In this case there are theories, but in general you start by observing and or hypothesizing, and after many many years of disproving the hypothesis, modifying and retesting you get to theories.
I think Parent poster is correct. You see, when the sun dips behind the horizon it has not actually gone out. It is very much unlike the lightbulb in your refrigerator, which turns on when the door is open, and off when it is closed. The sun is actually on the entire time, it just happens to be on the other side of the planet from where you are. We call that night. At any given point in time there are places on the planet that are in daylight, and places that are in night.
Where the parent fails is in leaving ambiguous the location of the solar panels. If they reside on the planet then they will only periodically provide power. But that is an implementation detail, and to conclude that parent is wrong with 100% confidence means that you would have to clarify a lot of these details either through assumption or by getting more information out of the parent poster.
You may also be confused by the fact that the sun will die. But you must understand that this will not happen for many millions of years, which in terms of human population and energy needs has been already accepted as "forever" by international bodies and consortia concerned with sustainable practices relative to human societies on earth.
So we took a necessary, but less than optimal, step to solve an (at the time) immediate problem which is that people were bullied out of their vote, or into voting for someone they may not have voted for. I wonder if there reaches a point where society as a whole just won't stand for something. We are at that point with hijackers on planes (thinking of the plane that crashed into the ground on 9/11). Perhaps we are not yet at that point with letting the authorities bully the innocent ("Don't tase me bro", teargassing of peaceful protesters, Crowley arresting Gates for yelling at him and being an asshole), but presumably we will get there. I don't think there is any hope for us until we get to the point that we can easily and even proudly publicly state who we vote for as individuals. Until then we will get a less than optimal compromise that allows the corrupt to skew the results in their favor.
I can quote from a number of books, works of history, fiction, and even historical fiction. How is that credible for supporting any kind of argument, aside from an argument about the contents of that book?
Or perhaps it will include you, and up to UID 144,000. I guess this means that I am out. But, wait . . . if I just click the post anon then I am posting as UID 666 . . . the number of the beast. This makes no sense . . . so I guess it must be true.
I am assuming you mean uranium mining. It's about as bad as coal mining, and the area that needs the most improvement. It's basically just a grind and sift method, separating the trace amounts of uranium from the massive amount of rock and sand. A process that should automate pretty well. It will take some doing (initial time money and energy) to get a clean mining operation designed and implemented. With that said if simply presenting a problem is enough to stop you in your tracks then you won't get very far. A problem is simply an opportunity for invention, and invention is what turns the crank of progress.
maybe GP is suggesting that mandatory health care is objectionable and far different than "mandatory that everyone be allowed access to health care". For a while I chose not to have health care for a variety of reasons, one of which was not having the money to afford it. Under the proposed system it seems that it will be mandatory for all people to buy a health care plan. So if one has a job where there is an expensive HMO, that you'd otherwise simply not use and go without now (if the bill passes) that person will be required to either use the work option, buy an individual private plan, or buy the public plan. I agree with the idea that a public option is a good thing, and will help to reign in the private insurance spiraling costs. But there should also be the option to just not have health insurance.
If the "crime" is that you are yelling at someone on your lawn (which might make you an ass or an idiot) then yes, you should be free from prosecution. If you think that the police are some magic beings that you are not allowed to raise your voice to in objection to their actions (this is after they determined that Gates was not doing anything wrong) then you deserve to live in a police state. But Crowley played the "I am the authority" card, and wasted time and money arresting someone for no good reason.
Ringtones are easy enough on a non jailbroken iPhone. The first thing I did when I got mine was to download some free software that will turn any of my mp3s into a song that iTunes sees as a ringtone (switch sound file converter or something). From there I use free editing software to create a 40s clip (WavePad sound editor). Sync. New ringtones. 10 minutes on google and downloading was all it took. I probably won't jailbreak my phone until my contract period is over. I figure by that time my 8GB iPhone 3G will be a dinosaur and there will be myriad options.
My old boss got a new laptop, with Office 2007 after having used Office for many years at work. He is not an advanced user of any of the computer programs, and outlook still held many mysteries for him. He hated the ribbon because now he had to try to re-learn the interface. I hated the ribbon because I used OOo and now could not help him without going over to his desk, and hunting for the answer (so I had to re-learn the interface). I can't see how this is better for the non-advanced user. Maybe it is better for the first time user.
The difference is that the HMOs have already demonstrated that even people who pay their premiums may be denied coverage that the doctor thinks is appropriate. Your claim that the government will do this is largely imaginary in that it has yet to be proven. The fox news spin on the health plan is little more than fear mongering, given that all of the complaints that they give already are present in the current private system. I don't like the plan proposed, but the spin against it does little to actually address any of the problems. Maybe you should try thinking for yourself?
We seem to butt heads a lot, so understand that I am not trying to flame you. You make the case for WMD sound like it was a slam dunk. I have read the intelligence reports, and worked in related fields through the 90s and into 2002-3. There was considerable debate as to the WMD validity, even in our own intelligence communities prior to the war and from the late 90s. The intelligence report to congress included this debate, but the administration played down the debate and spun it to look like the WMD was a much more likely case than it really was. Unfortunately for all of us congress for the most part simply accepted the Cheney/ Rumsfeld spin. You are correct in asserting that it wasn't until later (there still is no after for this war) that public opinion became that there were no WMDs.
There was considerable argument about the validity of the WMD claim, even within the intelligence communities, but that was hardly covered by the media. That most of congress did not even read the summaries of the reports (hey, they must all be slashdotters) but instead abdicated their duty and signed over the right to declare war to the executive is . . . well I have trouble finding the words for it. Treasonous is what I want to say. Lazy at best, but why should one branch assist another in its consolidation of powers?
China really can't afford to send nukes down on your head. They have too much invested in the US economy. I'm not sure exactly why they continue to prop up NK, but it seems that a unified Korea would be best for everyone except perhaps what's his name (the king/emperor of NK). I would expect that diplomacy with China could assure the unification of Korea. I generally agree with you that we don't need to go to war with China to defend SK, but probably for different reasons, as I do think that SK is "worth it". For that matter I think of NK as "worth it".
I don't see any trolling here, I see some insight, some information, and some thoughtful and on thread topic comments. There are some shots taken at America (San Francisco is not the best we have, not by a long shot). But I found the post more good than bad.
Yes, a joke. I started reading CC novels when I was 15, and I loved them. If I had never read any until today, and started today then I would probably really enjoy them.
My joke really was based on the idea that his books are fairly formulaic (essentially the reluctant hero model that most hollywood and pop fiction novels are based on . . . the Joseph Campbell model). I have felt that the american art of the novel has been dead for a long time, perhaps the 50s and 60s saw the last of the good ones, though I'm sure there are gems here and there. I think the eastern european novelists were the best out there for a while, but I have mostly stopped reading any kind of fiction.
Still I would put Stephen King over Clive Cussler, and King is critically mauled perhaps as much as Dumas was. A better comparison to Dumas might be Crichton, another one whos books I continue to read.
This shouldn't be modded flamebait, just left unmodded is better, after all it's just an opinion and fairly topical. Churches suck, as the goal of the institution is to control its members behavior. The Catholic church (disclaimer, I was raised catholic) seemed ok to me as a kid because it preached free will. That part seems to be missing these days, at least in the bumper sticker and sound bite world (eg you cant be catholic and pro-choice). But it falls into the same trap that most religions I have seen do, which is in its daily doctrine the church teaches that god is some being that exists externally to all of us and who all of us are beneath, like a child is beneath its parents. So in order to make it to "heaven" you have to follow the rules. Utter bullshit, but apparently effective bullshit. Any true religion rather than giving you answers will simply help you answer your own questions about what god is to you, what "right" is for you, and how to find your own spiritual sense. Any one here belong to a religion/ church like that?
Slashdot Mirror
My dick has a ceasar do, your dick needs a tweezer dude
In this case there are theories, but in general you start by observing and or hypothesizing, and after many many years of disproving the hypothesis, modifying and retesting you get to theories.
Well played sir. I'd mod you funny but I'm a little pissed off about the coffee dribbling down my screen.
I think the premise for the Matrix is far older than Descartes, and predates Christianity.
I think Parent poster is correct. You see, when the sun dips behind the horizon it has not actually gone out. It is very much unlike the lightbulb in your refrigerator, which turns on when the door is open, and off when it is closed. The sun is actually on the entire time, it just happens to be on the other side of the planet from where you are. We call that night. At any given point in time there are places on the planet that are in daylight, and places that are in night.
Where the parent fails is in leaving ambiguous the location of the solar panels. If they reside on the planet then they will only periodically provide power. But that is an implementation detail, and to conclude that parent is wrong with 100% confidence means that you would have to clarify a lot of these details either through assumption or by getting more information out of the parent poster.
You may also be confused by the fact that the sun will die. But you must understand that this will not happen for many millions of years, which in terms of human population and energy needs has been already accepted as "forever" by international bodies and consortia concerned with sustainable practices relative to human societies on earth.
So we took a necessary, but less than optimal, step to solve an (at the time) immediate problem which is that people were bullied out of their vote, or into voting for someone they may not have voted for. I wonder if there reaches a point where society as a whole just won't stand for something. We are at that point with hijackers on planes (thinking of the plane that crashed into the ground on 9/11). Perhaps we are not yet at that point with letting the authorities bully the innocent ("Don't tase me bro", teargassing of peaceful protesters, Crowley arresting Gates for yelling at him and being an asshole), but presumably we will get there. I don't think there is any hope for us until we get to the point that we can easily and even proudly publicly state who we vote for as individuals. Until then we will get a less than optimal compromise that allows the corrupt to skew the results in their favor.
Yes, I realized that my head was up my ass as soon as I hit submit. In essence I was responding to another post, but had misread yours.
I can quote from a number of books, works of history, fiction, and even historical fiction. How is that credible for supporting any kind of argument, aside from an argument about the contents of that book?
Or perhaps it will include you, and up to UID 144,000. I guess this means that I am out. But, wait . . . if I just click the post anon then I am posting as UID 666 . . . the number of the beast. This makes no sense . . . so I guess it must be true.
I am assuming you mean uranium mining. It's about as bad as coal mining, and the area that needs the most improvement. It's basically just a grind and sift method, separating the trace amounts of uranium from the massive amount of rock and sand. A process that should automate pretty well. It will take some doing (initial time money and energy) to get a clean mining operation designed and implemented. With that said if simply presenting a problem is enough to stop you in your tracks then you won't get very far. A problem is simply an opportunity for invention, and invention is what turns the crank of progress.
Ha Ha. Damn that made me laugh out loud. How am I going to work this into conversation?
maybe GP is suggesting that mandatory health care is objectionable and far different than "mandatory that everyone be allowed access to health care". For a while I chose not to have health care for a variety of reasons, one of which was not having the money to afford it. Under the proposed system it seems that it will be mandatory for all people to buy a health care plan. So if one has a job where there is an expensive HMO, that you'd otherwise simply not use and go without now (if the bill passes) that person will be required to either use the work option, buy an individual private plan, or buy the public plan. I agree with the idea that a public option is a good thing, and will help to reign in the private insurance spiraling costs. But there should also be the option to just not have health insurance.
If the "crime" is that you are yelling at someone on your lawn (which might make you an ass or an idiot) then yes, you should be free from prosecution. If you think that the police are some magic beings that you are not allowed to raise your voice to in objection to their actions (this is after they determined that Gates was not doing anything wrong) then you deserve to live in a police state. But Crowley played the "I am the authority" card, and wasted time and money arresting someone for no good reason.
Ringtones are easy enough on a non jailbroken iPhone. The first thing I did when I got mine was to download some free software that will turn any of my mp3s into a song that iTunes sees as a ringtone (switch sound file converter or something). From there I use free editing software to create a 40s clip (WavePad sound editor). Sync. New ringtones. 10 minutes on google and downloading was all it took. I probably won't jailbreak my phone until my contract period is over. I figure by that time my 8GB iPhone 3G will be a dinosaur and there will be myriad options.
My old boss got a new laptop, with Office 2007 after having used Office for many years at work. He is not an advanced user of any of the computer programs, and outlook still held many mysteries for him. He hated the ribbon because now he had to try to re-learn the interface. I hated the ribbon because I used OOo and now could not help him without going over to his desk, and hunting for the answer (so I had to re-learn the interface). I can't see how this is better for the non-advanced user. Maybe it is better for the first time user.
The difference is that the HMOs have already demonstrated that even people who pay their premiums may be denied coverage that the doctor thinks is appropriate. Your claim that the government will do this is largely imaginary in that it has yet to be proven. The fox news spin on the health plan is little more than fear mongering, given that all of the complaints that they give already are present in the current private system. I don't like the plan proposed, but the spin against it does little to actually address any of the problems. Maybe you should try thinking for yourself?
What size screen does your shoe phone have?
We seem to butt heads a lot, so understand that I am not trying to flame you. You make the case for WMD sound like it was a slam dunk. I have read the intelligence reports, and worked in related fields through the 90s and into 2002-3. There was considerable debate as to the WMD validity, even in our own intelligence communities prior to the war and from the late 90s. The intelligence report to congress included this debate, but the administration played down the debate and spun it to look like the WMD was a much more likely case than it really was. Unfortunately for all of us congress for the most part simply accepted the Cheney/ Rumsfeld spin. You are correct in asserting that it wasn't until later (there still is no after for this war) that public opinion became that there were no WMDs.
There was considerable argument about the validity of the WMD claim, even within the intelligence communities, but that was hardly covered by the media. That most of congress did not even read the summaries of the reports (hey, they must all be slashdotters) but instead abdicated their duty and signed over the right to declare war to the executive is . . . well I have trouble finding the words for it. Treasonous is what I want to say. Lazy at best, but why should one branch assist another in its consolidation of powers?
China really can't afford to send nukes down on your head. They have too much invested in the US economy. I'm not sure exactly why they continue to prop up NK, but it seems that a unified Korea would be best for everyone except perhaps what's his name (the king/emperor of NK). I would expect that diplomacy with China could assure the unification of Korea. I generally agree with you that we don't need to go to war with China to defend SK, but probably for different reasons, as I do think that SK is "worth it". For that matter I think of NK as "worth it".
I don't see any trolling here, I see some insight, some information, and some thoughtful and on thread topic comments. There are some shots taken at America (San Francisco is not the best we have, not by a long shot). But I found the post more good than bad.
Yes, a joke. I started reading CC novels when I was 15, and I loved them. If I had never read any until today, and started today then I would probably really enjoy them.
My joke really was based on the idea that his books are fairly formulaic (essentially the reluctant hero model that most hollywood and pop fiction novels are based on . . . the Joseph Campbell model). I have felt that the american art of the novel has been dead for a long time, perhaps the 50s and 60s saw the last of the good ones, though I'm sure there are gems here and there. I think the eastern european novelists were the best out there for a while, but I have mostly stopped reading any kind of fiction.
Still I would put Stephen King over Clive Cussler, and King is critically mauled perhaps as much as Dumas was. A better comparison to Dumas might be Crichton, another one whos books I continue to read.
I laughed at that but the mods tell me that I should flame you. So here it goes: That was funny. Moron.
This shouldn't be modded flamebait, just left unmodded is better, after all it's just an opinion and fairly topical. Churches suck, as the goal of the institution is to control its members behavior. The Catholic church (disclaimer, I was raised catholic) seemed ok to me as a kid because it preached free will. That part seems to be missing these days, at least in the bumper sticker and sound bite world (eg you cant be catholic and pro-choice). But it falls into the same trap that most religions I have seen do, which is in its daily doctrine the church teaches that god is some being that exists externally to all of us and who all of us are beneath, like a child is beneath its parents. So in order to make it to "heaven" you have to follow the rules. Utter bullshit, but apparently effective bullshit. Any true religion rather than giving you answers will simply help you answer your own questions about what god is to you, what "right" is for you, and how to find your own spiritual sense. Any one here belong to a religion/ church like that?
If by prolific you mean terrible then I agree :)