It's just an emotional release. Next time try yelling out the name "Elmo" instead.
I'm running this through my mental simulator, and "Elmo!" does not work half as well as "Fuck!".
And sure enough, when reading a summary of the study, they compared the results from yelling an expletive to yelling a neutral word, and the neutral word did not work.
With no new entries on the market, suppliers can compete by slowly increasing quality but keeping prices the same. According to Greenstein, quality is where providers channel their competitive urges.
Hahahahahaha *gasp* haha ha ha ha!
I still face DSN failures, poor infrastructure, and lag. And I never hear about companies favoring net neutrality. Quality does not appear to be going up much.
When you say that the price is simply too high, and you'll get by just fine with the cheaper and slower DSL, the representative will suggest that they can reduce your monthly bill to whatever the current "new customer" promotional rate is. They'll then cheerfully thank you for allowing them the opportunity to provide you service at a much lower price.
Which is fine unless they don't make the offer. Then you are without Internet and have to pay an installation fee to some other provider to get it back.
One day the teleprompter was sabataaged. Shatner, being the consumate professional, memorized the entire script for all characters and communicated it to the rest of them via sign language.
He was able to disguise the sign language so it looked like he was just hamming it up for the camera. The viewers didn't notice. That's just how good he is.
You assume the actor knows the lines and isn't actually reading them. Shatner's classic stuttering monologue style was merely a way of coping with the limited amount of text that could fit on the teleprompter at once.
No, Shatner knows his lines. That is important to his sense of professionalism, according to an interview I read recently (which I think was posted here on Slashdot.)
I expected them to back down on that requirement as soon as I heard about it. It was rank idiocy to begin with, not least because it was unenforceable and a bad PR move. I'd be surprised if anyone actually paid attention to it.
It's worse than that. Can you think of anything done on earth that deserves eternal, and infinite punishment? Think about it.
As I understand it, Hell is not a place of punishment for your actions or inactions specifically, but rather is the default place you and every human ends up in unless you are rescued by God, and he will only do so if you agree to his terms. And Hell is for all of humanity because of the Original Sin. When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they basically opened Pandora's Box and created evil. The concept was sealed away until they ate the fruit. In that light, Hell seems reasonable. Humanity reaped what it sowed, and now God looks at us with a jaundiced eye. We are, literally, troublemakers.
Luckily, I am an atheist, so all this is academic to me. But just in case God does exist, and all that nonsense applies, I am tempted to emancipate my eternal soul. You know, just let it go free from my body and live without. Just to put me beyond Hell's grasp. I wonder how theologically sound that is? You can sell your soul, after all, so therefore can you not just give it away, or drop it on the ground?
Journalists are granted specific rights which others do not receive. For example, they have the right not to reveal the sources of their information. This is critical to their ability to report on sensitive issues where whistleblowers wish to remain anonymous. Other people can be forced to testify, so long as it isn't against themselves or their spouses, and be held in contempt of court if they refuse. There are other such rights, but I won't go through them all right now. The point is that this shield law is one such right.
Journalists also have additional responsibilities to go along with this. For example, a journalist is expected not to reveal information that is a threat to national security, they are required to protect the identities of minors, and so on. Regular people don't have such restrictions, either.
I think you are arguing from a false premise. You say that journalists are those that abide by an exceptional code of conduct and thus have proven themselves worthy of trust and special privileges in the eyes of the law, and in particular, the right to keep their sources confidential. But I think this code of conduct is less a factor than you think. For instance, that bit about not revealing national security matters is nothing special. Neither regular people nor journalists are allowed to reveal classified things, lest they be prosecuted and jailed. This only applies to our own journalists and citizens, of course. Foreign journalists (and whether or not it counts as journalism, Wikileaks is foreign) can report whatever they want. But if something is not classified, but still impacts national security, journalists have no special obligation to keep quiet about it. Often they will, but just to avoid trouble with the government, or because as members of this county it affects their security too. But both those considerations apply equally to normal people.
The idea behind a shield law is not contingent upon any special code of conduct. It is a question of societal self-interest. Here is how Wikipedia describes source confidentiality:
Simply put, it means that the authorities, including the courts, cannot compel a journalist to reveal the identity of an anonymous source for a story. The right is based on a recognition that without a strong guarantee of anonymity, many people would be deterred from coming forward and sharing information of public interests with journalists. As a result, problems such as corruption or crime might go undetected and unchallenged, to the ultimate detriment of society as a whole.
Substituting "Wikileaks" for "journalist" does not weaken the argument for source confidentiality at all. Whether or not the information is reported "responsibly" through traditional journalism or "irresponsibly" through a Wikileaks-like site, the information may be of public interest and reduce corruption or crime, and public disclosure of the information should be encouraged. Source confidentiality should not be limited to mainstream journalism. In fact, I could argue that one should intentionally avoid mainstream journalism because of the risk of censorship.
I'd say the obvious solution is not to use a server to assign serial numbers, but instead to use, say, a hash of the operations/data involved or the submission timestamp coupled with the global static thread number or something.
A Borg cube is on the -10x page. It is about the same size as a Federation space dock.
Now look at the -100x page. That same space dock is about halfway down the page. Now finish scrolling down. The Death Star is huge. It plays with the big boys. If you look at the -2000x page, you can see it on the same playground as Phobos, Unicron, the Alpha Halo, and the Moon itself.
I read a science fiction story — I think it was Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge — in which literacy (or perhaps just writing) became a rarer ability due to ubiquitous iconography, augmented reality, and voice-based computing. Nobody bothered to learn to read (or write) because there was no need. The topic of this article an example of a step in that direction.
If your tool is woefully inefficient and takes a lifetime of studying to use it correctly, well, I suspect those are pretty good indications that you should change it.
It may take a lifetime for non-native Chinese speakers to learn Chinese as a second language, but rest assured that native Chinese children pick up the language fairly quickly.... For the most part, any language is relatively easy to learn as a first language for a child.
According to the article, native Chinese children also forget the language fairly quickly — or at least forget how to write it. The "use it or lose it" rule is apparently in full effect with the written form of Chinese. One could well take that as motivation to change to a different writing system in which that effect is weaker.
which only leads to my next point: That the stock market is a bullshit con game. Anything but preferred stock's bullshit anyhow (especially at bankruptcy payouts time to secured creditors & the like), and you're pointing out the other downside in an utter lack of say in anything
Dividends seem all right. Any investment I make that is profitable for me is fine. If I actually care about the company's future or its employees, though, I would want to have voting stock.
That said, I have no investments right now except for my IRA fund.
Most of them couldn't tie their fucking shoe themselves, and they merely use others and profit by those others' skills. I know, I have worked in the Fortune 100-500 alongside many of these schmucks and said to myself "how the HELL did this b.s. artist get this position? He's as dumb as a box of rocks!" until I find out that many are either part of some 'secret handshake club', or are related to a majority stockholder, or are boards of directors' appointed flunky (someone who was in their frat in college etc.).
That does not matter. According to that guy's point, if the CEO thinks he can do better on his own, regardless of his actual competence, he'll walk if he does not get enough pay.
Fact is, quite a few corporate officers' personal pay on an annual INDIVIDUAL BASIS (e.g. CEO) often exceeds the entire payroll outlay of entire smaller companies. This is the insane fact no one ever seems to mention or note, and I often wonder why?
Everyone mentions it. But none of us have any authority over company pay scales. The only people who could do something are those with voting shares. And from what they say in the press, they would like to reduce CEO pay, but then they would have trouble filling the position.
The founder of one of the companies that I have worked for was an entrepreneurial sort and he once told me, "they've got to pay the CEO more than what he thinks he would make if he started his own company." And I bet most CEOs think they could make a hell of a lot of money on their own.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm running this through my mental simulator, and "Elmo!" does not work half as well as "Fuck!".
And sure enough, when reading a summary of the study, they compared the results from yelling an expletive to yelling a neutral word, and the neutral word did not work.
I initially read that as (Mother of (God's Firm Ass)). I...am not sure what that says about me.
http://sodiumeyes.com/2010/06/07/traumatic-reading/
"hemorrhaging shit-apes"
my perception is that "nigger" carries far more negative impact and weight than "fuck" ever did.
Unless you are black; in my neighborhood, they use it almost like "fuck," as an emphasis mark. Sort of. The rules are complex.
Hahahahahaha *gasp* haha ha ha ha!
I still face DSN failures, poor infrastructure, and lag. And I never hear about companies favoring net neutrality. Quality does not appear to be going up much.
Which is fine unless they don't make the offer. Then you are without Internet and have to pay an installation fee to some other provider to get it back.
One day the teleprompter was sabataaged. Shatner, being the consumate professional, memorized the entire script for all characters and communicated it to the rest of them via sign language.
He was able to disguise the sign language so it looked like he was just hamming it up for the camera. The viewers didn't notice. That's just how good he is.
When written languages were first invented it was said that having things written down would reduce the ability of humans to remember things.
I'd say they were right about that.
You assume the actor knows the lines and isn't actually reading them. Shatner's classic stuttering monologue style was merely a way of coping with the limited amount of text that could fit on the teleprompter at once.
No, Shatner knows his lines. That is important to his sense of professionalism, according to an interview I read recently (which I think was posted here on Slashdot.)
I expected them to back down on that requirement as soon as I heard about it. It was rank idiocy to begin with, not least because it was unenforceable and a bad PR move. I'd be surprised if anyone actually paid attention to it.
Why does an umbrella need energy in the first place? You just unfold it by hand!
How can you Internet-enable the umbrella without electricity?
"Stans-brella tweets: I am wide open and so very wet. #notwhatyouthink #weathersucks"
Although, in seriousness, I suppose an umbrella might give you better reception on a Wifi hotspot or something.
As I understand it, Hell is not a place of punishment for your actions or inactions specifically, but rather is the default place you and every human ends up in unless you are rescued by God, and he will only do so if you agree to his terms. And Hell is for all of humanity because of the Original Sin. When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they basically opened Pandora's Box and created evil. The concept was sealed away until they ate the fruit. In that light, Hell seems reasonable. Humanity reaped what it sowed, and now God looks at us with a jaundiced eye. We are, literally, troublemakers.
Luckily, I am an atheist, so all this is academic to me. But just in case God does exist, and all that nonsense applies, I am tempted to emancipate my eternal soul. You know, just let it go free from my body and live without. Just to put me beyond Hell's grasp. I wonder how theologically sound that is? You can sell your soul, after all, so therefore can you not just give it away, or drop it on the ground?
I lul'd, but have no mod pts. :(
I think you are arguing from a false premise. You say that journalists are those that abide by an exceptional code of conduct and thus have proven themselves worthy of trust and special privileges in the eyes of the law, and in particular, the right to keep their sources confidential. But I think this code of conduct is less a factor than you think. For instance, that bit about not revealing national security matters is nothing special. Neither regular people nor journalists are allowed to reveal classified things, lest they be prosecuted and jailed. This only applies to our own journalists and citizens, of course. Foreign journalists (and whether or not it counts as journalism, Wikileaks is foreign) can report whatever they want. But if something is not classified, but still impacts national security, journalists have no special obligation to keep quiet about it. Often they will, but just to avoid trouble with the government, or because as members of this county it affects their security too. But both those considerations apply equally to normal people.
The idea behind a shield law is not contingent upon any special code of conduct. It is a question of societal self-interest. Here is how Wikipedia describes source confidentiality:
Substituting "Wikileaks" for "journalist" does not weaken the argument for source confidentiality at all. Whether or not the information is reported "responsibly" through traditional journalism or "irresponsibly" through a Wikileaks-like site, the information may be of public interest and reduce corruption or crime, and public disclosure of the information should be encouraged. Source confidentiality should not be limited to mainstream journalism. In fact, I could argue that one should intentionally avoid mainstream journalism because of the risk of censorship.
I'd say the obvious solution is not to use a server to assign serial numbers, but instead to use, say, a hash of the operations/data involved or the submission timestamp coupled with the global static thread number or something.
How does this ruling and the Washington State Supreme Court's 2003 ruling requiring a warrant affect each other?
You are delusional.
http://www.merzo.net/
A Borg cube is on the -10x page. It is about the same size as a Federation space dock.
Now look at the -100x page. That same space dock is about halfway down the page. Now finish scrolling down. The Death Star is huge. It plays with the big boys. If you look at the -2000x page, you can see it on the same playground as Phobos, Unicron, the Alpha Halo, and the Moon itself.
I read a science fiction story — I think it was Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge — in which literacy (or perhaps just writing) became a rarer ability due to ubiquitous iconography, augmented reality, and voice-based computing. Nobody bothered to learn to read (or write) because there was no need. The topic of this article an example of a step in that direction.
According to the article, native Chinese children also forget the language fairly quickly — or at least forget how to write it. The "use it or lose it" rule is apparently in full effect with the written form of Chinese. One could well take that as motivation to change to a different writing system in which that effect is weaker.
I believe his comment was meant to point out that it is spelled "waste of time" not "waist of time."
"Attorneys General" is correct. This is because English is f'd up.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/compounds.htm
Has there ever been a zombie outbreak that has actually failed for any of these reasons?
Well, that is a good point, but let me turn that question around for a second. Has there ever been a zombie outbreak that succeeded?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ceo+overpaid
Dividends seem all right. Any investment I make that is profitable for me is fine. If I actually care about the company's future or its employees, though, I would want to have voting stock.
That said, I have no investments right now except for my IRA fund.
That does not matter. According to that guy's point, if the CEO thinks he can do better on his own, regardless of his actual competence, he'll walk if he does not get enough pay.
Everyone mentions it. But none of us have any authority over company pay scales. The only people who could do something are those with voting shares. And from what they say in the press, they would like to reduce CEO pay, but then they would have trouble filling the position.
The founder of one of the companies that I have worked for was an entrepreneurial sort and he once told me, "they've got to pay the CEO more than what he thinks he would make if he started his own company." And I bet most CEOs think they could make a hell of a lot of money on their own.