How was he supposed to know it was a dupe, it was on the other half of the screen and since wasn't sharing a keyboard and mouse he didn't think he was supposed to share the screen as well.
However, if you want me to get used to being in a darker house? Why, because you tell me to? Go to hell, I like my lifestyle, bust my ass to support it, and don't want to give it up because you want me to.
I'm right there with you, start passing out the joints and heroine.
Are you talking about only the part that deals with humans and how they evolved or are you talking about evolution in general? Because evolutionary thought deals with much more than just humans.
Your right, we did not really supply mechanical weapons. What you need to do when your not to lazy and want some information as to how we aided them is to look up the Reigle Report. Check out the sections on the chemical and biological materials that were cleared to be sent by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
In the paper they state:
The paper will argue that there is evidence that at the same level of IQ, women are able to achieve more than men "possibly because they are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work".
It would seem to me that if someone could achieve more than another at the same level of IQ that person would be more intelligent. The sustained periods of work would seem to indicate that as well since the more intelligent/developed brain would be better adapted to long term use where the less intelligent/developed brain gets tired sooner.
It would be interesting to see a comparison of what portions of the brain were being used and how much of it was being used under different scenarios.
The problem with most of these tests is that they test what you know, not how you think. It is not always a measure of intelligence but of knowledge. Another sign of intelligence is the ability to learn or to deal with new or trying situations. Did they test the subjects by teaching an area not known and then see which subjects learned faster?
Seems like someone either trying to grab some grant money or incite a huge flamewar:)
Ahh, a person who thinks instead of believing everything thats fed to him.
You forgot a couple of important points to your argument, the US's involvement with Iraq in the 80's. The US delisted Iraq from the terror state list, allowed American/Foreign countries to sell them chemicals, US dep of Ag gave (not sold, but gave) Iraq chemical weapons, US military sold them hardware including Huey helicopters. We these things Iraq then proceeded to gas Iranians and Kurds but that was ok since we were at war with Iran and any that screwed with Iran was ok too.
Only after other nations and the American public cried foul of what Iraq was doing did we stop selling/giving them weapons and then denounce what we helped them to do. Don't forget Don Rummie was there being the friendly go between for US and Saddam.
The worst thing is is that we put Saddam in power, helped him do all those sadistic things and nobody seems to remember that. Same thing with Laden, he was our buddy boy when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. We funded/supported him doing the same kind of thing he is actually doing today and then said screw you pal. It just amazes me that people don't understand the history of these inviduals and the US and how we made them what they are today, very Frankensteinish.
Well based on the definition from the dictionary (which is below, scientist is left to the exercise of those interested in looking it up) it would seem that economics is a science and computer scientists are scientists.
The word science and scientist is a relatively generic term, seems like you are thinking of specialties like chemist or botonist.
However I wouldn't call you a "writing scientist" since you failed in applying the scientific method from the beginning by not determining what a science or scientist is. I would actually label you a slashist: Those who seem to know what they are writing about when they don't.:)
science n.
1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.
Carp, got a couple of typos in 3rd paragraph. So either I'm STUPID or stupid-like, most probably the latter since I haven't passed conformance for STUPID.
It should read:
You are right in the first part, UNIX label carries with it the expectation they have carried out the Open Group's expectations by having passed their tests (includes the licensing) which means until they have they cannot use the name. This means that Apple is misleading people by saying they are UNIX, they could say they are unix like all day long and nobody would care.
"Still, I believe that Apple has a legitimate claim to the Unix name, and that, contrary to what you say, OS X probably qualifies as a UNIX; at least as much as, say, Solaris does. Furthermore, I think that the case you bring up concerning Microsoft is probably trivial. Microsoft would open itself up to lawsuits based on false advertising, or false representation of goods or services."
Utter hogwash, if unix is a generic term and Apple can use it because they are UNIX like then how could MS be accused of false advertising when they also have UNIX like things?
"I think legally the "UNIX" label carries with it a set of generic expectations on behalf of the general public, and nothing more. The public would clearly feel misled if Microsoft started marketing Windows as "Unix," as you suggest -- it clearly does not meet the generally accepted definition of what a "Unix" is. Apple's OS X, on the other hand, from any reasonably technical standpoint, clearly meets that definition. This definition is left intentionally vauge by this post, as I firmly believe the defition of a "unix" is vauge indeed."
You are right in the first part, UNIX label carries with it the expectation they have carried out the Open Group's expectations by having passed their tests (which includes the licensing) which means until they have do not they cannot use the name. Which means that Apple is misleading people by saying they are UNIX, they could say they are unix like all day long and nobody would care.
Instead of stating that the definition is vague because "you believe the definition of 'unix' is vague" how about going to the Open Group's site and check out what the definition of UNIX is. Maybe the vagueness will go away once you understand what it is they are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, quit sharing your personal biases and testes.
How was he supposed to know it was a dupe, it was on the other half of the screen and since wasn't sharing a keyboard and mouse he didn't think he was supposed to share the screen as well.
However, if you want me to get used to being in a darker house? Why, because you tell me to? Go to hell, I like my lifestyle, bust my ass to support it, and don't want to give it up because you want me to. I'm right there with you, start passing out the joints and heroine.
True, but its easier to accidentally break open a bulb than it is a battery.
Thanks for the pointer.
DST was conceived by Benjamin Franklin in 1784.
Are you talking about only the part that deals with humans and how they evolved or are you talking about evolution in general? Because evolutionary thought deals with much more than just humans.
Your right, we did not really supply mechanical weapons. What you need to do when your not to lazy and want some information as to how we aided them is to look up the Reigle Report. Check out the sections on the chemical and biological materials that were cleared to be sent by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
What kind of spices do you use to make a corpse delectable?
You are entitled if you go to the lecture and record it yourself.
That MySpace should make a concerted effort to work with parents to ensure their children's safety.
Maybe MySpace should chaperone the kids when they go to meet people they have met online.
No that would be when global warming affects hell and it freezes over.
In the paper they state: The paper will argue that there is evidence that at the same level of IQ, women are able to achieve more than men "possibly because they are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work".
:)
It would seem to me that if someone could achieve more than another at the same level of IQ that person would be more intelligent. The sustained periods of work would seem to indicate that as well since the more intelligent/developed brain would be better adapted to long term use where the less intelligent/developed brain gets tired sooner.
It would be interesting to see a comparison of what portions of the brain were being used and how much of it was being used under different scenarios.
The problem with most of these tests is that they test what you know, not how you think. It is not always a measure of intelligence but of knowledge. Another sign of intelligence is the ability to learn or to deal with new or trying situations. Did they test the subjects by teaching an area not known and then see which subjects learned faster?
Seems like someone either trying to grab some grant money or incite a huge flamewar
With this maybe eclipse can keep up with my 2 finger typing.
Ahh, a person who thinks instead of believing everything thats fed to him.
You forgot a couple of important points to your argument, the US's involvement with Iraq in the 80's. The US delisted Iraq from the terror state list, allowed American/Foreign countries to sell them chemicals, US dep of Ag gave (not sold, but gave) Iraq chemical weapons, US military sold them hardware including Huey helicopters. We these things Iraq then proceeded to gas Iranians and Kurds but that was ok since we were at war with Iran and any that screwed with Iran was ok too.
Only after other nations and the American public cried foul of what Iraq was doing did we stop selling/giving them weapons and then denounce what we helped them to do. Don't forget Don Rummie was there being the friendly go between for US and Saddam.
The worst thing is is that we put Saddam in power, helped him do all those sadistic things and nobody seems to remember that. Same thing with Laden, he was our buddy boy when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. We funded/supported him doing the same kind of thing he is actually doing today and then said screw you pal. It just amazes me that people don't understand the history of these inviduals and the US and how we made them what they are today, very Frankensteinish.
Nope he meant biannually. Biannual and semiannual mean the same thing, twice a year. Every 2 years is biennial.
Well based on the definition from the dictionary (which is below, scientist is left to the exercise of those interested in looking it up) it would seem that economics is a science and computer scientists are scientists. The word science and scientist is a relatively generic term, seems like you are thinking of specialties like chemist or botonist. However I wouldn't call you a "writing scientist" since you failed in applying the scientific method from the beginning by not determining what a science or scientist is. I would actually label you a slashist: Those who seem to know what they are writing about when they don't. :)
science n.
1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.
What if the tires are fat and lazy?
12. ???
13. Profit!!!
"that's not a moon..." thats uranus.
(Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange)
Wouldn't that be MATIE?
No, because then they would be confused with the pirate non dairy creamer COFFEE MATIE.
I don't think even 1/2 of Georgia state can use a computer, much less be a cracker.
Thats where your wrong, because they are all crackers.
Because he's a mac user and not a linux user! Ha!
Carp, got a couple of typos in 3rd paragraph. So either I'm STUPID or stupid-like, most probably the latter since I haven't passed conformance for STUPID.
It should read:
You are right in the first part, UNIX label carries with it the expectation they have carried out the Open Group's expectations by having passed their tests (includes the licensing) which means until they have they cannot use the name. This means that Apple is misleading people by saying they are UNIX, they could say they are unix like all day long and nobody would care.
"Still, I believe that Apple has a legitimate claim to the Unix name, and that, contrary to what you say, OS X probably qualifies as a UNIX; at least as much as, say, Solaris does. Furthermore, I think that the case you bring up concerning Microsoft is probably trivial. Microsoft would open itself up to lawsuits based on false advertising, or false representation of goods or services."
Utter hogwash, if unix is a generic term and Apple can use it because they are UNIX like then how could MS be accused of false advertising when they also have UNIX like things?
"I think legally the "UNIX" label carries with it a set of generic expectations on behalf of the general public, and nothing more. The public would clearly feel misled if Microsoft started marketing Windows as "Unix," as you suggest -- it clearly does not meet the generally accepted definition of what a "Unix" is. Apple's OS X, on the other hand, from any reasonably technical standpoint, clearly meets that definition. This definition is left intentionally vauge by this post, as I firmly believe the defition of a "unix" is vauge indeed."
You are right in the first part, UNIX label carries with it the expectation they have carried out the Open Group's expectations by having passed their tests (which includes the licensing) which means until they have do not they cannot use the name. Which means that Apple is misleading people by saying they are UNIX, they could say they are unix like all day long and nobody would care.
Instead of stating that the definition is vague because "you believe the definition of 'unix' is vague" how about going to the Open Group's site and check out what the definition of UNIX is. Maybe the vagueness will go away once you understand what it is they are talking about.