Note the part where this will "create 212,000 jobs". It's not supposed to save money, it's supposed to spend it -- and the sugar daddy footing the bill is you.
Regulatory boondoggles. Girls singing to ABBA albums. It's like 1979 all over again.
1. IP is connectionless, but somehow TCP works anyway. Session is a layer.
2. Client side privileges are IMPOSSIBLE to control, relying on the server for security is mandatory.
3. Bandwidth does not govern RPC performance -- service time does.
4. The W3C is addressing XMLHTTPRequest standardization.
Let's think for a moment: a product with a high price and no utility? This is either a money laundering scam, or if not, would demonstrate the viability of using iTunes as a money laundering scam. Apple has to take it down, or face a criminal investigation.
This is no different than the off-shore "Poker" sites where, amazingly, the big losers are using stolen credit card numbers, and the big winners are from accounts located where there is no extradition.
Worse, the last verses of Mark in the Codex Sinaiticus clearly states "He has risen, He is not here, behold the place where the Lord lay". Two key points are made: a declaration of the Resurrection, and a verification of this by the witnesses.
If I understand correctly, the primary difference is that assault rifles are fully automatic.
You do not understand correctly. The Assault Weapon Ban did not target fully-automatic rifles. It targeted semi-automatic rifles with certain cosmetic features.
Fully-automatic rifles were banned in 1986, and only grandfathered pre-86 machine guns are currently in circulation. They were not in any way covered by the Assault Weapon Ban.
Wind farms are INCREDIBLY noisy and disruptive, the power is intermittent at best with very minimal generating capacity for the land area used, and a major killer of endangered birds already.
Assuming you use the word "INCREDIBLY" to mean "nothing you say can be believed", I would agree.
After 50,000 generations, we observe the activation of a gene that many other forms of bacteria normally demonstrate while in a specially constructed environment that would specifically select for that trait.
If that's evolution, then there's a bit of a problem of time scale. 50,000 generations and trillions of individuals for a single (genetically common) trait to be selected -- in one out of 12 tries? And we haven't even established that this trait did not exist (in an inactive gene) in the parent generation.
50,000 generations of mankind would put us back a million years, 12 tries would put us back 12 million years. For a single trait.
It doesn't even prove microevolution. In order to do that, you'd have to show that the original E coli samples didn't have the (inactive) trait in their genome to begin with. That will be hard to do, as other, closely related species have the exact same trait. Gene activation/deactivation isn't the same as gene synthesis.
Exactly! So long as great men like Emmanuel Goldstein are free to dissent, the rest of us can rest easy that there are checks to supreme government power.
Well the Old Testament was written by backward Taliban types in the dark ages. What do you expect?
Something I didn't realise about the Old Testament until recently is that when they talk of the the Philistines binding Samson in 'chains of iron' it's because the Philistines had managed to master the technology to use iron but the Israelites hadn't. 1 Samuel 13:19 Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, "Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears."
It wasn't technology gap, it was arms control enforced during centuries of oppression. They certainly did have the technology, as the technology itself is described in dozens of passages. (Deu 4:20, 1 Sa 12:31)
There's lots of other signs that they were not exactly academically inclined either, like the biblical value of 3 for Pi which was less accurate than the value the competing civilisations knew. 1) A round bathtub is not the same thing as a circular bathtub, 2) even if it was circular you forgot to account for the annulus.
But don't worry your arrogant little head about it. Other people are stupid and you are smart.
The most important aspect of basic education is that the information is correct, as far as we can ascertain, and that as little religious or political agendas as possible are involved.
"Correct" as determined by the religious and the political masters at the school board? You understand we teach things like English Literature and Social Science in school, right? Or were you proposing some revolutionary new teaching method where only math is taught in school?
teach them to think critically (first and foremost), so they recognize that great idea for what it really is
Well, obviously we agree on this point. Critical thought is, as you say, first and foremost. But, how can critical thought be taught if controversial topics are forbidden by law, and only one vetted and approved position is ever taught? If teaching our children to discern "opinion" for what it is is so critical, why bar the teachers from bringing up controversial positions?
Kids should be taught to doubt scientific theories. The scientific method demands doubt and controversy -- and experimentation and analysis. Every hypothesis starts as a controversy, a fog of doubt that can only be pierced through reasoning and experimentation. Otherwise, what's the point?
You don't teach kids science so that they will "know" science. You teach them science to teach them to THINK! Science doesn't teach that which is true, it teaches a method for discerning that which is false. That's the skill that the next generation needs. Forget memorization of facts, focus on discernment and clear thinking.
Teachers do NOT have the right to teach their opinions to other people's children. They have the duty to teach the curriculum approved by the local and state school boards. Essentially, they are actors, presenting a pre-written script, and they can only ad-lib so long as they stick to the general plot.
And that's the reason why public schools fail. The only reason for education is to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to function in society as an adult. Teaching kids to conform to the party line without critical thought is useful only when training them to flip burgers.
If that's what public school teaches, fine. I'll pay for private school, and 10 years from now your kids will be serving mine -- lunch.
Say you have only a tooth fragment of a bobcat. That piece of information alone isn't much to go on, but if you also have a more or less complete skeleton of a house cat, and a skull and left hind foot of a lion skeleton, these three pieces of information together now tell you a lot about the likely size and general shape of the bobcat
Because, as everyone knows, the saber-toothed cat was 50 feet tall and ate litters of baby hippos for breakfast.
You've captured the reason why the pronouncements of science are so easily dismissed by the public: they've watched during their lifetime as most major scientific theories have been completely debunked and replaced with newer, ever more confusing theories. That may be the method of science, but to the average layman it looks a lot like deception.
Here's a clue: try using words like "maybe" and "possibly" to capture true nature of an untested (or untestable) theory. As it turns out, most folks are turned off by arrogance, particularly when flavored by a history of spectacular failure. Add that to the fact that scientists tend to harp on the layman's "ignorance", which is usually nothing of the sort. Here's a hint: that's verbally abusive behavior. As a result "scientist" is now easily conflated with "first-order jerk". A little bit of humility would go a long way.
Yeah, right. Why is the US military then not using the M1 (or a gun derived from it, like the M-14)?
Weight was the primary argument in favor. The "new" military focuses on mobility, not firepower.
1. High capacity magazines
Red herring. A banned weapon with a low capacity magazine -- or no magazine at all -- is still banned. On the contrary, the semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14 chambered in.223 can also use a 30 round detachable magazine; yet it's not banned. Why? For aesthetic reasons -- it looks like a boring old varmint rifle (which is exactly was it is).
2. Flash suppressors
How is a flash suppressor a danger to anyone? Because it was a feature of the specific models of guns the politicians were targeting for aesthetic reasons. (Same for bayonet lugs. When has a bayonet been used in a crime?)
3. Telescoping or folding stocks
Telescoping stocks are of great value to women. So why outlaw them? So that women will not be able use guns? (Interesting premise -- equal protection clause violation...) No, they were outlawed because they "look" military.
Slashdot Mirror
Explanation given to the EFF: "Yes we can!"
Note the part where this will "create 212,000 jobs". It's not supposed to save money, it's supposed to spend it -- and the sugar daddy footing the bill is you.
Regulatory boondoggles. Girls singing to ABBA albums. It's like 1979 all over again.
Because everyone knows that power plants run on Hope.
Yeah, that's a tall order for terrorists to pull off.
You don't have to be a licensee to be liable for FCC violations. Penalties including seizure of equipment and fines are levied without trial.
1. IP is connectionless, but somehow TCP works anyway. Session is a layer.
2. Client side privileges are IMPOSSIBLE to control, relying on the server for security is mandatory.
3. Bandwidth does not govern RPC performance -- service time does.
4. The W3C is addressing XMLHTTPRequest standardization.
Let's think for a moment: a product with a high price and no utility? This is either a money laundering scam, or if not, would demonstrate the viability of using iTunes as a money laundering scam. Apple has to take it down, or face a criminal investigation.
This is no different than the off-shore "Poker" sites where, amazingly, the big losers are using stolen credit card numbers, and the big winners are from accounts located where there is no extradition.
Worse, the last verses of Mark in the Codex Sinaiticus clearly states "He has risen, He is not here, behold the place where the Lord lay". Two key points are made: a declaration of the Resurrection, and a verification of this by the witnesses.
Mod summary -1 Troll. It's a bigoted fabrication.
When would the courts decide this? You are implying that there would be a trial.
No, it was fine. I just have no sense of humor.
Fully-automatic rifles were banned in 1986, and only grandfathered pre-86 machine guns are currently in circulation. They were not in any way covered by the Assault Weapon Ban.
After 50,000 generations, we observe the activation of a gene that many other forms of bacteria normally demonstrate while in a specially constructed environment that would specifically select for that trait.
If that's evolution, then there's a bit of a problem of time scale. 50,000 generations and trillions of individuals for a single (genetically common) trait to be selected -- in one out of 12 tries? And we haven't even established that this trait did not exist (in an inactive gene) in the parent generation.
50,000 generations of mankind would put us back a million years, 12 tries would put us back 12 million years. For a single trait.
It doesn't even prove microevolution. In order to do that, you'd have to show that the original E coli samples didn't have the (inactive) trait in their genome to begin with. That will be hard to do, as other, closely related species have the exact same trait. Gene activation/deactivation isn't the same as gene synthesis.
Have you ever actually tried looking at a 24 bit gradient? Notice any color banding below #808080?
Exactly! So long as great men like Emmanuel Goldstein are free to dissent, the rest of us can rest easy that there are checks to supreme government power.
It wasn't technology gap, it was arms control enforced during centuries of oppression. They certainly did have the technology, as the technology itself is described in dozens of passages. (Deu 4:20, 1 Sa 12:31) There's lots of other signs that they were not exactly academically inclined either, like the biblical value of 3 for Pi which was less accurate than the value the competing civilisations knew. 1) A round bathtub is not the same thing as a circular bathtub, 2) even if it was circular you forgot to account for the annulus.
But don't worry your arrogant little head about it. Other people are stupid and you are smart.
Kids should be taught to doubt scientific theories. The scientific method demands doubt and controversy -- and experimentation and analysis. Every hypothesis starts as a controversy, a fog of doubt that can only be pierced through reasoning and experimentation. Otherwise, what's the point?
You don't teach kids science so that they will "know" science. You teach them science to teach them to THINK! Science doesn't teach that which is true, it teaches a method for discerning that which is false. That's the skill that the next generation needs. Forget memorization of facts, focus on discernment and clear thinking.
If that's what public school teaches, fine. I'll pay for private school, and 10 years from now your kids will be serving mine -- lunch.
You've captured the reason why the pronouncements of science are so easily dismissed by the public: they've watched during their lifetime as most major scientific theories have been completely debunked and replaced with newer, ever more confusing theories. That may be the method of science, but to the average layman it looks a lot like deception.
Here's a clue: try using words like "maybe" and "possibly" to capture true nature of an untested (or untestable) theory. As it turns out, most folks are turned off by arrogance, particularly when flavored by a history of spectacular failure. Add that to the fact that scientists tend to harp on the layman's "ignorance", which is usually nothing of the sort. Here's a hint: that's verbally abusive behavior. As a result "scientist" is now easily conflated with "first-order jerk". A little bit of humility would go a long way.
Wait a minute... who said he was trying for "earth orbit"?