving someone the negative. Letting your client have these and telling them they can't make their own prints is stupid. My point being that being in possession of an super high res image should be equivalent of having the negative, proof enough that you have permission to get a print made.
You also probably recieved permission to make your own prints then. I was talking about a case where a phtographer gives you an 8 megapixel image and then cries foul when you make a print. That is stupid.
Trust me on this because I'm getting married in a few months. No photographer is going to give you the full resolution versions of the photo's unless they also assign the copyright to you, or sign a waiver allowing you to reprint them. Generally they give you a CD with low res versions and X number of prints. If you want anything else printed you have to go through them.
But now we get into sticky fair use questions. Is it against the law for you to scan the photo you bought? I would argue it is not, you can scan it and use it in any non-commercial way that does not distribute it (desktop wall paper, showing it on a DVD, picture CD, etc). Well, if that's legal what about printing out a copy and putting in the bedroom? Have your broken the law then? If not, how is that different than having wal-mart do the print?
If the wedding photographer is giving out the 8 megapixel versions of the images on CD, then they're just stupid. If a person has a CD that has 8 megapixel pictures on it, chances are good that they took them themselves.
But why should the ISP be forced to provide that service??? If the people of Utah are really clamoring for it, some enterprising ISP will provide the service for them and become immensly popular. We have a free market economy to sort this kind of stuff out.
It's a violation to force the ISP's to do this. It would be perfectly okay for Utah do set up an opt-in system for the ISP's that want to provide this service, but I don't see how you can force a company to provide this. What ever happened to the free-market?
well then, why don't they just let the market decide? They can't force ISP's to do provide the service. I don't see how that is constituional. However, they can't forbid ISP's from offering it either. If people truly want the contact blocked let the state of Utah come up with a list of sites, and let ISP's choose to implement the blocking if they want. If in fact this is something that people want, an ISP will give it to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Blame Beethoven. The CD was supposed to be smaller, but the enlarged it so that the 9th symphony would fit on one disc.
It doesn't matter whether you're blaming people or things as long as its irratational blame. Besides, when it comes down to blaming things, people are really blaming the people who produce those things. And when people are blaming other people, they're blaming the things that they produce.
Case in point. Hillary is blaming EA, and Rockstart games for producing this. Joe Lieberman loved to blame film makers. Those are people. Rick Santorum says he doesn't hate gay people and says that individual gay people can be virtuous, he hates and blames gay culture and gay sex. Those are things.
It's irrational on both sides and frankly just dumb. It's just pandering to the lowest common denominator voter. And usually it's the same voter both sides are going after.
It's funny how the most leftist of politicians do exactly the sorts of things that they accuse the right of.
And you think Bill Frist, Tom Delay, and Rick Santorum disagree with her? Hillary isn't truly on the left, she's center right if anything. The fact of the matter is that most politicians will do stupid things to pander to stupid voters. If it stopped working, they wouldn't do it. Unfortunately there is a large, vocal, voting block that wants exactly what she's doing. And if you stand up against it you'll be shouted down with cries of "think of the children!"
Hillary specifically, and Democrats in general, have a long history of blaiming _things_ for the actions of people.
Everyone is blaming someone. Conservatives are blaming gay people for trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage and blaming liberals for aiding and abetting terrorists. Like I said, they're mostly the same. You can say one side is really better than the other on this. What you can do is write to your politicians, you newspaper, post on your blog, talk to other people, and educate them on the important stuff.
there actually is a jewish rapper. He's a hasidic jew in fact. His name is Matisyahu.
Can you imagine a Volkswagen with a big ass machine gun on top of it?
Yes I can.
In the US not only is the price of sugar artificially high, HFCS is artificially low. These two things combined is what led to the explosion of sugary goods in the US.
hey're also wrong. There is really very little difference between cane sugar & high fructose corn syrup. From The Straight Dope:
I believe they are right, but for the wrong reasons. It doesn't have anything to do with the way HFCS is absorbed.
Such a small difference isn't going to cause an obesity epidemic, unless you're consuming gallons of soda each day.
Bingo! You see HFCS is cheap. Far cheaper than sugar. Therefore, it was all of a sudden possible to have many more items that are filled with sugar. Now people eat tons of snacky cakes and drink gallons of soda. that's why they are obese.
But they aren't documenting this first of all. Which they should be required to do. And since the AMD chip and the Intel Chip are BINARY COMPATIBLE, it makes absolutely no sense to do what they are doing UNLESS THEY ARE DELIBERATELY TORPEDOING THE COMPETITION.
:)
The caps seemed like a good idea at the time
But when there optimizations work fine on the AMD chips, I call it a deliberate torpedo. At worst they should print a disclaimer in their documentation about this fact, and have a compiler switch to turn the optimized code on and off.
That's not what AMD is saying. RTFA. AMD is saying that their chip will run the same binary code produced for the Intel chip. They are saying that Intel deliberately creates substandard code when it detects and AMD chip.
he wasn't talking about humans splitting from gorilla's recently. He was talking about human pubic lice splitting from gorilla lice recently. He was trying to subtley say that we got crabs from fucking gorillas.
We don't have to hunt everyone. If the large animal only has offspring once every 2-3 years, takes 10 years to become sexually mature, and has a litter of one; you don't have to kill too many until you put a large dent in their reproductive rate.
I bash LOTR all the time... I hated the first one, didn't think it did justice to the books... turned off the second one half way through and never did see the third.
F = (G * massEarth * massMoon) / d^2
G = 6.67x10^-11
massEarth = 5.9736x10^24 kg
massMoon = 7.349x10^22 kg
d = 3.844x10^8 m
F = 1.982x10^20 N
Now lets say we remove 1% of the moons mass.
massMoon = 7.27551x10^22 kg
massRemoved = 7.349x10^20 kg
If we use the F from the previous solution and solve for d:
d = 382437 km
That's an increase of 13 meters. I'm sure my rounding is off a little but that gives you an idea.
Now to change the orbit 13 meters we have to remove 7.349x10^20 kg of material from the moon. That is 810,000,000,000,000,000 tons of material. If you were to unload 1000 tons a day it would still take 2,220,000,000,000 years to take that much.
So my original answer of no stands. We have nothing to worry about.
Easy answer no. Would you like me to show you the math?
But in the words of my physics professor in college... "there are no magnetic monopoles, but there are some guys in the basement trying to find them!"
Now you're either misconstruing my point or you didn't read the article. It said people were unable to get their photo's printed because the labs decided they were to good and must be professional. My point is that if you got a high res image from the photographer and that photographer didn't want you to make prints, then the photographer was stupid. Therefore, the fact that you are going to the photolab with a high res image should be proof enough that you have permission to print it.
Did she give you permission to make extra prints? I was talking about a case where a phtographer gives you an 8 megapixel image and then cries foul when you make a print. Giving someone a high resolution image is exactly the same as giving someone the negative. Letting your client have these and telling them they can't make their own prints is stupid. My point being that being in possession of an super high res image should be equivalent of having the negative, proof enough that you have permission to get a print made.
You also probably recieved permission to make your own prints then. I was talking about a case where a phtographer gives you an 8 megapixel image and then cries foul when you make a print. That is stupid.
Trust me on this because I'm getting married in a few months. No photographer is going to give you the full resolution versions of the photo's unless they also assign the copyright to you, or sign a waiver allowing you to reprint them. Generally they give you a CD with low res versions and X number of prints. If you want anything else printed you have to go through them.
But now we get into sticky fair use questions. Is it against the law for you to scan the photo you bought? I would argue it is not, you can scan it and use it in any non-commercial way that does not distribute it (desktop wall paper, showing it on a DVD, picture CD, etc). Well, if that's legal what about printing out a copy and putting in the bedroom? Have your broken the law then? If not, how is that different than having wal-mart do the print?
If the wedding photographer is giving out the 8 megapixel versions of the images on CD, then they're just stupid. If a person has a CD that has 8 megapixel pictures on it, chances are good that they took them themselves.
But why should the ISP be forced to provide that service??? If the people of Utah are really clamoring for it, some enterprising ISP will provide the service for them and become immensly popular. We have a free market economy to sort this kind of stuff out.
It's a violation to force the ISP's to do this. It would be perfectly okay for Utah do set up an opt-in system for the ISP's that want to provide this service, but I don't see how you can force a company to provide this. What ever happened to the free-market?
well then, why don't they just let the market decide? They can't force ISP's to do provide the service. I don't see how that is constituional. However, they can't forbid ISP's from offering it either. If people truly want the contact blocked let the state of Utah come up with a list of sites, and let ISP's choose to implement the blocking if they want. If in fact this is something that people want, an ISP will give it to them.