Personally I'm not a big fan of poisons sprayed on my food regardless of what this study says.
I'm not quite clear on just what the study says. It seems to talk about nutrition and "no health benefits." I haven't heard anyone with a clue that think there should be more vitamin c in an organically grown orange than tradtionally grown one. So that part isn't suprising.
Now, does "no health benefits" translate directly to "pesticides and other chemicals have no negative impact?" Or does it simply mean the vit. c amount is the same.
but if your prices come down to make up for that loss of value, then we can probably reach a deal.
They probably won't though, because games have gotten more expensive to make.
As a bit of an aside, the fact that game publishers/developers argue against selling used games has always seemed silly to me. I'm willing to bet that the majority of money that people get from selling old games gets put towards buying new games. The person who couldn't sell their old game wouldn't have as much money to spend on new stuff. And it's not like everyone who buys used games today would just shrug their shoulders and go buy a full-price copy instead.
This is true too; and from another angle I got Fallout 3 used recently, and will get all the PS3 content as soon as its on PSN. I also discovered Oblivion, and picked up the GofY edition new.
The problem of cars "clumping" is due to the "rule abiding" drivers following each other too closely. This is in fact not rule abiding.
I didn't see anywhere in the study that said the rule abiding drivers were following too closely. Given that the simulation had most following the rules, I'd say that they were in fact NOT following too close... but because they all drive similarly they are "grouped" together. You can see this after a light... if everyone more or less accelerates at the same rate and then goes the same speed, they all tend to stay clumped together. If one person is following the rules but going lower than the posted limit, other CAN be following in a group without following too closely.
You mean the same contract which every other mobile carrier has, thus leaving you with a choice of "have a mobile phone or not?" Thats coersive, and only works because mobile carries dicate which phones you can use. If we had to buy phones seperately from service, we'd have better phones at lower prices, and there'd be no need for a contract. But that's not what the phone companies want, because thye want to force you to sign up for at least a year, in some cases two, and use the early termination fee as a hammer to stifle competition.
I have to agree. Google seems like its getting gamed more often, and I REALLY hate that it decides that no, I didn't REALLY want the word "disconnected" in my search. I mean, its just as common as "the" right?
Have you used Bing? It kind of sucks. I can only hope it gets better but I don't know - lots of people complain it won't index their websites although I've had no trouble in that area.
Ya, but its better than Live was. Yahoo I have given up on using for search years ago, it seemed on par with Live.
I also didn't like how ActiveX morphed from a special browser-only technology into a synonym for COM and then into a replacement for OLE. At least now we've got.NET which promises to rid us of C++ once and for all.
ActiveX was designed to replace the overly complex COM way of building components. It was added to the browser later to provide a richer browser experience. I'm not sure I see C++ going anywhere, and you can build ActiveX components using C#.
Whoever thought making C/C++ an implementation language for anything as complicated as an OS ought to be shot. The number of possible vulnerabilities is through the roof, as this latest patch shows.
C was used because it was more productive then assembler, but still performed very well. Of course being so close to the metal means that its easier for programmers to screw up... but I'm not sure C# will be used to build the base of an OS anytime soon. You'd almost have to make the CLR the OS... which while an interesting idea not one I think we'd see soon.
In my experience as a landlord, most problems occur as a direct result of actions taken by the tenants. In this case, spilling water and not immediately cleaning it up will cause mold. This happens because the tenants don't "own" the property they are living in. Cleaning up requires effort, and there's no incentive on the part of the tenants to do this.
Doesn't matter; its still your responsiblity to remove the mold, remove the fire hazard, etc. If you want to sue the tenent because they were careless, that's one thing.. but its your responsiblity as landlord to maintain the building. I suspect you also have a lease saying the tennent CANNOT make any major changes to the building.. perhaps even forbidding painting the walls a different color (every lease I've signed has).
Mold is (apparently) completely blown out of proportion by companies that want to be paid to remove it. Yes, toxic mold does occasionally happen and it should be dealt with... but it's extremely rare.
Mold can be much more serious than you seem to think. No one is saying mold is now everywhere, but if it does appear it needs to be removed ASAP, because it very likely can be a health problem... and those problems may not show up for your tennant for YEARS. http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/oii/mold/healtheffects.html
Telling a story far and wide, knowing that it would do harm, without some cause to spread the story may be seen as a deliberately savage attack.
So you're saying that one can't tell honest stories about their of lives, just because it would damage the reputation of another? I don't think that matters.. if its true its true, and perhaps the one being "damanged" should have not gotten the bad rep to begin with.
Of course you're correct about truth being an absolute defense against libel in the USA, but why does everyone assume that the claim is actually true? It might be, it might not - we don't know.
I would tend to think its true; it'd be an odd thing to tweet if it wasn't, especially as a joke.
Non state actors do not give a shit to the population of the host country, and they are too dispersed to be counter-nuked.
I disagree. If the non-state actors cause harm to the population of the host country, the host country will crack down real quick on them before the host country is nuked. Also, the non-state actors aren't functioning in a vacuum either; they NEED the host country to move, trade with, get ammo from, etc.
Even if they don't care, losing 80% of your population pretty much ensures you lost the war, and thus will no longer be in power. So no, they wouldn't still "survive" because there'd be no one left to build the machinery needed to ensure they survive.
Goods guys do not have or develop mass murdering weapons
Many would argue that the war with Japan would have continued, taking a huge loss of life, more than killed by the nuclear blasts. Some would even argue that Japan would pretty much fight to the last man...
What exactly do you propose when actual bad guys develop such weapons? Detterence worked because both sides had the same capability... but if only one side has that capablity, and they are bent on ruling the world... how exactly do you propose we defeat them?
The US seems quite content to invade countries who don't have nuclear weapons and hold discussions with countries who do have nuclear weapons, not the brightest message if you want to limit nuclear proliferation.
And what do you propose? You offer a lot of critism, but not much else. Should we invade yet another country, when we can barely afford the two wars we have now? Shall we send in troops, knowing they very well could be burned in a nuclear fire (which would happen in a country friendly to us too)?
Of course if there were no threats in the world, the US couldn't justify maintaining its arsenal. But pretending that by the US reducing its arsenal it would cause the other nations or groups that want to attack to simply go away is stupid.
No, I insult you for amusement, and because you so thoroughly deserve it.
It amuses you to not have a point, and to type crap I don't give a shit about?
I've made my point several times, and you ignore it like a creationist.
Funny, because you keep repeating the same thing over and over, ignoring the points I've made. That's ok, just keep bleating "broken window fallacy" while we're not even talking about breaking something with already works. If it makes you feel like you actually have some intelligence, go for it. Ignorance is bliss I guess... and you should know.
Heh.. nice rationalization "I can't get the hot, thin pretty girls, so I'm going to make myself think this 250lbs porker is more beautiful than them."
There have been a lot of studies lately that show what men typically think is "beautiful" are indicators of fertility.. so beauty seems to have a strong biological component to it.
I think that would be accurate, since its well known obese women have a much harder time having kids, and have more problems during pregnency, and increases chance for birth defects.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe he killed his wife and needs some time to remove the passenger front seat. Takes some time to clean up you know? Geez, cut him some slack!
Personally I'm not a big fan of poisons sprayed on my food regardless of what this study says.
I'm not quite clear on just what the study says. It seems to talk about nutrition and "no health benefits." I haven't heard anyone with a clue that think there should be more vitamin c in an organically grown orange than tradtionally grown one. So that part isn't suprising.
Now, does "no health benefits" translate directly to "pesticides and other chemicals have no negative impact?" Or does it simply mean the vit. c amount is the same.
but if your prices come down to make up for that loss of value, then we can probably reach a deal.
They probably won't though, because games have gotten more expensive to make.
As a bit of an aside, the fact that game publishers/developers argue against selling used games has always seemed silly to me. I'm willing to bet that the majority of money that people get from selling old games gets put towards buying new games. The person who couldn't sell their old game wouldn't have as much money to spend on new stuff. And it's not like everyone who buys used games today would just shrug their shoulders and go buy a full-price copy instead.
This is true too; and from another angle I got Fallout 3 used recently, and will get all the PS3 content as soon as its on PSN. I also discovered Oblivion, and picked up the GofY edition new.
Only if you don't mind substandard crap that will break or has been censored for you.
Yes, those people find me suddenly cutting in front of them. Enought with driving in the left lane; its ALSO illegal in many states.
The problem of cars "clumping" is due to the "rule abiding" drivers following each other too closely. This is in fact not rule abiding.
I didn't see anywhere in the study that said the rule abiding drivers were following too closely. Given that the simulation had most following the rules, I'd say that they were in fact NOT following too close... but because they all drive similarly they are "grouped" together. You can see this after a light... if everyone more or less accelerates at the same rate and then goes the same speed, they all tend to stay clumped together. If one person is following the rules but going lower than the posted limit, other CAN be following in a group without following too closely.
It did, and said the best percentage of jerks is 40. 100% of people being jerks causes jams too.
You mean the same contract which every other mobile carrier has, thus leaving you with a choice of "have a mobile phone or not?" Thats coersive, and only works because mobile carries dicate which phones you can use. If we had to buy phones seperately from service, we'd have better phones at lower prices, and there'd be no need for a contract. But that's not what the phone companies want, because thye want to force you to sign up for at least a year, in some cases two, and use the early termination fee as a hammer to stifle competition.
Irrelevent, since VZW likely had coverage in his home area.. otherwise why would he use them?
Ya, that's why two smaller companies merging to take on a big competitor never works.
I have to agree. Google seems like its getting gamed more often, and I REALLY hate that it decides that no, I didn't REALLY want the word "disconnected" in my search. I mean, its just as common as "the" right?
Have you used Bing? It kind of sucks. I can only hope it gets better but I don't know - lots of people complain it won't index their websites although I've had no trouble in that area.
Ya, but its better than Live was. Yahoo I have given up on using for search years ago, it seemed on par with Live.
I also didn't like how ActiveX morphed from a special browser-only technology into a synonym for COM and then into a replacement for OLE. At least now we've got .NET which promises to rid us of C++ once and for all.
ActiveX was designed to replace the overly complex COM way of building components. It was added to the browser later to provide a richer browser experience. I'm not sure I see C++ going anywhere, and you can build ActiveX components using C#.
Whoever thought making C/C++ an implementation language for anything as complicated as an OS ought to be shot. The number of possible vulnerabilities is through the roof, as this latest patch shows.
C was used because it was more productive then assembler, but still performed very well. Of course being so close to the metal means that its easier for programmers to screw up... but I'm not sure C# will be used to build the base of an OS anytime soon. You'd almost have to make the CLR the OS... which while an interesting idea not one I think we'd see soon.
Ya, tell it to Opera.
In my experience as a landlord, most problems occur as a direct result of actions taken by the tenants. In this case, spilling water and not immediately cleaning it up will cause mold. This happens because the tenants don't "own" the property they are living in. Cleaning up requires effort, and there's no incentive on the part of the tenants to do this.
Doesn't matter; its still your responsiblity to remove the mold, remove the fire hazard, etc. If you want to sue the tenent because they were careless, that's one thing.. but its your responsiblity as landlord to maintain the building. I suspect you also have a lease saying the tennent CANNOT make any major changes to the building.. perhaps even forbidding painting the walls a different color (every lease I've signed has).
Mold is (apparently) completely blown out of proportion by companies that want to be paid to remove it. Yes, toxic mold does occasionally happen and it should be dealt with... but it's extremely rare.
Mold can be much more serious than you seem to think. No one is saying mold is now everywhere, but if it does appear it needs to be removed ASAP, because it very likely can be a health problem... and those problems may not show up for your tennant for YEARS. http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/oii/mold/healtheffects.html
Telling a story far and wide, knowing that it would do harm, without some cause to spread the story may be seen as a deliberately savage attack.
So you're saying that one can't tell honest stories about their of lives, just because it would damage the reputation of another? I don't think that matters.. if its true its true, and perhaps the one being "damanged" should have not gotten the bad rep to begin with.
Of course you're correct about truth being an absolute defense against libel in the USA, but why does everyone assume that the claim is actually true? It might be, it might not - we don't know.
I would tend to think its true; it'd be an odd thing to tweet if it wasn't, especially as a joke.
That's all MS has to do, remove the IE icon too... but that hasn't been good enough.
or Raven Rock if the Pentagon has already been destroyed by a nuclear strike
Well, lets hope that doesn't happen. I don't trust President Eden. Fortunately, I have my acceptance letter to the nearest VaultTec Vault.
Also, doesn't the captian only have part of the code? I thought the other part had to be transmitted from command back in the US?
Non state actors do not give a shit to the population of the host country, and they are too dispersed to be counter-nuked.
I disagree. If the non-state actors cause harm to the population of the host country, the host country will crack down real quick on them before the host country is nuked. Also, the non-state actors aren't functioning in a vacuum either; they NEED the host country to move, trade with, get ammo from, etc.
Even if they don't care, losing 80% of your population pretty much ensures you lost the war, and thus will no longer be in power. So no, they wouldn't still "survive" because there'd be no one left to build the machinery needed to ensure they survive.
Goods guys do not have or develop mass murdering weapons
Many would argue that the war with Japan would have continued, taking a huge loss of life, more than killed by the nuclear blasts. Some would even argue that Japan would pretty much fight to the last man...
What exactly do you propose when actual bad guys develop such weapons? Detterence worked because both sides had the same capability... but if only one side has that capablity, and they are bent on ruling the world... how exactly do you propose we defeat them?
The US seems quite content to invade countries who don't have nuclear weapons and hold discussions with countries who do have nuclear weapons, not the brightest message if you want to limit nuclear proliferation.
And what do you propose? You offer a lot of critism, but not much else. Should we invade yet another country, when we can barely afford the two wars we have now? Shall we send in troops, knowing they very well could be burned in a nuclear fire (which would happen in a country friendly to us too)?
Of course if there were no threats in the world, the US couldn't justify maintaining its arsenal. But pretending that by the US reducing its arsenal it would cause the other nations or groups that want to attack to simply go away is stupid.
No, I insult you for amusement, and because you so thoroughly deserve it.
It amuses you to not have a point, and to type crap I don't give a shit about?
I've made my point several times, and you ignore it like a creationist.
Funny, because you keep repeating the same thing over and over, ignoring the points I've made. That's ok, just keep bleating "broken window fallacy" while we're not even talking about breaking something with already works. If it makes you feel like you actually have some intelligence, go for it. Ignorance is bliss I guess... and you should know.
Heh.. nice rationalization "I can't get the hot, thin pretty girls, so I'm going to make myself think this 250lbs porker is more beautiful than them."
There have been a lot of studies lately that show what men typically think is "beautiful" are indicators of fertility.. so beauty seems to have a strong biological component to it.
I think that would be accurate, since its well known obese women have a much harder time having kids, and have more problems during pregnency, and increases chance for birth defects.