Why is it always the CEOs that are to blame, and not say, people that accept loans they can't pay because they want a nice house and they WANT IT NOW?
Same reason I would be to blame for lending $10 to a homeless tramp in the street thinking he's going to show up at the same time the next day to pay it back with interest.
That's a pity. Deep core samples from a Martian surface probe would be very cool. Think of the info you could get about the history of the planet's atmosphere and the lessons we could apply to our own.
Exactly how big is a kitchen table? Is it an official unit of measurement? While we're at it, how long is a piece of string?
No wonder the original Polar Lander crashed...
It's called PR. Making things accessible and understandable to the public in the interests of generating the public support that is needed to keep these kinds of mission going. I'm quite sure they use more accurate tolerances when calculating trajectories.
I don't know how you didn't get modded offtopic but this is the kind of market fundamentalism that got us into this mess. The problem with the financial institutions isn't too much regulation. The problem is that the people making the decisions to take risks were themselves insulated from the consequences of their gambling not paying off. If CEOs were to lose their own homes if their investments went south then they'd put systems in place to make sure their investors were a bit more careful with other peoples' money. But the 'free market' does not have any incentives built in to make this happen, hence regulation is required to fill that gap. Same as how Enron's accountants had no incentives to tell the truth, the 'free market' incentivized them to cook the books. Regulation had to come to the rescue to bring integrity to the system.
Bottom line: the free market has its place and for the most part it does its job well, but it does not always magically coincide with the public interest and it is in those cases where regulation is needed.
I do wish the Funny mod wouldn't make so many posts appear so prominently on a thread. Maybe the first few 'funny' modded posts can appear, after than 'insightful,' 'informative' or 'interesting' get priority. I mean, I've read all the posts above and they're very funny (even the/. cliches), but it starts to get a bit old when you scroll all the way down a thread and can't find anything that adds a bit of information to the discussion.
I clicked on here hoping someone with an astrophysics or cosmology background might be able to have a stab and guessing what this thing might be, or have something interesting to say about Hubble.
Actually, Al Qaeda (as opposed to its offshoots) has been reduced to a media organisation that produces little other than propaganda videos. This will probably be a decent blow against them.
Unless Drupal already does more or less exactly what you need, it's probably as fast to author some code from scratch (or use a framework) rather than learn Drupals API. As such, I suspect this book has a limited market.
To examine your straw man a bit closer, who's arguing that bottled water keeps people safer by enabling them to kill people with the pull of a trigger?
Let me get this straight. You see a guy passing a gun through security, getting on your flight, and you'd feel safer? How do you know he's not a criminal or a potential hijacker? I can't believe the responses this sig is getting, I can't believe anyone in their right mind would actually advocate removing the ban on carry weapons onto planes. No wonder the country's in a mess.
Quite right. And petrol going from $1.10/gallon to $4/gallon is no big deal either, it's only $2.90 worth of difference. There are more pressing issues than gas prices, like healthcare, crime etc.
Go back to the abacus. Computers are overrated. Penthouse can take over the only other computer function.
Actually, I remember seeing a documentary showing kids in Asian countries learning how to perform calculations using an abacus. They become lightening fast with it, some even able to do calculations 'in their heads' using an imaginary abacus. It helps them to visualize numbers and visualize the processes of arithmetic.
The probability of finding any sort of life on Mars is vanishingly small.
How can you know this without knowing the outcome ahead of time?
There are so many other experiments we could do that have a much higher payoff.
Such as...? And how do you define 'payoff?'
I don't think the search for life is going to fire the public's imagination more than the cool photographs they get back.
Sure, if it *did* succeed, it would be immensely exciting
Which is it? Is the search for life exciting or isn't it?
I don't think the search for life is going to fire the public's imagination more than the cool photographs they get back.
Huh? 'Cool photographs' are better than performing actual science to answer one of the greatest questions that has been on the minds of man ever since we discovered that ours was not the only world in the universe? What's it going to be next? Canceling experiments on the ISS to make way for a weekend visit by Paris Hilton?
OK, I'll give you that the likes of the Apollo program might have had a skewed ratio of scientific usefulness to inspirational value, but I have my doubts that cool photography from Mars is more inspiring than the possibility of finding evidence of life there.
I 'believe' that the Earth was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do you have scientific research that would make this false or, since it's my idea, is the burden of proof not on me to prove that it is true?
Actually I believe we all evolve. I just don't think they were a separate species in the scientific meaning of the word. I think if I met a Neanderthal today I could make woopy with one and create a viable offspring.
You 'think' so? Why do you 'think' so? Because you're aware of research that makes this possible or because you want it to be true?
The researchers found that their research was so easy, a homo sapiens could do it.
Easy? Dunno about that. From TFA #1 (or 0 if you count from 0):
The University of Exeter is the only university in the world to offer a degree course in Experimental Archaeology. This strand of archaeology focuses on understanding how people lived in the past by recreating their activities and replicating their technologies. Eren says: "It was only by spending three years in the lab learning how to physically make these tools that we were able to finally replicate them accurately enough to come up with our findings."
Sounds like a good rebuttal to the next time a creationist chimes in that evolution hasn't been demonstrated in a test tube. Sounds like cool work if you can get it too.
Oh hell no. The older I get the more I detest being crowded in any way, shape, or form. I've already purchased some land in a remote area, and as soon as I retire (5-8 years or so), color me GONE.
That kind of population density would end up causing me to run amok with a big can of gasoline and some matches.
What's your point? You personally don't like living in high density areas? Fine. Don't live there. The question was are people willing to live in a megabuilding of 2.3 sq km? The question was not "do you want to live there?" I'm happy for you that a day came when you decided to purchase some land in a remote area for when you retire, but the population of NYC did not pour out into the countryside the day you had your own personal epiphany.
Why is it that every time the subject comes up of higher-density living, at least one person chimes in to say that it isn't going to work because it doesn't fit in with his own individual personal taste?
Don't like city living? Fine! Don't live in a city! There are people who do like living in cities, so let them! Build a dense urban core to house the students and nurses and twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings while they sip their lattes outside the cafes, go for a jog by the waterfront, hit the bars and clubs at night, and party and hook up with their future life partners before moving to the 'burbs to have children. Nobody's forcing anyone to live in dense cities!
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it always the CEOs that are to blame, and not say, people that accept loans they can't pay because they want a nice house and they WANT IT NOW?
Same reason I would be to blame for lending $10 to a homeless tramp in the street thinking he's going to show up at the same time the next day to pay it back with interest.
That's a pity. Deep core samples from a Martian surface probe would be very cool. Think of the info you could get about the history of the planet's atmosphere and the lessons we could apply to our own.
Exactly how big is a kitchen table? Is it an official unit of measurement? While we're at it, how long is a piece of string?
No wonder the original Polar Lander crashed...
It's called PR. Making things accessible and understandable to the public in the interests of generating the public support that is needed to keep these kinds of mission going. I'm quite sure they use more accurate tolerances when calculating trajectories.
I don't know how you didn't get modded offtopic but this is the kind of market fundamentalism that got us into this mess. The problem with the financial institutions isn't too much regulation. The problem is that the people making the decisions to take risks were themselves insulated from the consequences of their gambling not paying off. If CEOs were to lose their own homes if their investments went south then they'd put systems in place to make sure their investors were a bit more careful with other peoples' money. But the 'free market' does not have any incentives built in to make this happen, hence regulation is required to fill that gap. Same as how Enron's accountants had no incentives to tell the truth, the 'free market' incentivized them to cook the books. Regulation had to come to the rescue to bring integrity to the system.
Bottom line: the free market has its place and for the most part it does its job well, but it does not always magically coincide with the public interest and it is in those cases where regulation is needed.
Atmosphere? Mars?
I'm not sure it has enough to burn something up...</p></quote>
OK then, not burn up, 'heat up to the point of melting.' Yes Mars has an atmosphere. Maybe not an oxygen-rich one, but an atmosphere nonetheless.
Thanks for the link. I actually had a hard time finding that.
I didn't realise a body could do that. Thanks!
I clicked on here hoping someone with an astrophysics or cosmology background might be able to have a stab and guessing what this thing might be, or have something interesting to say about Hubble.
Actually, Al Qaeda (as opposed to its offshoots) has been reduced to a media organisation that produces little other than propaganda videos. This will probably be a decent blow against them.
Unless Drupal already does more or less exactly what you need, it's probably as fast to author some code from scratch (or use a framework) rather than learn Drupals API. As such, I suspect this book has a limited market.
So you've used Drupal then? How do you find it?
To examine your straw man a bit closer, who's arguing that bottled water keeps people safer by enabling them to kill people with the pull of a trigger?
Let me get this straight. You see a guy passing a gun through security, getting on your flight, and you'd feel safer? How do you know he's not a criminal or a potential hijacker? I can't believe the responses this sig is getting, I can't believe anyone in their right mind would actually advocate removing the ban on carry weapons onto planes. No wonder the country's in a mess.
Quite right. And petrol going from $1.10/gallon to $4/gallon is no big deal either, it's only $2.90 worth of difference. There are more pressing issues than gas prices, like healthcare, crime etc.
Go back to the abacus. Computers are overrated. Penthouse can take over the only other computer function.
Actually, I remember seeing a documentary showing kids in Asian countries learning how to perform calculations using an abacus. They become lightening fast with it, some even able to do calculations 'in their heads' using an imaginary abacus. It helps them to visualize numbers and visualize the processes of arithmetic.
How can you know this without knowing the outcome ahead of time?
Such as...? And how do you define 'payoff?'
Which is it? Is the search for life exciting or isn't it?
Huh? 'Cool photographs' are better than performing actual science to answer one of the greatest questions that has been on the minds of man ever since we discovered that ours was not the only world in the universe? What's it going to be next? Canceling experiments on the ISS to make way for a weekend visit by Paris Hilton?
OK, I'll give you that the likes of the Apollo program might have had a skewed ratio of scientific usefulness to inspirational value, but I have my doubts that cool photography from Mars is more inspiring than the possibility of finding evidence of life there.
I wonder if it has his voice and attitude too?
Is this a book review or a political tract ?
It's a review. One that beats the hell out of the usual "Table of Contents" reviews that get posted here.
The ASA aren't 'government bureaucrats.' TFA is as misleading as the Apple ad.
I 'believe' that the Earth was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do you have scientific research that would make this false or, since it's my idea, is the burden of proof not on me to prove that it is true?
Actually I believe we all evolve. I just don't think they were a separate species in the scientific meaning of the word. I think if I met a Neanderthal today I could make woopy with one and create a viable offspring.
You 'think' so? Why do you 'think' so? Because you're aware of research that makes this possible or because you want it to be true?
The researchers found that their research was so easy, a homo sapiens could do it.
Easy? Dunno about that. From TFA #1 (or 0 if you count from 0):
Sounds like a good rebuttal to the next time a creationist chimes in that evolution hasn't been demonstrated in a test tube. Sounds like cool work if you can get it too.
Oh hell no. The older I get the more I detest being crowded in any way, shape, or form. I've already purchased some land in a remote area, and as soon as I retire (5-8 years or so), color me GONE.
That kind of population density would end up causing me to run amok with a big can of gasoline and some matches.
What's your point? You personally don't like living in high density areas? Fine. Don't live there. The question was are people willing to live in a megabuilding of 2.3 sq km? The question was not "do you want to live there?" I'm happy for you that a day came when you decided to purchase some land in a remote area for when you retire, but the population of NYC did not pour out into the countryside the day you had your own personal epiphany.
Why is it that every time the subject comes up of higher-density living, at least one person chimes in to say that it isn't going to work because it doesn't fit in with his own individual personal taste?
Don't like city living? Fine! Don't live in a city! There are people who do like living in cities, so let them! Build a dense urban core to house the students and nurses and twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings while they sip their lattes outside the cafes, go for a jog by the waterfront, hit the bars and clubs at night, and party and hook up with their future life partners before moving to the 'burbs to have children. Nobody's forcing anyone to live in dense cities!
Sheesh!
Global warming is a misnomer anyway - it should be called, "global climate instability."
How about 'Intelligent Heating?'
The global warming platform from the Republican party is to shoot into the air and yell "yeeehaww!" a bunch.
They must be taking their science advice from the same people who give them foreign policy advice.
they intended to bring him back? I mean, its a fair question considering how much value Iran puts on a human life after all,
Why? Because they practice the death penalty and go around invading other countries and killing people? Oh wait...