While you might not be able to predict which driver makes an error, you can say with near certainty that somebody is going to munge up the traffic flow. That's what you base your predictions on. Remember that chaos theory indicates that although the underlying systems may be chaotic, the emerging patterns can be predicted with a fair degree of accuracy.
I would have posted about the Economist myself, except that the topic was which PC magazines you read, not general interest magazines. Still, the Economist comes out with a quarterly technology issue (the latest one covers smart fluids, smart dust, wireless recharging and congestion charges, among other things) and it's not only informative but highly entertaining. Oh, and there's an article this week on "the smart tag revolution". Definitely worth a look.
Whoa there, buddy... calm down. See, I didn't mean to imply that The Economist is a foaming-at-the-mouth liberal rag. I was merely responding to the spurious claim that The Economist is a heavily "conservative right-wing" mouthpiece without "a shred of liberalism about it." I interpreted these terms as they are used in the modern American political lexicon--meaning, among other things, against gay marriage and contraceptive education. ("Liberalism" I let slide, since the OP was clearly a moron.) Moreover, I took pains to put the word liberal in quotes, because I knew there would be some literalist pedant who would point out different meanings of the word. I see now that was inadequate defense.
Perhaps you're right about Kerry (I happen to disagree), but The Economist certainly doesn't seem to mind him too much:
The one-time scourge of "Benedict Arnold companies" has become a pro-business Democrat who wants to reform the tax code, lower corporate-tax rates and reduce the federal deficit. Mr Kerry recently reminded the Democratic Leadership Council of his record of backing Clintonian policies such as welfare reform and educational accountability.
Hmm... I suppose that could be taken either way. Let me just put that in context by saying the rest of the article spends its inches fawning over Clinton's economic policy. See for yourself.
Please. They endorsed Bill Clinton in '92 and, just earlier this year, "Red" Ken Livingstone for mayor of London. Additionally, the editors have been outspoken in support of gay marriage and contraceptive education in third-world countries, to name a couple of traditionally "liberal" issues. And though they endorsed Bush in 2000, it seems highly improbable that they'll do so again this year, judging from the tone they've taken recently. For instance: one, and, more humorously, two. Finally, do you really think a magazine with a right-wing stick up its ass would produce a cover like this?
The Economist may be highly opinionated, but it's definitely not the "conservative, right-wing" mouthpiece.
Odds are it'll automatically stop when you cut the juice. Apple tends to pay attention to details like this--for example, Xcode already stops code precompilation when you're on battery power.
Don't you already earn more than enough to live? So get rid of your computer and your internet connection. Sell your car, your TV and your newspaper subscription as well. The dollars you waste on these things could be better spent for food relief, antiretroviral drugs or other humanitarian aid.
You say you would give more than Mr. Gates if you earned as much as him. True, perhaps, but imagine yourself in the shoes of a homeless man and take a long hard look at your current lifestyle.
Why, then, did Moore state that Iraq had never "harmed or even threatened" (if I recall the wording correctly) any American? This, when Iraq was shooting at American fighter planes--who were defending the Kurdish north from genocide, I might add--more or less continuously for the past twelve years?
I want as much as anyone else to see Bush out of office in January, but Moore's inaccuracies and misrepresentations of fact make it hard for reasonable people to take his views seriously.
Heh. Perhaps there is some truth to this. Steve Jobs donates heavily to the Democratic party and has long moved in Democratic circles. (Which should come as no surprise--he even dated Joan Baez!) An amusing quote from this Times article about political fundraising glibly paints "people like Steve Martin, Steven Spielberg, Demi Moore and Steve Jobs" all with the same brush.
Meanwhile, Microsoft's and Dell's leaders are well-known for supporting the Republican party, at least financially. It's all in the data from the FEC. And I find it telling that Moore doesn't hesitate to implicate Microsoft in Fahrenheit 911 for its eagerness to jump into Iraq's rebuilding.
So in my opinion, just another reason to use a Mac. And if you read the Times article, to live on the Upper West Side.
I don't know if yours were rhetorical questions, but I'll answer. For what it is, the film is very well written and filmed, easy to follow and all that. Moore injects himself into his documentaries with aplomb, and this usually keeps it fresh and entertaining--it's no different here. In this one he oftentimes steps back and lets his interviewees speak for themselves, which makes the film that much more powerful. This film shows Moore's clear talents as a documentarian.
I'd recommend seeing it, even if only to arm yourself for debates like this.
I don't know what other reviews you saw, but there's definitely no lag, and the keyboard and mouse are both 128-bit encrypted with adaptive frequency hopping (whatever that means), which I believe is the standard. C'mon, would you expect anything less from Apple?:-P
Scandinavia isn't all there is to Western Europe, you know. Internet penetration and household PC penetration rates in the EU as a whole, even excepting the 10 countries recently joined, even excepting southern Europe (Italy, Greece, Spain), still lag significantly behind the United States, most notably in France, Switzerland, the UK and Germany. Yes, broadband usage is ahead of the US in much of Western Europe, but we weren't talking about broadband. We were talking about plain old Internet access.
I wish I knew where you came up with that statistic about 25% of United States citizens living below the poverty line, according to the UN. Last I heard, the UNDP had set the poverty line at those living on less than US$2/day by purchasing power parity; I'd be surprised to learn that a quarter of Americans live on less than $2 a day.
I hardly know what to make of your desire not to include southern countries in your definition of Europe because they "screw up the totals." I mean, I wish we in the US could do the same for Texas, honestly, but I'm not going to pretend it's not part of the US.
"Even accepting that having living parents increases a childs chance of surviving to fertile age, it would appear that death at 35 would not have had a large effect on human evolution over much of its course"
Noooo way. Having your parents survive until you are of childbearing age is a HUGE benefit to your own reproductive chances. This has been studied and shown to be generally true for the great apes, although I can't find a link on Google at the moment (except for some crap on stormfront.org:-P)
That aside, it's worth noting that it doesn't matter if mutations are rare, since they'll quickly become common if they confer any slight overall benefit. My guess is that this mutation was disadvantageous in the past (broken bones, increased metabolism and whatnot) but not necessarily disadvantageous in our modern environment, where food is not a problem and broken bones aren't life threatening injuries.
I call bullshit: one, two, three, four, many more. Perhaps your statistic about Denmark is true (I don't know) but you must have pulled the first figure out of your ass, and your wild speculations have no other ties to reality. Sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
While you might not be able to predict which driver makes an error, you can say with near certainty that somebody is going to munge up the traffic flow. That's what you base your predictions on. Remember that chaos theory indicates that although the underlying systems may be chaotic, the emerging patterns can be predicted with a fair degree of accuracy.
Do you even know what marketshare means?
If you were Apple, why would you care? Someone's going to win no matter what. And there'll be a spike in sales no matter what.
"well la-te-fucking-da! aren't you the smart one?"
Thanks! I'm glad someone finally noticed.
So have American GSM operators. So have other American cell companies. What's your point?
I would have posted about the Economist myself, except that the topic was which PC magazines you read, not general interest magazines. Still, the Economist comes out with a quarterly technology issue (the latest one covers smart fluids, smart dust, wireless recharging and congestion charges, among other things) and it's not only informative but highly entertaining. Oh, and there's an article this week on "the smart tag revolution". Definitely worth a look.
Whoa there, buddy... calm down. See, I didn't mean to imply that The Economist is a foaming-at-the-mouth liberal rag. I was merely responding to the spurious claim that The Economist is a heavily "conservative right-wing" mouthpiece without "a shred of liberalism about it." I interpreted these terms as they are used in the modern American political lexicon--meaning, among other things, against gay marriage and contraceptive education. ("Liberalism" I let slide, since the OP was clearly a moron.) Moreover, I took pains to put the word liberal in quotes, because I knew there would be some literalist pedant who would point out different meanings of the word. I see now that was inadequate defense.
Perhaps you're right about Kerry (I happen to disagree), but The Economist certainly doesn't seem to mind him too much:
Hmm... I suppose that could be taken either way. Let me just put that in context by saying the rest of the article spends its inches fawning over Clinton's economic policy. See for yourself.
Please. They endorsed Bill Clinton in '92 and, just earlier this year, "Red" Ken Livingstone for mayor of London. Additionally, the editors have been outspoken in support of gay marriage and contraceptive education in third-world countries, to name a couple of traditionally "liberal" issues. And though they endorsed Bush in 2000, it seems highly improbable that they'll do so again this year, judging from the tone they've taken recently. For instance: one, and, more humorously, two. Finally, do you really think a magazine with a right-wing stick up its ass would produce a cover like this?
The Economist may be highly opinionated, but it's definitely not the "conservative, right-wing" mouthpiece.
Read.
Odds are it'll automatically stop when you cut the juice. Apple tends to pay attention to details like this--for example, Xcode already stops code precompilation when you're on battery power.
Don't you already earn more than enough to live? So get rid of your computer and your internet connection. Sell your car, your TV and your newspaper subscription as well. The dollars you waste on these things could be better spent for food relief, antiretroviral drugs or other humanitarian aid.
You say you would give more than Mr. Gates if you earned as much as him. True, perhaps, but imagine yourself in the shoes of a homeless man and take a long hard look at your current lifestyle.
Why, then, did Moore state that Iraq had never "harmed or even threatened" (if I recall the wording correctly) any American? This, when Iraq was shooting at American fighter planes--who were defending the Kurdish north from genocide, I might add--more or less continuously for the past twelve years?
I want as much as anyone else to see Bush out of office in January, but Moore's inaccuracies and misrepresentations of fact make it hard for reasonable people to take his views seriously.
Heh. Perhaps there is some truth to this. Steve Jobs donates heavily to the Democratic party and has long moved in Democratic circles. (Which should come as no surprise--he even dated Joan Baez!) An amusing quote from this Times article about political fundraising glibly paints "people like Steve Martin, Steven Spielberg, Demi Moore and Steve Jobs" all with the same brush.
Meanwhile, Microsoft's and Dell's leaders are well-known for supporting the Republican party, at least financially. It's all in the data from the FEC. And I find it telling that Moore doesn't hesitate to implicate Microsoft in Fahrenheit 911 for its eagerness to jump into Iraq's rebuilding.
So in my opinion, just another reason to use a Mac. And if you read the Times article, to live on the Upper West Side.
I don't know if yours were rhetorical questions, but I'll answer. For what it is, the film is very well written and filmed, easy to follow and all that. Moore injects himself into his documentaries with aplomb, and this usually keeps it fresh and entertaining--it's no different here. In this one he oftentimes steps back and lets his interviewees speak for themselves, which makes the film that much more powerful. This film shows Moore's clear talents as a documentarian.
I'd recommend seeing it, even if only to arm yourself for debates like this.
Don't snipe. I believe most Fox News interviews are actually conducted live, at least when O'Reilly and the like have guests.
No, civil and criminal. Though it's rarely prosecuted as such.
Story of my life.
I don't know what other reviews you saw, but there's definitely no lag, and the keyboard and mouse are both 128-bit encrypted with adaptive frequency hopping (whatever that means), which I believe is the standard. C'mon, would you expect anything less from Apple? :-P
http://www.apple.com/keyboard/
Scandinavia isn't all there is to Western Europe, you know. Internet penetration and household PC penetration rates in the EU as a whole, even excepting the 10 countries recently joined, even excepting southern Europe (Italy, Greece, Spain), still lag significantly behind the United States, most notably in France, Switzerland, the UK and Germany. Yes, broadband usage is ahead of the US in much of Western Europe, but we weren't talking about broadband. We were talking about plain old Internet access.
I wish I knew where you came up with that statistic about 25% of United States citizens living below the poverty line, according to the UN. Last I heard, the UNDP had set the poverty line at those living on less than US$2/day by purchasing power parity; I'd be surprised to learn that a quarter of Americans live on less than $2 a day.
I hardly know what to make of your desire not to include southern countries in your definition of Europe because they "screw up the totals." I mean, I wish we in the US could do the same for Texas, honestly, but I'm not going to pretend it's not part of the US.
"Even accepting that having living parents increases a childs chance of surviving to fertile age, it would appear that death at 35 would not have had a large effect on human evolution over much of its course"
:-P)
Noooo way. Having your parents survive until you are of childbearing age is a HUGE benefit to your own reproductive chances. This has been studied and shown to be generally true for the great apes, although I can't find a link on Google at the moment (except for some crap on stormfront.org
That aside, it's worth noting that it doesn't matter if mutations are rare, since they'll quickly become common if they confer any slight overall benefit. My guess is that this mutation was disadvantageous in the past (broken bones, increased metabolism and whatnot) but not necessarily disadvantageous in our modern environment, where food is not a problem and broken bones aren't life threatening injuries.
Hey twitter, how's it going? Have you read this little memo about yourself? Just curious.
Believe it, brother. Apple is ascendant.
I call bullshit: one, two, three, four, many more. Perhaps your statistic about Denmark is true (I don't know) but you must have pulled the first figure out of your ass, and your wild speculations have no other ties to reality. Sorry.
Did you remember to include sales tax in the US?