What about astrology, the most rediculious of the sciences!
Astrology ain't a science bub, no more than palm reading. Next you'll be telling me John Edwards is a scientist.
But knowitall engineers use
trensastors with inferious sound quality just to save a few bucks
And musicians will actually buy them! And a good hunk of the population will love to listen to them. There are three stations on XM radio pretty much devoted to sound coming from transitors. Moby's pretty big but where would he be without the transitor? Now, you may not like him but, as you said, you cannot apply objective reasoning to something that is intrinsicly subjective.
It is a lot of work, but the upshot is
improved grammer and spelling skills that are lacking in the
technical.
You deserve a +2 Funny for this remark in a post that has some of the worst spelling I have ever seen. I think you should demand your money back if you're being serious.
But the wing's structure could take the hit from a piece of hard foam. The problem was the heat tiles are so increadibly fragile that they broke apart, at which point, the leading edge of the wing could no longer survive going Mach 25 in an atmosphere. If you can find a stronger substance that has the same heat properties as the tiles on the shuttle, that's one thing, otherwise, can a C-17's wings handle Mach 25 in an atmosphere?
Although the article seems to indicate that this was incompetence on the part of Orbital Sciences Corporation, and that NASA oversight would have corrected the flawed testing process.
Actually, slashdot did have an article a while ago about a laser rifle here. The design calls for a Polonium-210 power cell that would allow the unit 60 days of effective operation. Of course, with all things too good to be true (if you can call it that) it probably is.
Of course, I must have heard it from Rush, otherwise you'd be talking to someone who was educated. And since you are simply right, anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot and thus couldn't have attended an institute of higher learning.
Oh well, since you only have a spelling error to go on, I will be generous and offer you the opportunity to either be split up into four sections, governed by the US, Britain, France and Russia respectively, you can even keep your ideology as a figurehead if you like, or be crushed by a well constructed argument. Your choice.
Careful, unless you want me to start pointing out your typos in every post... oh wait, you're posting AC, you don't have to worry about me being petty like that.
But still has the inteligence to politically outsmart the entire Democratic party. If you think Bush is an idiot you haven't been paying much attention. Just because the man is a terrible public speaker doesn't mean he's an idiot.
was appointed
(First Appointment in HISTORY! woo-hoo!)
Wrong on both counts. Under the rules of the 2000 election, Bush won fair and square. The US Supreme Court simply did not allow those rules to be changed after the fact (they did not rule that Bush would be President, although that was the effect). For some reason I fail to see your outrage at Gore for trying to fix the election. If he had asked for a State wide recount, there wouldn't have been a problem, but selective recounts were. Secondly, John Quincy Adams was the first appointed President as he struck a back room deal with a third party candidate to be elected by Congress (you'll be happy to know he was easily defeated the second time around). Bush is just the fourth President who lost the popular vote but won the electoral, but if you had any idea as to the ammount of uncertainty in the popular vote you wouldn't be crying foul over this.
Actually, it's a lot harder to see what points I can address in a post. Am I talking to one AC, two ACs or three ACs? It's clever as I am sort of fighting with one hand behind my back, unsure exactly what the person I'm responding to has said in the past, meanwhile you know it's one person you're argueing against. Thus, I have to be consistant while an AC doesn't. That's all. And thanks for the ad hominim attack, I now know that you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
Yes Democrats, if you want to hand Bush another four years, vote DEAN in the primary. Could be worse though, it could be Gephardt, a man who, despite being minority leader in the House, still doesn't grasp the concept of checks and balances and thinks he can overrule the Supreme Court.
You are entitled to your opinion, and there's obviously nothing I can do to change it, just as there are people who believe the world is flat, despite the satelite photos.
Really? I always thought if this was just about oil we'd have just lifted the sanctions. Seems that would have been a lot cheaper, and perfectly doable as France, Russia and China would have supported it. At the very least we would have occupied the Iraqi oil fields after GW-I.
Well, if you believe that we are in a war on terrorism, then it ain't hard to recognize Iraq as a threat. Saddam funded Hammas, whose goal was to eliminate Israel and thus was opposed to any peace process. The situation between Israel and the Palistinians is the prime source of fuel for anti-Americanism in the mid-East. Resolve Israel and Palistine, reduce terroism. To resolve that, you have to get rid of Hammas. To get rid of Hammas, you cut funding. Saddam funded Hammas, and we had the political capital to go after him. But ah, considering we had 12 years of diplomacy with barely any progress, safe to say the only other way to resolve it was hope for Saddam to have a heart attack and wish that someone worse didn't take his place. And, ah, I'd be careful about this whole "there are no WMDs" thing, it's still relatively early and you might have to eat your words.
Uh, the first week of war, it WAS called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." I don't know what you were watching.
And yeah, a lot of bad stuff happened during the Cold War, so we should clean up the mess, don't ya think? And the funny thing is, I know Fox brought up the support the US had given to Iraq quite often. So much for the "right-wing" designation, plus they're still branded as being patriotic. Really, if you aren't paying attention to the media, how can you hope to comment on it?
Um, can you find me the quote where Bush said Saddam was an "imminent threat", or are you just parroting what the media tells you? If I recall, Bush said that we can no longer wait until a state becomes an imminent threat before we act. And I would also like to see the documents you have that show Bush lied. All I've been hearing are quotes that have been horribly paraphrased to make it seem like Bush lied. This is what happens when people don't listen and just hear what they want to hear. If Bush had you thinking Saddam was an imminent threat, it's your own damn fault for not paying attention.
But what about those who buy from said people who sell devices explicity for doing so, and then turn around and uses those devices, which remember were explicity sold for stealing satelite, for something legal, like setting up a security system? Should they be sued? Isn't that guilt by association?
It's not like it's at all hard to buy these things from a pirate site. Go to Yahoo and type in "smart card programmer" and you'll come across one of those said sites right off the bat. Some people simply take the path of least resistance when shopping. Now that's a cause to be hauled threatened with legal action?
I read DirecTV's claims about how these are people going to pirate websites to buy their equipment, so I decided to run a little experiment. I took on the role of Joe Securityguy who wants a smart card programmer so he could set up his security system. I decided the most likely way someone, in this day and age, would search them out would be a search engine. So, I fired up Yahoo (yeah, not Google, I know), typed "smart card programmer" into the text area, and hit search. On the page that showed up, the second prominint link, which appeared in the Yahoo Sponsers area, was a pirate site. It also looked like the most likely place that would sell them, as many appeared to be reviews and the like. So, considering I would have to almost go out of my way to look for a "legitimate" site, while this pirate site is right in front of me, selling legal merchandise, I don't see DirecTV's arguement as being all that strong, do you?
Just to get you started. There used to be a page that just went on and on listing spinoff tech one after another, but I can no longer find it. But yes, NASA's current model isn't all that great. A tactical retreat of sorts to simple ballistic vehicles while the bulk of the money is spent going into propulsion research would show long term benifits even if in the short term some US prestige is lost by mothballing the shuttle.
So, then if I own Rhino 3D as well as Bryce does that mean if I pirate 3D Studio Max or Maya it's OK as A) I would never have bought the software anyways and B) I haven't cost their cheaper competitors a sale? Thanks for clearing that up. Now it's time for me to go and find a copy on Kazaa!
And since chemistry is simply a subset of physics, and biology a subset of chemistry, sociology a subset of biology, etc., then all science leads back to math.
Slashdot Mirror
What about astrology, the most rediculious of the sciences!
Astrology ain't a science bub, no more than palm reading. Next you'll be telling me John Edwards is a scientist.
But knowitall engineers use trensastors with inferious sound quality just to save a few bucks
And musicians will actually buy them! And a good hunk of the population will love to listen to them. There are three stations on XM radio pretty much devoted to sound coming from transitors. Moby's pretty big but where would he be without the transitor? Now, you may not like him but, as you said, you cannot apply objective reasoning to something that is intrinsicly subjective.
It is a lot of work, but the upshot is improved grammer and spelling skills that are lacking in the technical.
You deserve a +2 Funny for this remark in a post that has some of the worst spelling I have ever seen. I think you should demand your money back if you're being serious.
But the wing's structure could take the hit from a piece of hard foam. The problem was the heat tiles are so increadibly fragile that they broke apart, at which point, the leading edge of the wing could no longer survive going Mach 25 in an atmosphere. If you can find a stronger substance that has the same heat properties as the tiles on the shuttle, that's one thing, otherwise, can a C-17's wings handle Mach 25 in an atmosphere?
Although the article seems to indicate that this was incompetence on the part of Orbital Sciences Corporation, and that NASA oversight would have corrected the flawed testing process.
Actually, slashdot did have an article a while ago about a laser rifle here. The design calls for a Polonium-210 power cell that would allow the unit 60 days of effective operation. Of course, with all things too good to be true (if you can call it that) it probably is.
How acute of you. Go find your own damn link.
Of course, I must have heard it from Rush, otherwise you'd be talking to someone who was educated. And since you are simply right, anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot and thus couldn't have attended an institute of higher learning.
Oh well, since you only have a spelling error to go on, I will be generous and offer you the opportunity to either be split up into four sections, governed by the US, Britain, France and Russia respectively, you can even keep your ideology as a figurehead if you like, or be crushed by a well constructed argument. Your choice.
Careful, unless you want me to start pointing out your typos in every post... oh wait, you're posting AC, you don't have to worry about me being petty like that.
The man is literally an idiot
But still has the inteligence to politically outsmart the entire Democratic party. If you think Bush is an idiot you haven't been paying much attention. Just because the man is a terrible public speaker doesn't mean he's an idiot.
was appointed (First Appointment in HISTORY! woo-hoo!)
Wrong on both counts. Under the rules of the 2000 election, Bush won fair and square. The US Supreme Court simply did not allow those rules to be changed after the fact (they did not rule that Bush would be President, although that was the effect). For some reason I fail to see your outrage at Gore for trying to fix the election. If he had asked for a State wide recount, there wouldn't have been a problem, but selective recounts were.
Secondly, John Quincy Adams was the first appointed President as he struck a back room deal with a third party candidate to be elected by Congress (you'll be happy to know he was easily defeated the second time around). Bush is just the fourth President who lost the popular vote but won the electoral, but if you had any idea as to the ammount of uncertainty in the popular vote you wouldn't be crying foul over this.
Yes, while we could have direct control over pumping, refining and distribution, we don't. So again I ask you, why didn't we just lift sanctions?
Actually, it's a lot harder to see what points I can address in a post. Am I talking to one AC, two ACs or three ACs? It's clever as I am sort of fighting with one hand behind my back, unsure exactly what the person I'm responding to has said in the past, meanwhile you know it's one person you're argueing against. Thus, I have to be consistant while an AC doesn't. That's all. And thanks for the ad hominim attack, I now know that you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
Yes Democrats, if you want to hand Bush another four years, vote DEAN in the primary. Could be worse though, it could be Gephardt, a man who, despite being minority leader in the House, still doesn't grasp the concept of checks and balances and thinks he can overrule the Supreme Court.
You are entitled to your opinion, and there's obviously nothing I can do to change it, just as there are people who believe the world is flat, despite the satelite photos.
Why is it only ACs are responding?
Really? I always thought if this was just about oil we'd have just lifted the sanctions. Seems that would have been a lot cheaper, and perfectly doable as France, Russia and China would have supported it. At the very least we would have occupied the Iraqi oil fields after GW-I.
Well, if you believe that we are in a war on terrorism, then it ain't hard to recognize Iraq as a threat. Saddam funded Hammas, whose goal was to eliminate Israel and thus was opposed to any peace process. The situation between Israel and the Palistinians is the prime source of fuel for anti-Americanism in the mid-East. Resolve Israel and Palistine, reduce terroism. To resolve that, you have to get rid of Hammas. To get rid of Hammas, you cut funding. Saddam funded Hammas, and we had the political capital to go after him. But ah, considering we had 12 years of diplomacy with barely any progress, safe to say the only other way to resolve it was hope for Saddam to have a heart attack and wish that someone worse didn't take his place. And, ah, I'd be careful about this whole "there are no WMDs" thing, it's still relatively early and you might have to eat your words.
Uh, the first week of war, it WAS called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." I don't know what you were watching.
And yeah, a lot of bad stuff happened during the Cold War, so we should clean up the mess, don't ya think? And the funny thing is, I know Fox brought up the support the US had given to Iraq quite often. So much for the "right-wing" designation, plus they're still branded as being patriotic. Really, if you aren't paying attention to the media, how can you hope to comment on it?
So, if you've just recently became a conservative, you have your head shoved up Dubya's ass? WHAT?!
Um, can you find me the quote where Bush said Saddam was an "imminent threat", or are you just parroting what the media tells you? If I recall, Bush said that we can no longer wait until a state becomes an imminent threat before we act. And I would also like to see the documents you have that show Bush lied. All I've been hearing are quotes that have been horribly paraphrased to make it seem like Bush lied. This is what happens when people don't listen and just hear what they want to hear. If Bush had you thinking Saddam was an imminent threat, it's your own damn fault for not paying attention.
Actually, if you voted for anyone in the last election you were an idiot, and if you didn't vote, you were an idiot as well. You just can't win.
Ah, if I had Mod points they'd be yours. Insightful and Funny!
But what about those who buy from said people who sell devices explicity for doing so, and then turn around and uses those devices, which remember were explicity sold for stealing satelite, for something legal, like setting up a security system? Should they be sued? Isn't that guilt by association? It's not like it's at all hard to buy these things from a pirate site. Go to Yahoo and type in "smart card programmer" and you'll come across one of those said sites right off the bat. Some people simply take the path of least resistance when shopping. Now that's a cause to be hauled threatened with legal action?
I read DirecTV's claims about how these are people going to pirate websites to buy their equipment, so I decided to run a little experiment. I took on the role of Joe Securityguy who wants a smart card programmer so he could set up his security system. I decided the most likely way someone, in this day and age, would search them out would be a search engine. So, I fired up Yahoo (yeah, not Google, I know), typed "smart card programmer" into the text area, and hit search. On the page that showed up, the second prominint link, which appeared in the Yahoo Sponsers area, was a pirate site. It also looked like the most likely place that would sell them, as many appeared to be reviews and the like. So, considering I would have to almost go out of my way to look for a "legitimate" site, while this pirate site is right in front of me, selling legal merchandise, I don't see DirecTV's arguement as being all that strong, do you?
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff.html
Just to get you started. There used to be a page that just went on and on listing spinoff tech one after another, but I can no longer find it. But yes, NASA's current model isn't all that great. A tactical retreat of sorts to simple ballistic vehicles while the bulk of the money is spent going into propulsion research would show long term benifits even if in the short term some US prestige is lost by mothballing the shuttle.
So, then if I own Rhino 3D as well as Bryce does that mean if I pirate 3D Studio Max or Maya it's OK as A) I would never have bought the software anyways and B) I haven't cost their cheaper competitors a sale? Thanks for clearing that up. Now it's time for me to go and find a copy on Kazaa!
But if that property is a loaded gun, they would learn to respect it in a hurry.
I have. Of course, I've also stopped buying CDs. Wonder if there's a connection?
And since chemistry is simply a subset of physics, and biology a subset of chemistry, sociology a subset of biology, etc., then all science leads back to math.