That's like what we used to do in the high school locker rooms in Ireland. We'd spray a thick coat of Lynx/Axe body spray on our hands and light it up. It'd give off a blue flame, but some of the lads would let it go a little too long and the heat would start getting into their hands. I don't know what was louder, them screaming as they shook their hands or us laughing at them!
This isn't just a one sided political happening. While I will agree that some conservative thought demands that people "don't ask questions," we also face liberal thought that severely punishes "asking the wrong questions."
Yes i actually watched the "Booyah" (?) shouting guy on CNBC last week. He was going on about how this was expected to shoot through the roof in the initial IPO but as a company faced too many hurdles (competition, public interest, etc.) to justify holding on to the stock long term. He said get in early, then get out early. Also, apparently some brokers make you hold IPO stock for 30+ days. He said basically don't use them then.
And that's one to grow on. (The more you know?)
He also said "Buy Bear" before the Bear Stearns fiasco, then flat out denied saying it afterwards. He's a lying sack of shit who was busted by Jon Stewart quicker than you can say "Roll 2:12!"
Someone started a discussion about his race/religion and you joined in with it. You should have known better. The correct response to anyone taking part in a discussion about a man's religion that came about just because he has a funny name is "stop being such a racist."
Er, excuse me, but who gives a shit what his religion or ethnicity is? If his name was John Smith would we be having a speculative conversation about his religion? Give it a freaking rest,/. racists!
Never mind the fact that this metric would be biased against Italian league players, where falling on the ground and begging for a foul when another player is within arm's reach is more important than number of shots.
FTFY.
Can we please end this epidemic of acronym abuse? I'm fed up having to google for meanings all day long.
I give it more credit for artistic value with the figures placed around than for the technical difficulties.
I built a plotter capable of those drawings for my 2nd year engineering class using a few stepper motors, a bunch of paint stirrer sticks, epoxy and an AVR microcontroller.
They are, but European big rigs aren't as big as their US counterparts, they're more heavily regulated (all HGVs must have tachographs and the government enforces tachograph regulations mercilessly to prevent drivers falling asleep at the wheel), they have many safety features that US trucks don't have (speed limiters, underrun protection or crashbars on the trailer to stop cars getting decapitated) and it's very hard to get a HGV license. Euro truckers are the most professional people on the road and it's seldom they'll get into an accident.
About street sizes, I could say about the same again. The US cities I know (which aren't many) are much better regarding width, layout, convenience, and many other factors, than the streets of Madrid. However this is accounting for all the streets, which includes many built centuries ago. There are large nice streets in most European cities I know, as well as highways that go round the city, the latter built with the pragmatic approach that if you can't cross the city then just go around it.
Um, I was agreeing with everything you said except for this bit. "Better" is a point of view. If you're a car, then US city streets are "better" because there's more room for you, and by that yardstick Los Angeles would have the "best" streets in the world.
But if you're a pedestrian, then the smaller the street is, the better, and that's where European cities and the older parts of older North American cities also win hands down.
Given a choice between a freeway and a small street, I know which one I'd rather hang out in.
Streets have more than one job (such as accommodating cars) to do.
VW lupo -vs- the lady in the ford expedition that she bought so she could feel "safe" on the road
=
healthy dent on the expedition and horrible crushed doom to the lupo.
Have you seen american highways lately? people who can't drive their way out of a paper bag are routinely crusing around in 3 ton tanks, and you have to be in another 3 ton tank to survive the impact with them.
Ah, the 'SUVs are safer' myth.
Did you know that since SUVs are so much more likely to roll over, you actually lose all the safety benefit and are actually in more danger? It takes two cars to collide, it only takes one SUV to roll over.
Also, they have pretty stringent crash safety standards in Europe where gas is so expensive ($7/gallon last time I checked) that nobody but wealthy egotists can afford to drive gas-guzzling oversized vehicles that are too big for European city streets anyway. (Does Ford even sell the Expedition in Europe?) Get into a collision in Europe and it's more likely to be with another small car.
So the description of European cars as 'deathboxes' is a load of nonsense.
Nobody in the 1970s was all that interested in a "safe" car except maybe a very small minority. And while these cars might have been safe, nobody is talking about what they cost or what sort of performance they had.
The "right" thing probably would have been for the US Government to nationalize the Big Three automakers and mandate that nobody could buy anything except an official US Government produced car. They could have then made the cars safe and high mileage. Nobody would have anything to compare them to and if they cost $50,000 each that would have just further reduced the dependence on automobiles. The could have used the highways right-of-way for rail lines and torn up most of the concrete.
All we really need is a truely benvolent dictator to tell us what the right way is and shove it down everyone's throats. We might actually be on the road to that, especially if the carbon tax goes through. We won't have to worry about consumer choice anymore - all of those complex decisions will be made for us.
Be careful what you wish for, in a Progressive/Liberal government world you just might get it.
Oh gimme a fucking break. A couple of safety or mileage regulations do not equate to a government takeover of all of society and dictatorship installed in place of elected government. You people have been listening to too much Glenn Beck. Knock it off!
The people who really wanted to push this were the civil servants. Every time a new Home Secretary steps in, the civil servants immediately pitch this hare-brained scheme to him and until recently it was always rejected. David Blunkett was the first to take the bait.
I was just wondering how far down I'd have to scroll to see this traditional response to this type of story:
Dropping this container in the middle of Africa is a good way to establish a new cargo cult.
Seriously, though - why are these people so intent on providing Internet access to countries and people that need many more basic things in life first (including proper hygiene, medical care, food, clothing, development of civic society, business, infrastructure, etc etc). Providing internet without these other things results in proliferation of "Nigerian scams" and very little else.
You're responding to a post about a:
( ) Technical innovation in a developing country (*) Product shipped to a developing market ( ) General discussion about IT in the developing world
The location is:
(*) Africa ( ) India ( ) Bangladesh ( ) China ( ) Somewhere else in Asia ( ) South America ( ) Central America ( ) Other _unspecified_
You're objecting to it on the basis that:
(*) Poverty hasn't been eliminated in that country yet ( ) American jobs will be lost
Your argument is bogus because:
( ) Poverty hasn't been eliminated in the developed world either, that doesn't mean we should halt all technological research ( ) This will not adversely affect any efforts to alleviate poverty (*) This will help to alleviate poverty ( ) Poverty in that country isn't as widespread as you say it is ( ) The US does not have a divine right to keep all the cool jobs
There are a lot of appointed positions such as Federal judges that you can't just throw out.
True, but at least he didn't succeed in appointing his cleaning lady (or whatever she was) to the Supreme Court on the basis that he "knows her heart".
but I'm willing to bet a significant portion of CougarLife's clients are married women with children looking for something on the side
On what grounds? One in four marriages end in divorce. Add in that more people are leaving it later to get married, and you have plenty of reasons for a significant number of genuine single cougars.
Considering I had never heard of them before, I'd say that by cancelling the contract Google has done the service the biggest favor yet! I imagine most people out there hadn't heard of it, either.
I couldn't agree more. I had never heard of this site, but as soon as I get home from work, I'm signing up! I'm serious. I'm signing up!
Apparently he didn't consider Xbox a distraction when he was running in-game campaign ads on it.
That was then, this is now. After all, you can't trust media to be "accurate" if it isn't state controlled, like in China. Now. Before, you couldn't trust the media *because* it was state-controlled. Like HuffPo. Oh, wait...
Do you people ever manage to get a sentence out without tarring their opponents with the same brush as the most extreme examples of their opponents? I mean, it's almost as if anyone to the left of Genghis Khan is a Communist. Is it okay with you if I describe all opponents of big government as 'Timothy McVeigh types'?
Newsflash, he didn't say that all media should be state controlled. He's referring to the new media in which the old journalistic controls have been lifted. It used to be that if you wanted something to be widely read, you had to pass through an editorial process to ensure that the content was accurate. Now any old fool can post any old made up lies he wants (Obama wasn't born in the US, Obama hasn't produced a birth certificate, health reform will lead to death panels, etc...) and it quickly becomes widely believed. In fact, maybe you should read TFA for yourself. Since it was obviously too much work for you to click that link (you must have been distracted by something) here's a little excerpt for you:
"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.
"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.
He bemoaned the fact that "some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction," in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.
I can't think of anything in there that a reasonable person would disagree with, can you?
Slashdot Mirror
That's like what we used to do in the high school locker rooms in Ireland. We'd spray a thick coat of Lynx/Axe body spray on our hands and light it up. It'd give off a blue flame, but some of the lads would let it go a little too long and the heat would start getting into their hands. I don't know what was louder, them screaming as they shook their hands or us laughing at them!
This isn't just a one sided political happening. While I will agree that some conservative thought demands that people "don't ask questions," we also face liberal thought that severely punishes "asking the wrong questions."
Such as...?
Hi Google. Boeing. Ford.
Google was far from the first search engine, there were plenty of competitors before it in the days when the web was hard to search.
Ford didn't pioneer cars, but it did pioneer mass production.
Boeing? Well they were founded in the early days of aviation, I suppose you might have something there.
Yes i actually watched the "Booyah" (?) shouting guy on CNBC last week. He was going on about how this was expected to shoot through the roof in the initial IPO but as a company faced too many hurdles (competition, public interest, etc.) to justify holding on to the stock long term. He said get in early, then get out early. Also, apparently some brokers make you hold IPO stock for 30+ days. He said basically don't use them then.
And that's one to grow on.
(The more you know?)
He also said "Buy Bear" before the Bear Stearns fiasco, then flat out denied saying it afterwards. He's a lying sack of shit who was busted by Jon Stewart quicker than you can say "Roll 2:12!"
Someone started a discussion about his race/religion and you joined in with it. You should have known better. The correct response to anyone taking part in a discussion about a man's religion that came about just because he has a funny name is "stop being such a racist."
Er, excuse me, but who gives a shit what his religion or ethnicity is? If his name was John Smith would we be having a speculative conversation about his religion? Give it a freaking rest, /. racists!
You might not be guilty.
Never mind the fact that this metric would be biased against Italian league players, where falling on the ground and begging for a foul when another player is within arm's reach is more important than number of shots.
FTFY.
Can we please end this epidemic of acronym abuse? I'm fed up having to google for meanings all day long.
Moving across a zone or defender to clear space for someone who actually handles the ball?
Handle the ball? Someone like Thierry Henry?
Not an expert, but I do know that ultrasound is only good at solid, soft tissue. Bones and gas-filled areas cause weird echoes and distortion that lower the image's resolution.
I seem to remember a company that I was gonna work for (but didn't - long story) using ultrasound for looking for cracks in metal.
It'd be cool if they could do something about the resolution of ultrasound. Any ultrasound experts out there...?
Camfrog still rules the entire video conference sector, on both price and performance.
"Rules?" So how come I never fucking heard of it until right this minute then, hmmm?
I give it more credit for artistic value with the figures placed around than for the technical difficulties.
I built a plotter capable of those drawings for my 2nd year engineering class using a few stepper motors, a bunch of paint stirrer sticks, epoxy and an AVR microcontroller.
Well bully for you!
Too bad they made the normal station wagon
style car illegal. The SUV or mini-van is
the only choices full big families or
group travel.
The fuel regs effectively outlawed station
wagons in the USA.
Tim S.
Wait, what? Station wagons are illegal?
Is most of your food and retail items delivered
by semi-tractors and trailers in European?
Getting hit by a semi or other big truck is a
risk in the USA.
Tim S.
They are, but European big rigs aren't as big as their US counterparts, they're more heavily regulated (all HGVs must have tachographs and the government enforces tachograph regulations mercilessly to prevent drivers falling asleep at the wheel), they have many safety features that US trucks don't have (speed limiters, underrun protection or crashbars on the trailer to stop cars getting decapitated) and it's very hard to get a HGV license. Euro truckers are the most professional people on the road and it's seldom they'll get into an accident.
About street sizes, I could say about the same again. The US cities I know (which aren't many) are much better regarding width, layout, convenience, and many other factors, than the streets of Madrid. However this is accounting for all the streets, which includes many built centuries ago. There are large nice streets in most European cities I know, as well as highways that go round the city, the latter built with the pragmatic approach that if you can't cross the city then just go around it.
Um, I was agreeing with everything you said except for this bit. "Better" is a point of view. If you're a car, then US city streets are "better" because there's more room for you, and by that yardstick Los Angeles would have the "best" streets in the world.
But if you're a pedestrian, then the smaller the street is, the better, and that's where European cities and the older parts of older North American cities also win hands down.
Given a choice between a freeway and a small street, I know which one I'd rather hang out in.
Streets have more than one job (such as accommodating cars) to do.
Let's assume a collision:
VW lupo
-vs-
the lady in the ford expedition that she bought so she could feel "safe" on the road
=
healthy dent on the expedition and horrible crushed doom to the lupo.
Have you seen american highways lately? people who can't drive their way out of a paper bag are routinely crusing around in 3 ton tanks, and you have to be in another 3 ton tank to survive the impact with them.
Ah, the 'SUVs are safer' myth.
Did you know that since SUVs are so much more likely to roll over, you actually lose all the safety benefit and are actually in more danger? It takes two cars to collide, it only takes one SUV to roll over.
Also, they have pretty stringent crash safety standards in Europe where gas is so expensive ($7/gallon last time I checked) that nobody but wealthy egotists can afford to drive gas-guzzling oversized vehicles that are too big for European city streets anyway. (Does Ford even sell the Expedition in Europe?) Get into a collision in Europe and it's more likely to be with another small car.
So the description of European cars as 'deathboxes' is a load of nonsense.
Nobody in the 1970s was all that interested in a "safe" car except maybe a very small minority. And while these cars might have been safe, nobody is talking about what they cost or what sort of performance they had.
The "right" thing probably would have been for the US Government to nationalize the Big Three automakers and mandate that nobody could buy anything except an official US Government produced car. They could have then made the cars safe and high mileage. Nobody would have anything to compare them to and if they cost $50,000 each that would have just further reduced the dependence on automobiles. The could have used the highways right-of-way for rail lines and torn up most of the concrete.
All we really need is a truely benvolent dictator to tell us what the right way is and shove it down everyone's throats. We might actually be on the road to that, especially if the carbon tax goes through. We won't have to worry about consumer choice anymore - all of those complex decisions will be made for us.
Be careful what you wish for, in a Progressive/Liberal government world you just might get it.
Oh gimme a fucking break. A couple of safety or mileage regulations do not equate to a government takeover of all of society and dictatorship installed in place of elected government. You people have been listening to too much Glenn Beck. Knock it off!
Europe has turbodeisel deathboxes that get 70+ mpg.
"Deathboxes"?
The people who really wanted to push this were the civil servants. Every time a new Home Secretary steps in, the civil servants immediately pitch this hare-brained scheme to him and until recently it was always rejected. David Blunkett was the first to take the bait.
I was just wondering how far down I'd have to scroll to see this traditional response to this type of story:
Dropping this container in the middle of Africa is a good way to establish a new cargo cult.
Seriously, though - why are these people so intent on providing Internet access to countries and people that need many more basic things in life first (including proper hygiene, medical care, food, clothing, development of civic society, business, infrastructure, etc etc). Providing internet without these other things results in proliferation of "Nigerian scams" and very little else.
You're responding to a post about a:
( ) Technical innovation in a developing country
(*) Product shipped to a developing market
( ) General discussion about IT in the developing world
The location is:
(*) Africa
( ) India
( ) Bangladesh
( ) China
( ) Somewhere else in Asia
( ) South America
( ) Central America
( ) Other _unspecified_
You're objecting to it on the basis that:
(*) Poverty hasn't been eliminated in that country yet
( ) American jobs will be lost
Your argument is bogus because:
( ) Poverty hasn't been eliminated in the developed world either, that doesn't mean we should halt all technological research
( ) This will not adversely affect any efforts to alleviate poverty
(*) This will help to alleviate poverty
( ) Poverty in that country isn't as widespread as you say it is
( ) The US does not have a divine right to keep all the cool jobs
There are a lot of appointed positions such as Federal judges that you can't just throw out.
True, but at least he didn't succeed in appointing his cleaning lady (or whatever she was) to the Supreme Court on the basis that he "knows her heart".
but I'm willing to bet a significant portion of CougarLife's clients are married women with children looking for something on the side
On what grounds? One in four marriages end in divorce. Add in that more people are leaving it later to get married, and you have plenty of reasons for a significant number of genuine single cougars.
Considering I had never heard of them before, I'd say that by cancelling the contract Google has done the service the biggest favor yet! I imagine most people out there hadn't heard of it, either.
I couldn't agree more. I had never heard of this site, but as soon as I get home from work, I'm signing up! I'm serious. I'm signing up!
Apparently he didn't consider Xbox a distraction when he was running in-game campaign ads on it.
That was then, this is now. After all, you can't trust media to be "accurate" if it isn't state controlled, like in China. Now. Before, you couldn't trust the media *because* it was state-controlled. Like HuffPo. Oh, wait...
Do you people ever manage to get a sentence out without tarring their opponents with the same brush as the most extreme examples of their opponents? I mean, it's almost as if anyone to the left of Genghis Khan is a Communist. Is it okay with you if I describe all opponents of big government as 'Timothy McVeigh types'?
Newsflash, he didn't say that all media should be state controlled. He's referring to the new media in which the old journalistic controls have been lifted. It used to be that if you wanted something to be widely read, you had to pass through an editorial process to ensure that the content was accurate. Now any old fool can post any old made up lies he wants (Obama wasn't born in the US, Obama hasn't produced a birth certificate, health reform will lead to death panels, etc...) and it quickly becomes widely believed. In fact, maybe you should read TFA for yourself. Since it was obviously too much work for you to click that link (you must have been distracted by something) here's a little excerpt for you:
"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.
"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.
He bemoaned the fact that "some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction," in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.
I can't think of anything in there that a reasonable person would disagree with, can you?