China could give every adult male a tank, but it wouldn't help them pwn the US in a war unless they invade Russia first and build a bridge across the Bering Strait. The US would have to invade them for them to have a chance of beating us.
I remember jokes about the "Rocky" series of movies from back in the day. (I believe they were the first series of movies to make a part III).
Perhaps the first movie titled "Part III", but Frankenstein (Universal), The Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Bowery Boys, The Thin Man, and Tarzan all produced more than two sequels. The Bowery Boys, I think, got into the high teens or twenties.
No, he sounds like a run of the mill social conservative. Nothing neo about him.
"Neocon" refers to a group of conservatives who used to be Trotskyites. They tend to be hard-core on foreign policy, but not social issues. George W. Bush is not a neocon. Orson Scott Card isn't a neocon. Rush Limbaugh is not a neocon.
The reason shoppers take their time buying items online is because they know that a better deal is just a click away!
Quite true. The only time I impulse-buy online is when I know without looking elsewhere that it's a good deal. For example, every few months Amazon has a crack-dealer sale on first season Fox TV series DVDs -- i.e., they'll sell 24 Season 1 for $15 knowing that most people who buy it will eventually come back for seasons 2 and 3. Since I know Fox series generally go for ~$40 online, any time I catch one of these sales, I snap up any titles I'm interested in.
Even if they list the prices on their site, if you're buying multiple items the easiest way to compare between sites is to load up a bunch of carts and see which one has the cheapest overall price.
Well, eventually, if they are around they would find combinations that form protons, neutrons, and electrons, and miscellaneous elements and then our world.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics would tend to disagree. It took the Big Bang to make those particles, so in the absence of second one, once they break down they'll stay broke.
Ok, don't have much time, but this http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/universe.html is the first link I found. It says people aren't sure whether the universe will expand forever or if it will eventually contract.
Scientists are never sure of anything, but the current evidence points towards continued expansion.
Seems like expansion and contraction would help make sure the elementary units get mixed up sufficiently that they could form the combination that they are in today.
Ok, how bout a finite number of the elementary units that make up particles
They'll be around, but not in the form of protons, neutrons, and electrons, so they won't be able to form every possible combination, even given infinite time.
and the fact that the universe isn't supposed to expand forever.
Last I checked, universal expansion was speeding up. Do you have a contrary source?
So if there are finite particles in this universe and an infinite amount of time, isn't there a probability of 1 that the particles will arrange themselves in the same orientation they are now at some point in the future and for that matter, infinitely more times in the future?
No. While time may be infinite, most (all?) particles have limited life-spans. Plus, as the universe expands, all the particles in it will be spread over an ever increasing volume.
May seem strange but I guess the British Broadcasting Corporation cares what "the average Briton thinks"!
All fine and good, but irrelevant to the question of bias. If the average Briton thinks McDonalds is an evil corporation, that doesn't mean the BBC is unbiased if it portrays Micky-Ds as an evil corporation in its coverage.
Yes, because I see the Beeb as biased, I must automatically be a Fox-drone wing-nut. Absolutely right.
Oh, no, wait, it isn't.
Sorry to disappoint you, but real people aren't stereotypes, and you can't defeat them with straw-men. I think Fox is every bit as biased as the BBC, Guardian, NY Times, or Pravda. Try again.
I don't think that is bias. You seem to be suggesting that if it weren't for the BBC the british would love guns just as much as the americans.
I said no such thing. "Bias" doesn't imply a deliberate attempt to shape public opinion. An unbiased news source is one that doesn't slant coverage in any direction, even if it conforms to public opinion.
In actual fact here reporting was reflecting the fact that your average man on the street in Britain is opposed to gun public ownership.
First off, I was watching the BBC World News intended for a global audience. And who cares what the average Briton thinks? The news is about facts, and facts don't change because 51% of the population disagrees with them. If the reporter wanted to discuss how Americans view guns, fine, but insinuating her own "guns, ooky" attitude into the piece was bias, plain and simple.
The BBC is a well-respected source of unbiased news.
No, it's horribly biased by British culture. I remember during the DC sniper case, their American correspondent couldn't get it through her head that Americans weren't going to rise up and demand a national gun ban. She went into a gun-store like it was a weapons depot in some third-world country.
The only solutions are to reduce the power of the government, and/or to move these powers to more regional authorities (thus increasing the cost require to influence the entire nation).
That's impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
Just because the military is involved in getting aid relief to combat zones doesn't make a water purifier a military tool.
Quite right. The fact that the military wants soldiers to have man-portable filtration systems so they can drink from local supplies rather than relying upon supply lines is what makes them military tools.
the background theme is a kind of "the US civil war, but in the future, except the other side won" thing.
No, the pro-union industrialized society won in both cases. The interesting thing about the Alliance is that they aren't really bad-guys. Sure, there's the Blue Hand Group, but they're a cabal within the military/industrial complex, not the government itself. When we see the Alliance military, they're generally patrolling the spaceways, transporting medicines, or looking for fugitives. The crew of Serentiy bad-mouths the Alliance a lot, but that's because they're criminals -- smuggling, thieving, and scavenging around derelict space-ships.
You are more than welcome to extrapolate a brainwashing statement out of my comment, but I have not indicated anything insiduous on MS's behalf. This is a nurture argument if you haven't achieved the intellect to go to college and take Psych 101.
"The MS-create-a-lemming program" sounds like a deliberate attempt to alter behavior -- i.e., brainwashing -- rather than mere nurture. After all, you wouldn't say that someone who was raised in a house filled with books is a lemming for reading a lot.
But I'm not impressed with Open Office's load times. One of the reasons we aren't moving more people to this particular open source package is that it typically takes 5 times as long to open the Text Document app if you don't have the tasktray icon loading.
Even with the quick-launch loaded, it takes OO.o ungodly long to open. And on top of that, the quick-launcher takes forever to load. I have 16 programs that automatically load on start-up (everything from my wireless network connection, to Folding@home, to my firewall, to Firefox and Thunderbird), and 15 of them are up and running within two minutes of logon; the OO.o icon usually doesn't appear for another two minutes.
Know what? Know that your "feeling" of a GUI is driven from the fact that MS has 20 yrs to mold it. Where else would you have developed a compass for what is right and wrong with a GUI?
Yeah, that's it. Anyone who doesn't like OO.o's interface must've been brainwashed by Microsoft. It couldn't be a problem with OO.o. Nope, no way, nuh-uh.
Look, I think Office's GUI sucks. But, frankly, OO.o's is Linda Lovelace in Deep Throat. The fact that it took me half an hour to clear all the useless junk off the tool-bars and replace it with buttons that I actually use, is absurd. There's no reason why line-spacing shouldn't be part of the default toolbar on a word-processor.
He didn't say faster and smaller are less. He said it's faster and smaller than OO.o and offers less than Word. Which it does. And that's a good thing. For most people, a word-processor only needs to be a text editor with some basic layout functions, not desk-top publishing software, which Word and OO.o are trying to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is, but it's already a lot better MS Office, and doesn't have annoying clips, dogs and cats either.
No, it just has that stupid sun that appears anytime you do anything and says, for example, "If you want to type, press the keys on your keyboard."
If you strike it down, it will only become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
So, I suspect the machine is compromised, I should store my password in clear text somewhere on that machine? I don't think so.
So get one of the numerous programs for storing passwords in an encrypted database.
China could give every adult male a tank, but it wouldn't help them pwn the US in a war unless they invade Russia first and build a bridge across the Bering Strait. The US would have to invade them for them to have a chance of beating us.
I remember jokes about the "Rocky" series of movies from back in the day. (I believe they were the first series of movies to make a part III).
Perhaps the first movie titled "Part III", but Frankenstein (Universal), The Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Bowery Boys, The Thin Man, and Tarzan all produced more than two sequels. The Bowery Boys, I think, got into the high teens or twenties.
He sounds like an neo-con.
No, he sounds like a run of the mill social conservative. Nothing neo about him.
"Neocon" refers to a group of conservatives who used to be Trotskyites. They tend to be hard-core on foreign policy, but not social issues. George W. Bush is not a neocon. Orson Scott Card isn't a neocon. Rush Limbaugh is not a neocon.
The reason shoppers take their time buying items online is because they know that a better deal is just a click away!
Quite true. The only time I impulse-buy online is when I know without looking elsewhere that it's a good deal. For example, every few months Amazon has a crack-dealer sale on first season Fox TV series DVDs -- i.e., they'll sell 24 Season 1 for $15 knowing that most people who buy it will eventually come back for seasons 2 and 3. Since I know Fox series generally go for ~$40 online, any time I catch one of these sales, I snap up any titles I'm interested in.
Even if they list the prices on their site, if you're buying multiple items the easiest way to compare between sites is to load up a bunch of carts and see which one has the cheapest overall price.
Well, eventually, if they are around they would find combinations that form protons, neutrons, and electrons, and miscellaneous elements and then our world.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics would tend to disagree. It took the Big Bang to make those particles, so in the absence of second one, once they break down they'll stay broke.
Ok, don't have much time, but this http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/universe.html is the first link I found. It says people aren't sure whether the universe will expand forever or if it will eventually contract.
Scientists are never sure of anything, but the current evidence points towards continued expansion.
Seems like expansion and contraction would help make sure the elementary units get mixed up sufficiently that they could form the combination that they are in today.
You're begging the question.
Ok, how bout a finite number of the elementary units that make up particles
They'll be around, but not in the form of protons, neutrons, and electrons, so they won't be able to form every possible combination, even given infinite time.
and the fact that the universe isn't supposed to expand forever.
Last I checked, universal expansion was speeding up. Do you have a contrary source?
So if there are finite particles in this universe and an infinite amount of time, isn't there a probability of 1 that the particles will arrange themselves in the same orientation they are now at some point in the future and for that matter, infinitely more times in the future?
No. While time may be infinite, most (all?) particles have limited life-spans. Plus, as the universe expands, all the particles in it will be spread over an ever increasing volume.
May seem strange but I guess the British Broadcasting Corporation cares what "the average Briton thinks"!
All fine and good, but irrelevant to the question of bias. If the average Briton thinks McDonalds is an evil corporation, that doesn't mean the BBC is unbiased if it portrays Micky-Ds as an evil corporation in its coverage.
Yes, because I see the Beeb as biased, I must automatically be a Fox-drone wing-nut. Absolutely right.
Oh, no, wait, it isn't.
Sorry to disappoint you, but real people aren't stereotypes, and you can't defeat them with straw-men. I think Fox is every bit as biased as the BBC, Guardian, NY Times, or Pravda. Try again.
I don't think that is bias. You seem to be suggesting that if it weren't for the BBC the british would love guns just as much as the americans.
I said no such thing. "Bias" doesn't imply a deliberate attempt to shape public opinion. An unbiased news source is one that doesn't slant coverage in any direction, even if it conforms to public opinion.
In actual fact here reporting was reflecting the fact that your average man on the street in Britain is opposed to gun public ownership.
First off, I was watching the BBC World News intended for a global audience. And who cares what the average Briton thinks? The news is about facts, and facts don't change because 51% of the population disagrees with them. If the reporter wanted to discuss how Americans view guns, fine, but insinuating her own "guns, ooky" attitude into the piece was bias, plain and simple.
The BBC is a well-respected source of unbiased news.
No, it's horribly biased by British culture. I remember during the DC sniper case, their American correspondent couldn't get it through her head that Americans weren't going to rise up and demand a national gun ban. She went into a gun-store like it was a weapons depot in some third-world country.
The only solutions are to reduce the power of the government, and/or to move these powers to more regional authorities (thus increasing the cost require to influence the entire nation).
That's impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
He was beta-testing how the spiders handle robots.txt files and accidently made Google think he didn't exist. And now he doesn't.
Just because the military is involved in getting aid relief to combat zones doesn't make a water purifier a military tool.
Quite right. The fact that the military wants soldiers to have man-portable filtration systems so they can drink from local supplies rather than relying upon supply lines is what makes them military tools.
Illiad
Repeat after me: The Iliad will not make me ill, and there's nothing odd about the Odyssey.
The plants growing on Wash's console though are concerning....
That's This Land where the dinosaurs live.
the background theme is a kind of "the US civil war, but in the future, except the other side won" thing.
No, the pro-union industrialized society won in both cases. The interesting thing about the Alliance is that they aren't really bad-guys. Sure, there's the Blue Hand Group, but they're a cabal within the military/industrial complex, not the government itself. When we see the Alliance military, they're generally patrolling the spaceways, transporting medicines, or looking for fugitives. The crew of Serentiy bad-mouths the Alliance a lot, but that's because they're criminals -- smuggling, thieving, and scavenging around derelict space-ships.
You are more than welcome to extrapolate a brainwashing statement out of my comment, but I have not indicated anything insiduous on MS's behalf. This is a nurture argument if you haven't achieved the intellect to go to college and take Psych 101.
"The MS-create-a-lemming program" sounds like a deliberate attempt to alter behavior -- i.e., brainwashing -- rather than mere nurture. After all, you wouldn't say that someone who was raised in a house filled with books is a lemming for reading a lot.
But I'm not impressed with Open Office's load times. One of the reasons we aren't moving more people to this particular open source package is that it typically takes 5 times as long to open the Text Document app if you don't have the tasktray icon loading.
Even with the quick-launch loaded, it takes OO.o ungodly long to open. And on top of that, the quick-launcher takes forever to load. I have 16 programs that automatically load on start-up (everything from my wireless network connection, to Folding@home, to my firewall, to Firefox and Thunderbird), and 15 of them are up and running within two minutes of logon; the OO.o icon usually doesn't appear for another two minutes.
Know what? Know that your "feeling" of a GUI is driven from the fact that MS has 20 yrs to mold it. Where else would you have developed a compass for what is right and wrong with a GUI?
Yeah, that's it. Anyone who doesn't like OO.o's interface must've been brainwashed by Microsoft. It couldn't be a problem with OO.o. Nope, no way, nuh-uh.
Look, I think Office's GUI sucks. But, frankly, OO.o's is Linda Lovelace in Deep Throat. The fact that it took me half an hour to clear all the useless junk off the tool-bars and replace it with buttons that I actually use, is absurd. There's no reason why line-spacing shouldn't be part of the default toolbar on a word-processor.
He didn't say faster and smaller are less. He said it's faster and smaller than OO.o and offers less than Word. Which it does. And that's a good thing. For most people, a word-processor only needs to be a text editor with some basic layout functions, not desk-top publishing software, which Word and OO.o are trying to be.