I'd just like to add - in no way is anyone OBLIGED to buy a product from the adverts. There is such thing as free will. If you spend money on an advertised product you see on a billboard on the way to work on the train, it does not mean that train journey cost you more money.
*head explodes with frustration at stupid comments*
My oh my the stupidity that sometimes lies here. Don't feed the trolls, but sometimes they need it ramming down their throat.
"someone's wallet is definitely losing money when the only thing they were looking for in the first place was information."
YES. THE ADVERTISER IS SPENDING THIS MONEY... except they're generally not 'LOSING MONEY', as the purpose of advertising is to promote your product for less money than you will get back from the increased consumer base and sales as a result of the advertising.
The viewers don't pay. That's the point. I can go to this site once or 10000 times and it will not cost me a penny aside from my usual internet access fees. I DON'T PAY. It is a FREE SERVICE to the end user.
Advertising in -pedias is a contentious issue and I'm not sure I agree wholeheartedly with it, but for gods sake, stop spreading such bullshit which is entirely false.
Most of the time they are looking for/evidence/ of life, not necessarily life itself. Shoving a rock in a spaceship for a year or so is a pretty good way to kill any life that was in it as it is....
It'd also be handy just to check out the exact composition of the rock/soil.
Yes, sending it back, barrel by barrel. The cheapest way to get oil by far! Just think of the benefits, along with the perpetual motion machine they'll send to transport it all!
They have to travel through our airspace and out through the atmosphere first....that's where you don't want them to blow up...
We already have some nuclear powered crafts up in space, just none with any significant payload as yet...I'm sure it'll happen eventually, but it is a stumbling block. I'm sure someone more informed could muscle in here with better reasons why we don't have Behemoth nuclear ships in space yet....
You are right in many many regards, however, the cost of sending humans to Mars is so unbelievably huge that it actually, despite the inanity of it, STILL costs less to make endless robot missions improving/revising a mission which didn't suit the appropriate criteria. It is true that humans with a suitably powered rover could zip around Mars and find so much more than one robot, but it would cost orders of magnitude more than just sending 10 different robots there one after the other....and even then, you'd probably have gathered the research even before the humans-to-mars R&D stage had finished.
I really really love the romanticism of humans on Mars. I really love the concept of terraforming, and I really wish it wasn't so damn dangerous to throw larger nuclear powered crafts up into space, as this could really open up possibilities, however it really is a low-return for the money you would throw at a human project.
As lovely as putting people into space is, it's expensive, risky and a hard case to argue. If we were a world all obsessed by expanding to other planets, we might even have had miniature civilisations on Mars by now, but as a whole, the obsession is looking after one self and not the far future...
I also grew up in and used to live near Barrow Gurney (Westbury-sub-Mendip) and although you say it's a great shortcut (you're right), it certainly isn't for lorries and it's beggars belief to me that they continue to pour down that road despite it being a famous lorry 'blackspot' since I was young.
I do just wish that you know, people could work out that a windy bendy road 5 miles long isn't any better than a high speed A-road 'round route' 10 miles long...
There is, Barrow Gurney is right near where I grew up and my parents still live. I now drive through there everytime I go visit, and it has always been famous for being a place where trucks get stuck - even BEFORE GPS...
There is no reason to go through Barrow Gurney any more than taking the two huge main roads that it goes between. I think it's a disgrace that lorry drivers just seem incapable of reading signs but that's not going to change... ever.... so I guess we'll continue to see idiots careering down single-lane streets with 200 year old cottages on them, until the GPS people get their arses in gear and actually design something half decent.
I was in a minicab in london the other day who had a TomTom. He tried to drive down a cyclepath.....
Blimey. I wonder if you're for real. Regardless, lets go step by step here:
> A) he inspired people to write it over a period of 2000 years So are we, like, talking Jesus now, or what? Jesus is God? I'm confused.
> B) An the reason it's distribution is so good is because it's the truth. Go on...
> I mean common, 20+ people writing a book over 2000 years, including prophecies that are fulfilled hundreds (if not thousands) of years after they are written, Like a nursery rhyme?
> with no contradictions in the book. Like Harry Potter
> No wonder it's so popular. Like Harry Potter
> Not to mention that it has the power to change lives Like Harry Potter
> (bring about world peace, etc.). Yeah, let me know when that happens.
Works an absolute treat. The only problem I've come across (aside from a few sporadic crashes) is that some of the IE version don't identify themselves as the appropriate IE version when using [If IE x] tags to call different stylesheets in the XHTML. There areregistry fixes for this, but I don't have links to hand.
Well, the argument from the more rational people and scientists (I'd hope I'm in the category) is that we are always going to pollute - in fact, all animals 'pollute', even if it's a bird crapping over a tree.
However, the view is that as we seem to have become intelligent and aware enough to know what impact we are having on what is - at least as far as we know - an incredibly unique ecosystem, we should act on this in any way we can. If environment was put before profits, bonuses, high paid city bosses, politics and greed, we would probably be a rather clean, low-polluting organism. It just so happens that all those factors slow down our adoption of said technologies.
Having said that, it could be said that without profits, bonuses, high paid city bosses, politics and greed, we would have waited a lot longer for the scientists and technology to have a proper platform to investigate climate change.
Say you had a blank planet, simcity style, and could start again; wouldn't you just put an absolutely giant solar array and/or wind array covering a huge 'reserved' area of land to cater for a lot of people for a long time? Surely that solves an immediate problem of once it's been built, they never pollute again... at least not as much as a coal plant.
Nope, it's always been that if you USE it for receiving TV signal, you need to pay the license, otherwise you don't.
I don't plug my TV into an aerial and only use it for DVDs. I don't HAVE to prove to the authority that I don't use it to watch TV - they have no right to do this unless they gain a warrant to search my house (and then would find nothing incriminating - how embarrassing for them); it just so happens that they word it very carefully as if to extort people.
That woman was a crackpot. She carried round a sodding speaker that 'converted the radiation to sound' and demonstrated how it sounded like loud static which was "clearly not good". What did she expect, the conversion to sound to sound like Beethoven or something? Idiot.
Also, a gauze? Yeah, that'll 'save' her.
I'm glad someone actually finally did an investigation of placebo here as there's far too much sensationalism about radio waves and far too little science.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd just like to add - in no way is anyone OBLIGED to buy a product from the adverts. There is such thing as free will. If you spend money on an advertised product you see on a billboard on the way to work on the train, it does not mean that train journey cost you more money.
*head explodes with frustration at stupid comments*
My oh my the stupidity that sometimes lies here. Don't feed the trolls, but sometimes they need it ramming down their throat.
"someone's wallet is definitely losing money when the only thing they were looking for in the first place was information."
YES. THE ADVERTISER IS SPENDING THIS MONEY... except they're generally not 'LOSING MONEY', as the purpose of advertising is to promote your product for less money than you will get back from the increased consumer base and sales as a result of the advertising.
The viewers don't pay. That's the point. I can go to this site once or 10000 times and it will not cost me a penny aside from my usual internet access fees. I DON'T PAY. It is a FREE SERVICE to the end user.
Advertising in -pedias is a contentious issue and I'm not sure I agree wholeheartedly with it, but for gods sake, stop spreading such bullshit which is entirely false.
Well done for making up an entirely false anecdote.
Most of the time they are looking for /evidence/ of life, not necessarily life itself. Shoving a rock in a spaceship for a year or so is a pretty good way to kill any life that was in it as it is....
It'd also be handy just to check out the exact composition of the rock/soil.
Yes, sending it back, barrel by barrel. The cheapest way to get oil by far! Just think of the benefits, along with the perpetual motion machine they'll send to transport it all!
But that's just put speculation.
I could do the same but it'd be relatively unsubstantiated too: It's also quite likely that Mars once had life and sent it our way to Earth...
Yep, they always make a profit out of principle (or good business sense..)
I've always been interested why people have a bigger issue with people talking on the phone than talking to a friend on a plane/train.
Admittedly if it's loud, it's annoying, but what's so different about a phone than a face to face conversation?
They have to travel through our airspace and out through the atmosphere first....that's where you don't want them to blow up...
We already have some nuclear powered crafts up in space, just none with any significant payload as yet...I'm sure it'll happen eventually, but it is a stumbling block. I'm sure someone more informed could muscle in here with better reasons why we don't have Behemoth nuclear ships in space yet....
You are right in many many regards, however, the cost of sending humans to Mars is so unbelievably huge that it actually, despite the inanity of it, STILL costs less to make endless robot missions improving/revising a mission which didn't suit the appropriate criteria. It is true that humans with a suitably powered rover could zip around Mars and find so much more than one robot, but it would cost orders of magnitude more than just sending 10 different robots there one after the other. ...and even then, you'd probably have gathered the research even before the humans-to-mars R&D stage had finished.
I really really love the romanticism of humans on Mars. I really love the concept of terraforming, and I really wish it wasn't so damn dangerous to throw larger nuclear powered crafts up into space, as this could really open up possibilities, however it really is a low-return for the money you would throw at a human project.
As lovely as putting people into space is, it's expensive, risky and a hard case to argue. If we were a world all obsessed by expanding to other planets, we might even have had miniature civilisations on Mars by now, but as a whole, the obsession is looking after one self and not the far future...
They are on motorcycles
I also grew up in and used to live near Barrow Gurney (Westbury-sub-Mendip) and although you say it's a great shortcut (you're right), it certainly isn't for lorries and it's beggars belief to me that they continue to pour down that road despite it being a famous lorry 'blackspot' since I was young.
I do just wish that you know, people could work out that a windy bendy road 5 miles long isn't any better than a high speed A-road 'round route' 10 miles long...
There is, Barrow Gurney is right near where I grew up and my parents still live. I now drive through there everytime I go visit, and it has always been famous for being a place where trucks get stuck - even BEFORE GPS...
There is no reason to go through Barrow Gurney any more than taking the two huge main roads that it goes between. I think it's a disgrace that lorry drivers just seem incapable of reading signs but that's not going to change... ever.... so I guess we'll continue to see idiots careering down single-lane streets with 200 year old cottages on them, until the GPS people get their arses in gear and actually design something half decent.
I was in a minicab in london the other day who had a TomTom. He tried to drive down a cyclepath.....
In your small bubble maybe. In the UK and europe the demand is growing massively.
You have a valid point, however Google /have/ been running Android on mobile handsets. You can see videos of them in action on the main site.
Nope, I loved it too. The controls are heavenly.
Blimey. I wonder if you're for real. Regardless, lets go step by step here:
> A) he inspired people to write it over a period of 2000 years
So are we, like, talking Jesus now, or what? Jesus is God? I'm confused.
> B) An the reason it's distribution is so good is because it's the truth.
Go on...
> I mean common, 20+ people writing a book over 2000 years, including prophecies that are fulfilled hundreds (if not thousands) of years after they are written,
Like a nursery rhyme?
> with no contradictions in the book.
Like Harry Potter
> No wonder it's so popular.
Like Harry Potter
> Not to mention that it has the power to change lives
Like Harry Potter
> (bring about world peace, etc.).
Yeah, let me know when that happens.
Anyway, I'm off to walk on some water...
I still want to know how this God person managed to write a book (giant paper?) and get such a good distribution deal.
Yep, I've been using this setup all on one machine for a while now:
http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE
http://tredosoft.com/IE7_standalone
Works an absolute treat. The only problem I've come across (aside from a few sporadic crashes) is that some of the IE version don't identify themselves as the appropriate IE version when using [If IE x] tags to call different stylesheets in the XHTML. There areregistry fixes for this, but I don't have links to hand.
Well, the argument from the more rational people and scientists (I'd hope I'm in the category) is that we are always going to pollute - in fact, all animals 'pollute', even if it's a bird crapping over a tree.
However, the view is that as we seem to have become intelligent and aware enough to know what impact we are having on what is - at least as far as we know - an incredibly unique ecosystem, we should act on this in any way we can. If environment was put before profits, bonuses, high paid city bosses, politics and greed, we would probably be a rather clean, low-polluting organism. It just so happens that all those factors slow down our adoption of said technologies.
Having said that, it could be said that without profits, bonuses, high paid city bosses, politics and greed, we would have waited a lot longer for the scientists and technology to have a proper platform to investigate climate change.
Say you had a blank planet, simcity style, and could start again; wouldn't you just put an absolutely giant solar array and/or wind array covering a huge 'reserved' area of land to cater for a lot of people for a long time? Surely that solves an immediate problem of once it's been built, they never pollute again... at least not as much as a coal plant.
there is a lot of gum advertising in the UK
Nope, it's always been that if you USE it for receiving TV signal, you need to pay the license, otherwise you don't.
I don't plug my TV into an aerial and only use it for DVDs. I don't HAVE to prove to the authority that I don't use it to watch TV - they have no right to do this unless they gain a warrant to search my house (and then would find nothing incriminating - how embarrassing for them); it just so happens that they word it very carefully as if to extort people.
'Innocent until proven guilty' applies here.
I always thought it was the Voyager 'probe', not satellitte. Satellitte suggests 'orbit'.
That woman was a crackpot. She carried round a sodding speaker that 'converted the radiation to sound' and demonstrated how it sounded like loud static which was "clearly not good". What did she expect, the conversion to sound to sound like Beethoven or something? Idiot.
Also, a gauze? Yeah, that'll 'save' her.
I'm glad someone actually finally did an investigation of placebo here as there's far too much sensationalism about radio waves and far too little science.
Very round logo? Impressively round?