Also another point proving that environmental groups are retarded: Both in Canada and the USA so called environmental groups have delayed, or destroyed proposed off shore wind farms due to its negative aesthetic impact to the landscape.
i.e. They think they look ugly, and will drop the prices of their yuppie cottages, so screw that wind power! Put it someplace poor people live! (Never mind the best place is off shore for efficiency)
In my mind environmentalists have to take a dose of reality when it comes to energy. I am not entirely unconvinced that they think it will come from rainbows and fairy dust.
Shut down coal. OK I agree. Stop using fossil fuels, also agree. No more Nukes... Wha? Ok tell me where are you going to get all your base energy from. Please educate me. OK I have added up all your renewable energy sources and get about 1/10 of what you need, and that is not base, but fluctuating. There isn't enough hydro to run everything off that alone. Conservation and Co-generation, both excellent ideas, I agree, you now just need about 1/2 your energy coming from someplace...
The greenies have to figure it out that Nukes are both clean and safe energy. The only deterrent to Nuke is that it is super expensive to build up front and takes a long time to build. This might have something to do with the fact that no one is building new ones, or advancing the technology with the exception of France, Japan, and perhaps Russia. China is supposed to build a bunch, but they use technology from others to do so and have none of their own. They also are addicted to cheap cheap coal just like the USA.
Anyway I find it frustrating to talk to any environmentalists as so many just puke up the dogma they picked up along the way and are close minded and not pragmatic or practical at all.
I know nothing of the Quran, but likely it is a product of the times it was written.
I am pretty sure folks in every faith, Christian included, a long time ago used to marry off little girls to men all the time. Heck I think I recall that in Canada (which isn't even 150 years old) the age of marriage was 12, before it was eventually changed to 16 (current). Go back into the dark ages in the 1200's and I am sure it happened all the time. Now go back another 1000 years and I have no doubt not only was it common, but morally acceptable. Likely has something to do with when someone could biologically have kids, and the fact that life expectancy was like 30 or 40 if you lived a full life. (you might also have to spit out 8 or 12 kids and hope a couple of them survive...)
The big question here is, do you follow to the letter a document that has remained unchanged since then, even though time has marched on to make it not morally unacceptable anymore. If your a nut job, maybe you do. Anyway just sayin' that this wouldn't just be limited to Muslims.
If the US gets into a firefight nuke party with Russia, all the interceptor missiles in the world ain't gonna make a difference. Your all fucked.
Who else can reach the US with an ICBM? China and what, maybe France? I would have to say the least likely scenario would be France launching a nuke at anyone, let alone the USA. China? As much as the US likes to demonize them, they are so economically linked at the hip now, war of either kind between them would destroy them just as much as the few nukes China has (comparitavly speaking of course).
NK?Pakistan? They can barely build a rocket that can get past their own boarders, let alone travel half way across the world in any sort of accurate ballistic way.
India? Dunno, they MIGHT have an ICBM capability because they have a space program, but even still I really doubt it. Also like France they only have a hand full of the suckers.
Israel? Again no range, and even if they did, it would be aimed someplace else.
So the big defence contract question is, who exactly are they creating this weapon system to defend against? The boogyman?
Particularly when Sony can point the finger and say, "Hey its not us with the requirement, that's EA (or whoever), its not our fault" while at the same time offering incentives or kickbacks to publishers that only develop for their premium service. Publishers will justify their greed by saying that it needed to use the premium service to "ensure the best quality play experience for their users", because you know, "they are all about quality".
Meanwhile at the legion of doom: Users see features being limited and costs increasing.
Same BS, over and over again, just different bat time, and different bat place.
Buy Sony and you get what you pay for... Well maybe not, they might just take it away, or limit your use. Its only fair, I mean its not like you own it or anything, or were sold something that was advertised with certain features or anything... right?
I am going to go out on a limb here and call it right now. Sony is going to screw everyone it can.
I remember hearing someplace about a study done on the NHL that showed statistically if you wore a black or dark colored hockey jersey you were statistically more likely to get penalized by the referees, while if you wore a white or light colored hockey jersey you would be less penalized.
Of course this could have more to do that all teams have two jersey's, a light and dark, one for home games, and one for away games, and that could be the determinate factor. In either case at least statistically there seemed a bias one way or another.
I suppose that is why there is a mainstream TV show called "Cougar Town": "The series focuses on a recently divorced woman who reenters a dating scene filled with younger men (making her a "cougar", hence the series title)..."
As a Canadian this is something I didn't know. I count myself educated now. Personally I think it is a stupid, unjust way of dealing with situations such as these.
If the crime was so heinous, or the criminal that dangerous, then have the balls and the responsibility of throwing them in jail for life up front. None of this "we might throw you in jail for 10 years but really it is a life sentence under review every 7 years, as decided by a parole board, to which you have to prove your not dangerous anymore" bullshit. If 20 or 30 years down the road you believe (or whatever duration you allow for parole for the particular offense) them to be no longer a danger, and has served just punishment, then have the parole board release them.
To do otherwise to me sounds sneaky and underhanded. Be upfront about sentencing and have provisions for leniency if warranted (or not). Also to prove your not a danger, seems counter to our legal system in general. The burden of evidence should always been on the crown.
Your health, your responsibility. Period. Many doctors can be dismissive, usually with good cause, that is their experience. However even good doctors can be surprised. None are suspecting that rare condition. The only way they will test for it is if you are insistent. Some not even then, in which case you shouldn't be afraid to see a new doctor. The internet is a powerful tool, and can be very useful for a savvy user. One just has to be aware that not all sites are reputable or of the same quality. Also there is a lot of things out there, and to not get worked up about what could be wrong with you and looking at worst case scenarios. Finally, your not a doctor, so using your own judgement and what you can glean from the internet, go see a doctor is you feel the need to. True story: I felt I was having trouble breathing and chest pain. This was dismissed as stress (I was young 30). However having read too much about worse case, quickly turned into panic attacks and anxiety making it worse in a sort of feedback loop. Anyway I figured it out, but it wasn't fun. During this time I remember talking to a friend of mine who gave me the speech about being your own health advocate, and being responsible for your health not a doctor. When she was younger (early 20's) she was dismissed by many doctors, but through persistence was diagnosed with cancer. Which she beat. However had she not been as persistant things might have been different. She was young, and healthy, and it was a rare diagnoses, but it happens.
So I guess what I am trying to say is that: 1) Ultimately your health is your own responsibility using the internet to help you is a good idea, 2) However temper your imagination, and try not to get worked up about possible outcomes.
Only government authorized Goodspeak and Rightspeak is allowed. All other speak to be brain censored and removal warrants will be issued. Thought monitors will be installed on first offerenders as a corrective measure to save the children from being exposed to such filth.
I also hope the Court's decision is read like "The court finds for the fucking plaintiff, and orders Pennsylvania to fuck off!"
Ya in defense of the Trolls, it is likely hard to tell one activity from another.
I remember the story of the guy who invented "intermittent wipers". He showed the idea to Ford (I think) in an attempt to sell them the idea, and they just stole it and used it. I am pretty sure the guy was successful (eventually) in suing Ford.
But there is an example of a legitimate use of a patent.
I think the fault lies with the Patent Office. In many cases the Patents in question are so vague and open than they could apply to anything. These are what the Patent trolls use to make their money. They come up with thousands of vague ideas, and sit on them, waiting for someone else to make something similar, then they sue. This is counter to the whole idea of Patents which is to promote innovation.
The difficulty that the Patent Office has (and I see no solution) is they they are not experts in any of the stuff being submitted, which more and more is of a very technical nature. They would have no idea what is "vague" or what is reasonable. So this is what has to be fixed as I see it. Perhaps they need to collaborate with other bodies or institutions to acquire the needed knowlege. How that works I don't know. Obviously they don't either, as this system has been broken for a long time now.
In many cases Managers don't really get it either, and many times they are the ones doing the hiring.
People make fun of the "Required X years of Y programming language" yet Y hasn't been around for X years yet. However it is sadly true, at least in a relative way.
I find myself not bothering to even apply for some jobs because of all the silly requirements they ask for. I graduated Computer Science back in 2000, so the languages I learned in University were stuff like Pascal, Cobol, C, VB, Assembly, etc... All the "newer" languages I either have no experience of very little. I have dabbled in Java and a few others, but its not like its a big part of my current job (which is more DBA focused).
So either you are coming from school with the newer languages, and thus lack the experience needed, or you do it as part of your current job, in which case unless you are unhappy, or not getting paid as much, why bother. I guess if you had a job and lost it quite recently it might work, but that's about it. The other thing is considering what some of these jobs pay. I look at the requirements, and I am thinking, IF I had those requirements what the hell would I work for you at 60k, when I could easily make more elsewhere (or even doing other things with less qualifications). The other thing I hate is when they require experience in software that costs thousands of dollars to obtain, and is not commonly taught anywhere. The only way to get the software or the training is on the job, which basically makes it impossible to break into. That is to say I basically need to be doing that job right now in order to even apply for it.
Trying to explain to HR or some managers that you have a background in programing, and that picking up a new language isn't that big a deal just doesn't fly. You are not considered, and you do not get an interview. I know one of my university friends that currently still works in the business successfully, used to just lie on his application and figure it out once he got the job (Perl, and Python he did that way). Anyway, that's all that these HR and managers are promoting, is to lie so you can get the job, not exactly the best way to go about it.
Anyway I have just recently been looking at re-evaluating my position and looking at new opportunities and these are some of the frustrations I have felt.
Slashdot Mirror
Also another point proving that environmental groups are retarded: Both in Canada and the USA so called environmental groups have delayed, or destroyed proposed off shore wind farms due to its negative aesthetic impact to the landscape.
i.e. They think they look ugly, and will drop the prices of their yuppie cottages, so screw that wind power! Put it someplace poor people live! (Never mind the best place is off shore for efficiency)
idiots.
In my mind environmentalists have to take a dose of reality when it comes to energy. I am not entirely unconvinced that they think it will come from rainbows and fairy dust.
Shut down coal. OK I agree. Stop using fossil fuels, also agree. No more Nukes... Wha? Ok tell me where are you going to get all your base energy from. Please educate me. OK I have added up all your renewable energy sources and get about 1/10 of what you need, and that is not base, but fluctuating. There isn't enough hydro to run everything off that alone. Conservation and Co-generation, both excellent ideas, I agree, you now just need about 1/2 your energy coming from someplace...
The greenies have to figure it out that Nukes are both clean and safe energy. The only deterrent to Nuke is that it is super expensive to build up front and takes a long time to build. This might have something to do with the fact that no one is building new ones, or advancing the technology with the exception of France, Japan, and perhaps Russia. China is supposed to build a bunch, but they use technology from others to do so and have none of their own. They also are addicted to cheap cheap coal just like the USA.
Anyway I find it frustrating to talk to any environmentalists as so many just puke up the dogma they picked up along the way and are close minded and not pragmatic or practical at all.
Profit!
Control the Universe!
I know nothing of the Quran, but likely it is a product of the times it was written.
I am pretty sure folks in every faith, Christian included, a long time ago used to marry off little girls to men all the time. Heck I think I recall that in Canada (which isn't even 150 years old) the age of marriage was 12, before it was eventually changed to 16 (current). Go back into the dark ages in the 1200's and I am sure it happened all the time. Now go back another 1000 years and I have no doubt not only was it common, but morally acceptable. Likely has something to do with when someone could biologically have kids, and the fact that life expectancy was like 30 or 40 if you lived a full life. (you might also have to spit out 8 or 12 kids and hope a couple of them survive...)
The big question here is, do you follow to the letter a document that has remained unchanged since then, even though time has marched on to make it not morally unacceptable anymore. If your a nut job, maybe you do. Anyway just sayin' that this wouldn't just be limited to Muslims.
Your going to give me a free upgrade to Windows 7 then right Ballmer? No, I didn't think so. FU Ballmer!
I tried to give out my DNA as much as possible. Sadly there were few takers... :(
Look who has nukes.
If the US gets into a firefight nuke party with Russia, all the interceptor missiles in the world ain't gonna make a difference. Your all fucked.
Who else can reach the US with an ICBM? China and what, maybe France? I would have to say the least likely scenario would be France launching a nuke at anyone, let alone the USA. China? As much as the US likes to demonize them, they are so economically linked at the hip now, war of either kind between them would destroy them just as much as the few nukes China has (comparitavly speaking of course).
NK?Pakistan? They can barely build a rocket that can get past their own boarders, let alone travel half way across the world in any sort of accurate ballistic way.
India? Dunno, they MIGHT have an ICBM capability because they have a space program, but even still I really doubt it. Also like France they only have a hand full of the suckers.
Israel? Again no range, and even if they did, it would be aimed someplace else.
So the big defence contract question is, who exactly are they creating this weapon system to defend against? The boogyman?
Particularly when Sony can point the finger and say, "Hey its not us with the requirement, that's EA (or whoever), its not our fault" while at the same time offering incentives or kickbacks to publishers that only develop for their premium service. Publishers will justify their greed by saying that it needed to use the premium service to "ensure the best quality play experience for their users", because you know, "they are all about quality".
Meanwhile at the legion of doom: Users see features being limited and costs increasing.
Same BS, over and over again, just different bat time, and different bat place.
Because Sony is Evil. They can't help it. Its like trying not to punch a kitten.
Buy Sony and you get what you pay for... Well maybe not, they might just take it away, or limit your use. Its only fair, I mean its not like you own it or anything, or were sold something that was advertised with certain features or anything... right?
I am going to go out on a limb here and call it right now. Sony is going to screw everyone it can.
I remember hearing someplace about a study done on the NHL that showed statistically if you wore a black or dark colored hockey jersey you were statistically more likely to get penalized by the referees, while if you wore a white or light colored hockey jersey you would be less penalized.
Of course this could have more to do that all teams have two jersey's, a light and dark, one for home games, and one for away games, and that could be the determinate factor. In either case at least statistically there seemed a bias one way or another.
Yes cougar certainly is a filthy adult term...
I suppose that is why there is a mainstream TV show called "Cougar Town": "The series focuses on a recently divorced woman who reenters a dating scene filled with younger men (making her a "cougar", hence the series title)..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_Town
For the sake of the children!
Of course it stars Courteney Cox, so perhaps it is for the sake of everyone...
As a Canadian this is something I didn't know. I count myself educated now. Personally I think it is a stupid, unjust way of dealing with situations such as these.
If the crime was so heinous, or the criminal that dangerous, then have the balls and the responsibility of throwing them in jail for life up front. None of this "we might throw you in jail for 10 years but really it is a life sentence under review every 7 years, as decided by a parole board, to which you have to prove your not dangerous anymore" bullshit. If 20 or 30 years down the road you believe (or whatever duration you allow for parole for the particular offense) them to be no longer a danger, and has served just punishment, then have the parole board release them.
To do otherwise to me sounds sneaky and underhanded. Be upfront about sentencing and have provisions for leniency if warranted (or not). Also to prove your not a danger, seems counter to our legal system in general. The burden of evidence should always been on the crown.
Anyway that's my 2 cents that doesn't matter.
"The U.S. government believes it can lie to taxpayers."
To be fair the U.S. government doesn't exactly have a monopoly on that one. Its a pretty common theme around the world.
Your health, your responsibility. Period. Many doctors can be dismissive, usually with good cause, that is their experience. However even good doctors can be surprised. None are suspecting that rare condition. The only way they will test for it is if you are insistent. Some not even then, in which case you shouldn't be afraid to see a new doctor. The internet is a powerful tool, and can be very useful for a savvy user. One just has to be aware that not all sites are reputable or of the same quality. Also there is a lot of things out there, and to not get worked up about what could be wrong with you and looking at worst case scenarios. Finally, your not a doctor, so using your own judgement and what you can glean from the internet, go see a doctor is you feel the need to. True story: I felt I was having trouble breathing and chest pain. This was dismissed as stress (I was young 30). However having read too much about worse case, quickly turned into panic attacks and anxiety making it worse in a sort of feedback loop. Anyway I figured it out, but it wasn't fun. During this time I remember talking to a friend of mine who gave me the speech about being your own health advocate, and being responsible for your health not a doctor. When she was younger (early 20's) she was dismissed by many doctors, but through persistence was diagnosed with cancer. Which she beat. However had she not been as persistant things might have been different. She was young, and healthy, and it was a rare diagnoses, but it happens.
So I guess what I am trying to say is that:
1) Ultimately your health is your own responsibility using the internet to help you is a good idea,
2) However temper your imagination, and try not to get worked up about possible outcomes.
Was supposed to read: "Don't forget the actual car advert that also can't be skipped"
Forcing you to watch commercials at the beginning of the movie.
If I pirate the movie off the Internets, then I don't have to watch the commercials. Also you can use the same argument for TV shows.
Really. Zoom Zoom.
Only government authorized Goodspeak and Rightspeak is allowed. All other speak to be brain censored and removal warrants will be issued. Thought monitors will be installed on first offerenders as a corrective measure to save the children from being exposed to such filth.
I also hope the Court's decision is read like "The court finds for the fucking plaintiff, and orders Pennsylvania to fuck off!"
Don't forget the actually car advent that also can't be skipped.
POOR IMPULSE CONTROL
"He who controls the spice, controls the universe!"
-Baron Harkonnen
Better nuke it from..... er never mind.
Ya in defense of the Trolls, it is likely hard to tell one activity from another.
I remember the story of the guy who invented "intermittent wipers". He showed the idea to Ford (I think) in an attempt to sell them the idea, and they just stole it and used it. I am pretty sure the guy was successful (eventually) in suing Ford.
But there is an example of a legitimate use of a patent.
I think the fault lies with the Patent Office. In many cases the Patents in question are so vague and open than they could apply to anything. These are what the Patent trolls use to make their money. They come up with thousands of vague ideas, and sit on them, waiting for someone else to make something similar, then they sue. This is counter to the whole idea of Patents which is to promote innovation.
The difficulty that the Patent Office has (and I see no solution) is they they are not experts in any of the stuff being submitted, which more and more is of a very technical nature. They would have no idea what is "vague" or what is reasonable. So this is what has to be fixed as I see it. Perhaps they need to collaborate with other bodies or institutions to acquire the needed knowlege. How that works I don't know. Obviously they don't either, as this system has been broken for a long time now.
In many cases Managers don't really get it either, and many times they are the ones doing the hiring.
People make fun of the "Required X years of Y programming language" yet Y hasn't been around for X years yet. However it is sadly true, at least in a relative way.
I find myself not bothering to even apply for some jobs because of all the silly requirements they ask for. I graduated Computer Science back in 2000, so the languages I learned in University were stuff like Pascal, Cobol, C, VB, Assembly, etc... All the "newer" languages I either have no experience of very little. I have dabbled in Java and a few others, but its not like its a big part of my current job (which is more DBA focused).
So either you are coming from school with the newer languages, and thus lack the experience needed, or you do it as part of your current job, in which case unless you are unhappy, or not getting paid as much, why bother. I guess if you had a job and lost it quite recently it might work, but that's about it. The other thing is considering what some of these jobs pay. I look at the requirements, and I am thinking, IF I had those requirements what the hell would I work for you at 60k, when I could easily make more elsewhere (or even doing other things with less qualifications). The other thing I hate is when they require experience in software that costs thousands of dollars to obtain, and is not commonly taught anywhere. The only way to get the software or the training is on the job, which basically makes it impossible to break into. That is to say I basically need to be doing that job right now in order to even apply for it.
Trying to explain to HR or some managers that you have a background in programing, and that picking up a new language isn't that big a deal just doesn't fly. You are not considered, and you do not get an interview. I know one of my university friends that currently still works in the business successfully, used to just lie on his application and figure it out once he got the job (Perl, and Python he did that way). Anyway, that's all that these HR and managers are promoting, is to lie so you can get the job, not exactly the best way to go about it.
Anyway I have just recently been looking at re-evaluating my position and looking at new opportunities and these are some of the frustrations I have felt.
in 3... 2... 1
Which is why George W picked Iraq as the Axis of Evil to attack...
I mean you can't have snappy lines like "We will bomb them into the dark ages" when they already are...literally!
Also bombers could never finds targets, too dark!
Whatever I am kidding.