You may be the foremost microwave geek (I mean that in a good way)!
Since you seem to have given it substantial thought, what would you say are the best standalone and best over-the-range microwaves on the market?
I'll be interested to see if your theory about the combo devices come to pass--I have a hard time seeing it working out, probably because of the trays and dishes. Popular cooking trays for conventional ovens are metallic (e.g. cookie sheets), which would be a catastrophic to have in your combo oven if you accidentally turned the microwave on. You wouldn't want to melt your kid's plastic plate by throwing it in the microwave but accidentally turning the grill on to 500.
HAHAHAHA....My taxes have gone up every year my entire adult life (absolute and percent), and yet everything around me is falling apart, and services get cut. Oh, but they can afford to put up a new "arch" downtown to implement their revitalization "vision".
There is no cutting of taxes. They only go up. And the politicians always cry that it's not enough.
It's hard for me to imagine any security measure economical enough to implement in $20 bills could not be replicated by a really well-funded forger, such as a foreign intelligence agency..
I think you're right about the former, but why does that matter now? Here we are with an alternative that's better in an absolute sense (even if not in a time relative sense) than embryonic stem cells. So why not go with that and continue to improve the technology? Do we need to go back to destroying embryos to develop an inferior product?
Also, I'm not wholly convinced that it is just a matter of state-of-the-art improvement where embryonic stem cell research had left off. I think the restriction certainly catapulted this type of research, but there are still over a dozen lines of embryonic stem cells (which can still be infinitely reproduced) that were being worked on, but they did not get to this point.
I know you're being funny, but no contract allows anybody to engage in negligence. If you can prove negligence in court, that contract/EULA/whatever isn't worth crap to Sony.
I think this is the saddest thing I might have ever read:
This case should have never come to be. Management in the city's IT organization was terrible. There were no adopted security policies or procedures in place. This was a situation that management allowed to develop until it came to this unfortunate point. They did everything wrong that they possibly could have to create this situation. However, the city was not on trial, but Terry Childs was. And when we went into that jury room, we had very explicit instructions on what laws we were to apply and what definitions we were to follow in applying those laws.
Another poster already mentioned Jury Nullification; how can you, as a human being, convict another human being after saying you believe all of that?
And of course, the city can't be put on trial for it's portion in this, can it? Nobody from the city is going to go to jail (and the city itself won't be legally "incarcerated") no matter how wrong it was. But because of your strict interpretation of the law, and some "common sense" interpretation about who an authorized user was (even though it wasn't legally specified), he has to go to jail and have his life ruined.
In criminal defense, you can use multiple strategies to try to show innocence, even if those arguments are not mutually exclusive:
For example, if you were trying to defend yourself against a murder charge, I believe you can argue the following: 1. I wasn't even there 2. Even if I was there, I wasn't the actual person to killed him 3. Even if I did kill him, it was an accident
If any one of those holds, you're a free man, but logically you can't argue all three (from a non-legal perspective). In the court room, however, you're free to make these arguments (of course you have to weigh this against the intelligence of the jury, but we've all heard who comprises a jury).
I keep hearing things that seem to exclude this option from a civil suit. Why is that? What can't you argue:
1. We are not infringing (~P) 2. Even if we were infringing, there is prior art, so your patent is invalid (Q)
And in this case, ~P ^ Q is not even a logical contradiction.
The "truth" is, the same people that want anything the Obama Administration does to fail are the same people that created the Third Largest Government Agency.
How has that worked out? And where was their outrage over its creation and its current status of operation?
Try sending a letter or small package through the USPS, UPS and FedEx and let me know which one was more cost effective. Now try building a straw man and knocking him down.
The USPS sends packages cheaper because they're subsidized by the taxpayer. They have lost $BILLIONS per year for the last few years. Of course you can mail stuff for less when you're allowed to have the Federal government bail you out. UPS and FedEx don't have that luxury. Their prices reflect reality.
Many high schools already have policies that will let students graduate in 3 years. If there was such a push to get students graduated and in college early, why don't more parents and students take advantage of this?
When I was in high school, you needed 21 credits to graduate. You could earn up to 7 credits per year (one for each class) by not taking any study halls. It didn't take a genius to recognize that you could be out of there in 3 years if you wanted. I know of one person who took advantage of that because she had such a miserable time (socially) in school. But most of us enjoyed our full 4 years because pretty much everyone realizes that high school isn't all about (or even very much about?) the academics.
Oh, and I lived in an area that was full of "rich assholes" -- Wheaton, IL (check out the average wealth of families in this town and in the surrounding DuPage County). But again, no push to get the kids graduated early.
One more thing...the car wrecks have very little to do with age. It all has to do with driving experience. In areas where the driving age was moved to 18 (politicians did this because of exactly what you mentioned), the 18 and 19 year old drivers were just as bad as 16-17 year olds in other places. I think that teenagers today are socially immature because we keep them that way and don't give them an opportunity to live and grow. 2,000 years ago you were on your own when you turned 12, and those people found a way to survive, and I'll bet the maturity of an 18 year old back then would far surpass the average maturity of today's 30 year old--because they had to learn how to live and survive.
I have heard the Toyota software will not allow you to shift into neutral if the throttle is too high. I have not been willing to test it on my Toyota, as I like my functional engine. Can anyone verify or debunk this information?
While I'm sure it would be effective, I'm sure it could land you an assault charge if the person files a complaint against you or if a cop happens to be nearby.
All things being equal, roughly 1 in 150 children develop autism. Now, a new vaccine comes out and of the children that receive it, one in 100 develop autism. Is the vaccine to blame? There are scientists on both sides saying that the vaccine is not causing autism, and some saying that the statistics show that the vaccine can lead to autism.
Who do you believe? And even if the autism link is true, might it be worth it for society to accept this given the nastiness of the diseases we're curing? I believe my numbers are pretty accurate, but there are no hard and fast "observations to prove", and I think it's anything but "pretty simple."
Funny, then, that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled... I am not saying anything about you *personally* but this kind of poor risk judgment is what leads to all kinds of bad decisions. From what type of travel to choose, to what kind of medical treatment to choose, we humans are absolutely TERRIBLE at properly weighing risk. Say what you will about the fallibility of statistics, we all stand to gain if people put a little more stock in sound science as opposed to emotion-driven decision making.
The number of deaths per hour driving is the same as the number of deaths per hour flying. What was that about statistics and risk judgment you were saying?
The 1918 pandemic was certainly something that we do not wish to see repeated. However, it was deadlier than this situation on the order of millions of times more.
I've done some reading up on the 1918 pandemic, and the interesting thing about it is that the first pandemic that year was mild (like the swine flu). But then it mutated and became the strain that killed millions of people.
Slashdot Mirror
You may be the foremost microwave geek (I mean that in a good way)!
Since you seem to have given it substantial thought, what would you say are the best standalone and best over-the-range microwaves on the market?
I'll be interested to see if your theory about the combo devices come to pass--I have a hard time seeing it working out, probably because of the trays and dishes. Popular cooking trays for conventional ovens are metallic (e.g. cookie sheets), which would be a catastrophic to have in your combo oven if you accidentally turned the microwave on. You wouldn't want to melt your kid's plastic plate by throwing it in the microwave but accidentally turning the grill on to 500.
A bottle costs about $26 or 0.0608 Bitcoin.
This makes it sound like bitcoins are metric dollars. I prefer the Imperial measurement.
HAHAHAHA....My taxes have gone up every year my entire adult life (absolute and percent), and yet everything around me is falling apart, and services get cut. Oh, but they can afford to put up a new "arch" downtown to implement their revitalization "vision".
There is no cutting of taxes. They only go up. And the politicians always cry that it's not enough.
It's hard for me to imagine any security measure economical enough to implement in $20 bills could not be replicated by a really well-funded forger, such as a foreign intelligence agency. .
Inflation.
I think you're right about the former, but why does that matter now? Here we are with an alternative that's better in an absolute sense (even if not in a time relative sense) than embryonic stem cells. So why not go with that and continue to improve the technology? Do we need to go back to destroying embryos to develop an inferior product?
Also, I'm not wholly convinced that it is just a matter of state-of-the-art improvement where embryonic stem cell research had left off. I think the restriction certainly catapulted this type of research, but there are still over a dozen lines of embryonic stem cells (which can still be infinitely reproduced) that were being worked on, but they did not get to this point.
You have variable voltage outlets?
Who approved this, and why weren't they fired?
Sadly, the citizens of the bankrupt state.
Once you have democracy and freedom of speech, then fixing poverty and hunger will happen naturally.
I know you're being funny, but no contract allows anybody to engage in negligence. If you can prove negligence in court, that contract/EULA/whatever isn't worth crap to Sony.
I think this is the saddest thing I might have ever read:
This case should have never come to be. Management in the city's IT organization was terrible. There were no adopted security policies or procedures in place. This was a situation that management allowed to develop until it came to this unfortunate point. They did everything wrong that they possibly could have to create this situation. However, the city was not on trial, but Terry Childs was. And when we went into that jury room, we had very explicit instructions on what laws we were to apply and what definitions we were to follow in applying those laws.
Another poster already mentioned Jury Nullification; how can you, as a human being, convict another human being after saying you believe all of that?
And of course, the city can't be put on trial for it's portion in this, can it? Nobody from the city is going to go to jail (and the city itself won't be legally "incarcerated") no matter how wrong it was. But because of your strict interpretation of the law, and some "common sense" interpretation about who an authorized user was (even though it wasn't legally specified), he has to go to jail and have his life ruined.
What you did was reprehensible.
In criminal defense, you can use multiple strategies to try to show innocence, even if those arguments are not mutually exclusive:
For example, if you were trying to defend yourself against a murder charge, I believe you can argue the following:
1. I wasn't even there
2. Even if I was there, I wasn't the actual person to killed him
3. Even if I did kill him, it was an accident
If any one of those holds, you're a free man, but logically you can't argue all three (from a non-legal perspective). In the court room, however, you're free to make these arguments (of course you have to weigh this against the intelligence of the jury, but we've all heard who comprises a jury).
I keep hearing things that seem to exclude this option from a civil suit. Why is that? What can't you argue:
1. We are not infringing (~P)
2. Even if we were infringing, there is prior art, so your patent is invalid (Q)
And in this case, ~P ^ Q is not even a logical contradiction.
You've got to love the law.
The "truth" is, the same people that want anything the Obama Administration does to fail are the same people that created the Third Largest Government Agency.
How has that worked out? And where was their outrage over its creation and its current status of operation?
Try sending a letter or small package through the USPS, UPS and FedEx and let me know which one was more cost effective.
Now try building a straw man and knocking him down.
The USPS sends packages cheaper because they're subsidized by the taxpayer. They have lost $BILLIONS per year for the last few years. Of course you can mail stuff for less when you're allowed to have the Federal government bail you out. UPS and FedEx don't have that luxury. Their prices reflect reality.
Many high schools already have policies that will let students graduate in 3 years. If there was such a push to get students graduated and in college early, why don't more parents and students take advantage of this?
When I was in high school, you needed 21 credits to graduate. You could earn up to 7 credits per year (one for each class) by not taking any study halls. It didn't take a genius to recognize that you could be out of there in 3 years if you wanted. I know of one person who took advantage of that because she had such a miserable time (socially) in school. But most of us enjoyed our full 4 years because pretty much everyone realizes that high school isn't all about (or even very much about?) the academics.
Oh, and I lived in an area that was full of "rich assholes" -- Wheaton, IL (check out the average wealth of families in this town and in the surrounding DuPage County). But again, no push to get the kids graduated early.
One more thing...the car wrecks have very little to do with age. It all has to do with driving experience. In areas where the driving age was moved to 18 (politicians did this because of exactly what you mentioned), the 18 and 19 year old drivers were just as bad as 16-17 year olds in other places. I think that teenagers today are socially immature because we keep them that way and don't give them an opportunity to live and grow. 2,000 years ago you were on your own when you turned 12, and those people found a way to survive, and I'll bet the maturity of an 18 year old back then would far surpass the average maturity of today's 30 year old--because they had to learn how to live and survive.
I have heard the Toyota software will not allow you to shift into neutral if the throttle is too high. I have not been willing to test it on my Toyota, as I like my functional engine. Can anyone verify or debunk this information?
No one really bitches about not having it on the phone, except the people who scream 'I'm not buying because it doesn't do flash!!'
So let me get this straight: No one is complaining about this, except for the people who are?
Thanks for the insight man. You have any ideas on how to solve this whole "economy" thing?
I have an idea along those lines. Let the economy work for everybody, except those it doesn't work for.
While I'm sure it would be effective, I'm sure it could land you an assault charge if the person files a complaint against you or if a cop happens to be nearby.
Yes, the one where the federal government gets to levy individual income tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
I think she already knows her girlfriend is gay.
Okay, how about this?
All things being equal, roughly 1 in 150 children develop autism. Now, a new vaccine comes out and of the children that receive it, one in 100 develop autism. Is the vaccine to blame? There are scientists on both sides saying that the vaccine is not causing autism, and some saying that the statistics show that the vaccine can lead to autism.
Who do you believe? And even if the autism link is true, might it be worth it for society to accept this given the nastiness of the diseases we're curing? I believe my numbers are pretty accurate, but there are no hard and fast "observations to prove", and I think it's anything but "pretty simple."
This could be true in Zimbabwe.
I think it's a Microsoft product. That's why not many around here use it.
There are many of these components in Flex, but the downside is you have to compile to flash...
Funny, then, that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled... I am not saying anything about you *personally* but this kind of poor risk judgment is what leads to all kinds of bad decisions. From what type of travel to choose, to what kind of medical treatment to choose, we humans are absolutely TERRIBLE at properly weighing risk. Say what you will about the fallibility of statistics, we all stand to gain if people put a little more stock in sound science as opposed to emotion-driven decision making.
The number of deaths per hour driving is the same as the number of deaths per hour flying. What was that about statistics and risk judgment you were saying?
The 1918 pandemic was certainly something that we do not wish to see repeated. However, it was deadlier than this situation on the order of millions of times more.
I've done some reading up on the 1918 pandemic, and the interesting thing about it is that the first pandemic that year was mild (like the swine flu). But then it mutated and became the strain that killed millions of people.
The easiest source to get the info is Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic:
"The second wave of the 1918 pandemic was much deadlier than the first."
I'm not saying the same thing is going to happen again, but you can't quite say that it's not the same thing (yet).