That would by why things like carbon dating aren't used to date fossils, as they are way too old and the fact that they're comprised of various minerals, not organic compounds, pretty much means there ain't all that much carbon to be found in them. Since C-14 decays too rapidly, you aren't gonna get more than a few thousand years out of that method. C-14 dating is great for archaeology, not for palentology. Imagine trying to measure the distance from New York to LA, and your only tool is a yardstick that has been solidly bolted into the ground in Times Square and you get why it's futile to use C-14 to date something that's millions of years old.
And for Creationists, I think they consider God to be a complete idiot.
Bush really didn't change stories. The problem is there were so MANY good reasons to have gone after Hussein (genocide, WMDs, funding of terrorist organizations such as Hamas) and Bush started playing whack-a-mole with them. Finally, the Dems said "Which one is it?", as if you can't get a UN resolution for multiple reasons, so Bush then put the emphasis on WMDs. A mistake, I think, as he also put the emphasis on the possesion of WMDs, not a program that could reconstitue his capability merely a few weeks after UN inspectors left (all of the proof we have uncovered show a WMD program which had this capability). Now, I really don't see much of a difference between a regime that has weapons on hand and one that can have them on hand next week if they want to, but that's just a tiny chink in the armor that everyone seems to be hitting.
As for it taking time, there are two major impediments to the US finding evidence. Number one, Saddam's fate is unknown, with strong evidence indicating that he is alive, and thus a boogie-man looms over the country. Number two, the US isn't exactly treating the scientists all that well when they interview them, often treating them as criminals and threating them, as if we could do anything worse than what they went through with Saddam. Find Saddam, show some compasion to the scientists, and soon you'll find bunches of stuff being dug up from under rose bushes (like that gas centrifuge two weeks ago) all over the country.
And the US is safer. Now you have the Israelies and the Palestinians making at least some moves twoards peace despite occasional terrorist attacks and you have massive protests underway in Iran which, if we applied a little preasure, could topple a regime which is the largest exporter of terror and North Korea is willing to deal with China along with the US. Don't tell me us having thousands of troops in Iraq didn't massively influence these occurances and that these things don't help US security.
Well, it's quite simple, really. When the tax level on the upper class gets too high, the upper class simply move all their accounts overseas. Granted, it's a bit more complicated, but through loopholes and legal manuevers, it happens. It's one of the reasons why the government takes in more money from the wealthy when they cut their taxes. There's simply less incentive to dodge the IRS.
Actually, the ignorant American would have simply put Christianity down without thinking about it and gotten it right through shear luck. You just over thought the problem.
BTW, I'm an American and got 20 out of 20 right on that quiz. But, if we didn't have that many stupid people in the country, there would be no Street Smarts, and late night TV would be greatly diminished.
No, they get more albums sold going with the bigger labels, but they get far less money per album and they have to shoulder the overwhelming bulk of the financal burden for publicity. In fact, aside from uber-popular bands, you'll go into debt as an artist under the RIAA whereas if you were with an independant label you might have had a shot at making a comfortable living. You go with the RIAA for fame, not money.
If that is the idea then maybe there is something wrong in the first place
Only if it doesn't work.
Xbox was designed almost two years ago. It has a lame ass chip that costs significantly less today then it did when it first came out. The fact is that every day the xbox costs less to manufacture. Why do you think it keeps costing more?
Did I say it keeps costing more? Gee, I thought I was commenting on the plans of some console companies to take more and more of a loss on the hardware of future consoles to sell more hardware.
Yea right. 0.0001% of the population that will hack this thing is going to disrupt the market.
Which would be why I used the word "saturate". You quoted the line but apparently failed to read it.
But the idea isn't to make money off of selling the hardware, it's to make money off of selling the software. By hacking the X-Box so that you can run software that Microsoft isn't getting a royalty on kinda defeats the purpose. As consoles become more and more expensive to manufacture you'll see more emphasis placed on the profits produced by games while the manufacturers become willing to almost give the thing they spent $200 building away. This kind of hacking, if it ever begins to saturate the market, only serves to undermine consoles in general.
Aircraft have had similar systems in place to prevent them from being flown into certain mountains since well before 9/11. It's kind of interesting that it's taken two years since before someone in the industry got the bright idea of "Hey, maybe we can take this and apply it to skyscrapers as well". I remember having a similar conversation with an American pilot about a month after the tradgedy, so what took these people so long to come up with this?
OK, so, your arguement is, if you can't solve all the problems of the world at once, don't even bother, but if you do, make sure you only solve problems in countries that have no strategic value or natural resource to offer, otherwise you'll just be called greedy or power hungry. Got it.
You also forgot Sadam's funding of suicide bombers in Israel, which is VERY well documented. But your points are spot on. The "Flamebait" should have gone to the grandparent.
Was our intelligence on Iraq questionable? Yes. Even though I supported action in Iraq I grew very uncomfortable with the ammount of certainty exhibited by the Bush administration (although it is still highly possible WMDs are there to be found, just look at where the Iraqis were hiding a gas centrifuge to get an idea of what we'll have to go through to find stuff), but there was a precedent set by the Clinton administration for forcibly removing a dictator who simply abused his people (Bosnia). I think the Bush administration only erred in what excuse they used.
Yeah! Politics! Yipee! If these people have proof that Bush actually lied, then sure, impeach him. The problem is, if Bush lied, then so did a good hunk of Democrats, so did the Germans, so did the French, hell, so did the entire UN, who all saw the same intelligence and all came to the same conclusion. In fact, everyone was lying except for Saddam. The only thing Bush did that seperates him from the rest of these people is that Bush wanted to do something about it now. In light of this, the likelyhood that Bush actually lied is low. And no, it isn't ironic, it's politics. Although the fact that an article designed to eliminate confusion about the word "ironic" only serves to create more confusion might be classified as ironic itself.
Re:Next week: proper use of "AKA"
on
Isn't It Ironic?
·
· Score: 1
So, in other words, my understanding of the terms was close enough ^_^
Re:Next week: proper use of "AKA"
on
Isn't It Ironic?
·
· Score: 1
The problem with the usage is if I say "OSes out there that really suck" I can mean OS 9, Linux, or basically any OS as they all really do suck. Thus, it can't be "known" to which OS I refer. In addition, you are using a description, "AKA" does not work with discriptions, but with names. A good one would be Marijuana AKA Mary Jane (please no comments on that example). "i.e" is when you give a discription and then give the name (at least, I think that's how it's supposed to work), "e.g" is when you give a discription and then give an example.
Well, I would say that if there is ONE example of irony in the song (not that I am making a determination one way or the other, I hated the song the first time I heard it and don't care to know the lyrics) then the arguement of "It's ironic because nothing there is ironic" doesn't work, and thus the song isn't ironic at all, just stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
That would by why things like carbon dating aren't used to date fossils, as they are way too old and the fact that they're comprised of various minerals, not organic compounds, pretty much means there ain't all that much carbon to be found in them. Since C-14 decays too rapidly, you aren't gonna get more than a few thousand years out of that method. C-14 dating is great for archaeology, not for palentology. Imagine trying to measure the distance from New York to LA, and your only tool is a yardstick that has been solidly bolted into the ground in Times Square and you get why it's futile to use C-14 to date something that's millions of years old. And for Creationists, I think they consider God to be a complete idiot.
Bush really didn't change stories. The problem is there were so MANY good reasons to have gone after Hussein (genocide, WMDs, funding of terrorist organizations such as Hamas) and Bush started playing whack-a-mole with them. Finally, the Dems said "Which one is it?", as if you can't get a UN resolution for multiple reasons, so Bush then put the emphasis on WMDs. A mistake, I think, as he also put the emphasis on the possesion of WMDs, not a program that could reconstitue his capability merely a few weeks after UN inspectors left (all of the proof we have uncovered show a WMD program which had this capability). Now, I really don't see much of a difference between a regime that has weapons on hand and one that can have them on hand next week if they want to, but that's just a tiny chink in the armor that everyone seems to be hitting. As for it taking time, there are two major impediments to the US finding evidence. Number one, Saddam's fate is unknown, with strong evidence indicating that he is alive, and thus a boogie-man looms over the country. Number two, the US isn't exactly treating the scientists all that well when they interview them, often treating them as criminals and threating them, as if we could do anything worse than what they went through with Saddam. Find Saddam, show some compasion to the scientists, and soon you'll find bunches of stuff being dug up from under rose bushes (like that gas centrifuge two weeks ago) all over the country. And the US is safer. Now you have the Israelies and the Palestinians making at least some moves twoards peace despite occasional terrorist attacks and you have massive protests underway in Iran which, if we applied a little preasure, could topple a regime which is the largest exporter of terror and North Korea is willing to deal with China along with the US. Don't tell me us having thousands of troops in Iraq didn't massively influence these occurances and that these things don't help US security.
Well, it's quite simple, really. When the tax level on the upper class gets too high, the upper class simply move all their accounts overseas. Granted, it's a bit more complicated, but through loopholes and legal manuevers, it happens. It's one of the reasons why the government takes in more money from the wealthy when they cut their taxes. There's simply less incentive to dodge the IRS.
Actually, the ignorant American would have simply put Christianity down without thinking about it and gotten it right through shear luck. You just over thought the problem.
BTW, I'm an American and got 20 out of 20 right on that quiz. But, if we didn't have that many stupid people in the country, there would be no Street Smarts, and late night TV would be greatly diminished.
Christianity is #1 and the fastest growing (I was surprised too), you can thank Africa for that.
No, they get more albums sold going with the bigger labels, but they get far less money per album and they have to shoulder the overwhelming bulk of the financal burden for publicity. In fact, aside from uber-popular bands, you'll go into debt as an artist under the RIAA whereas if you were with an independant label you might have had a shot at making a comfortable living. You go with the RIAA for fame, not money.
If that is the idea then maybe there is something wrong in the first place
Only if it doesn't work.
Xbox was designed almost two years ago. It has a lame ass chip that costs significantly less today then it did when it first came out. The fact is that every day the xbox costs less to manufacture. Why do you think it keeps costing more?
Did I say it keeps costing more? Gee, I thought I was commenting on the plans of some console companies to take more and more of a loss on the hardware of future consoles to sell more hardware.
Yea right. 0.0001% of the population that will hack this thing is going to disrupt the market.
Which would be why I used the word "saturate". You quoted the line but apparently failed to read it.
But the idea isn't to make money off of selling the hardware, it's to make money off of selling the software. By hacking the X-Box so that you can run software that Microsoft isn't getting a royalty on kinda defeats the purpose. As consoles become more and more expensive to manufacture you'll see more emphasis placed on the profits produced by games while the manufacturers become willing to almost give the thing they spent $200 building away. This kind of hacking, if it ever begins to saturate the market, only serves to undermine consoles in general.
Aircraft have had similar systems in place to prevent them from being flown into certain mountains since well before 9/11. It's kind of interesting that it's taken two years since before someone in the industry got the bright idea of "Hey, maybe we can take this and apply it to skyscrapers as well". I remember having a similar conversation with an American pilot about a month after the tradgedy, so what took these people so long to come up with this?
And how, again, does that relate to Iraq, or are you simply trying to muddy the waters? I see why you posted as AC.
OK, so, your arguement is, if you can't solve all the problems of the world at once, don't even bother, but if you do, make sure you only solve problems in countries that have no strategic value or natural resource to offer, otherwise you'll just be called greedy or power hungry. Got it.
You also forgot Sadam's funding of suicide bombers in Israel, which is VERY well documented. But your points are spot on. The "Flamebait" should have gone to the grandparent. Was our intelligence on Iraq questionable? Yes. Even though I supported action in Iraq I grew very uncomfortable with the ammount of certainty exhibited by the Bush administration (although it is still highly possible WMDs are there to be found, just look at where the Iraqis were hiding a gas centrifuge to get an idea of what we'll have to go through to find stuff), but there was a precedent set by the Clinton administration for forcibly removing a dictator who simply abused his people (Bosnia). I think the Bush administration only erred in what excuse they used.
Yeah! Politics! Yipee! If these people have proof that Bush actually lied, then sure, impeach him. The problem is, if Bush lied, then so did a good hunk of Democrats, so did the Germans, so did the French, hell, so did the entire UN, who all saw the same intelligence and all came to the same conclusion. In fact, everyone was lying except for Saddam. The only thing Bush did that seperates him from the rest of these people is that Bush wanted to do something about it now. In light of this, the likelyhood that Bush actually lied is low. And no, it isn't ironic, it's politics. Although the fact that an article designed to eliminate confusion about the word "ironic" only serves to create more confusion might be classified as ironic itself.
So, in other words, my understanding of the terms was close enough ^_^
The problem with the usage is if I say "OSes out there that really suck" I can mean OS 9, Linux, or basically any OS as they all really do suck. Thus, it can't be "known" to which OS I refer. In addition, you are using a description, "AKA" does not work with discriptions, but with names. A good one would be Marijuana AKA Mary Jane (please no comments on that example). "i.e" is when you give a discription and then give the name (at least, I think that's how it's supposed to work), "e.g" is when you give a discription and then give an example.
Well, I would say that if there is ONE example of irony in the song (not that I am making a determination one way or the other, I hated the song the first time I heard it and don't care to know the lyrics) then the arguement of "It's ironic because nothing there is ironic" doesn't work, and thus the song isn't ironic at all, just stupid.