In one model - there are 4 groups in the *bully/victim* scenario: 1. *Bullies* - who repeatedly make some sort of attack on someone who is (for some reason or another) unable to defend against it (an *asymmetric* relationship). 2. *Passive victims* - who usually don't provoke the bully, they might just be different - or weak - or handicapped - or smart - or not something...
3. *Active Victims* - who tend to be very good at getting under someone's skin - either by the way they say things (perhaps they have a great way to humiliate someone verbally) - but they usually end up seen as the ultimate victim. If you trace things back, active victims look a lot like bullies, but in a different way. They often blame others with a type of rapid revisionist history of events. 4. *Bystanders* - they tend to *normalize* what is accepted in the social setting - so what might be considered bullying by one group, might be considered *normal* by another - which is one reason why you can talk to a teenager all day about not bullying, and they have one view of what that means and sending a *mean IM* probably isn't going to be it, unless that child identifies themselves themselves as the victim.
On a related note - however kids define bullying, more than half say they have been both victims and bullies in different situations, and like all models - the *4 groups* listed above is just a handy way to help some get a handle on the way many situations play out.
HTML files created by Word are full of useless junk. (Absolutely true, of course.) He says something hand-waving-ish about if the HTML is bad, the XML is probably bad, so he's never tried the XML.
I started teaching myself html about a year and half ago. Totally a newbie. I used Word for a number of pages, and found a few frustrating things, like the head tag would always appear as whatever the first few lines were of the top text. So I learned how to edit that with a really cheap editor. Then I was curious about the folder that Word created for images. One thing I discovered was that in addition to loading the original, it also created a *very* small jpg. Now to make for much faster uploads, I create a Word web page with the image I want, save it - and then use the small jpg on the real page I am using - using html (I have much yet to learn about scripting languages). It saves space on the hosting service I am using, without all these associated folders to upload, just a few small jpgs. Image quality is not noticeably degraded for my purposes. I'm sure there are other ways to go about this. In a way - the XML showed me what I could dispense with, though I am trying to figure out what it actually does...
but I think you've missed the point that you could parade me past a hundred everyday "approved" items and I could tell you how to use 90 of them as weapons.
Well no - I think I got it exactly - No one really intent on causing harm is likely to announce their plans, and someone who is really *trained* in all manner of things can turn practically anything into a weapon - Which makes security checks basically an illusion. My point was just that *mentioning* that you are a master of death in the toothbrush and desire to use it on this flight will keep you off the flight, and perhaps arrested.
Guess maybe I should remember never to mention to the airport folks that shoelaces make a nice garrot. Nevermind a belt or the strap on a carry-on.
Way back when... When planes were hijacked to Cuba, a judge in my hometown made a joke when going through security (which was then a new thing) that he had a bomb in his carry-on(which was the *standard way* to make a threat to divert a flight). He was promptly arrested, protesting that he was Judge So and So... and that it was a joke. If I remember correctly, I think he got a judicial reprimand, but the charges were dropped.
My mother is dealing with nonresectable pancreatic cancer right now. She too has been mostly fortunate, after one round of radiation and is in her third round of chemo. She's in her early late sixties and did "all the right things" throughout her life. She was a dancer, and later a nurse, and knows what's in store.
There's a story that Utah Phillips tells about when he was in the Army in Korea. He was hot and wanted to go for a swim in this river. He could see Chinese soldiers on the far bank swimming since it was a hot day. His S. Korean companion said *we don't swim in this river.* The reason was that when a new child was born to a family, there wasn't enough food, so the oldest family member went to the banks and sat until they starved, and they honored the person by letting them float down to join the sea.
Since March of 2003, *including* the 10000-15000 Iraqis US and coalition forces are estimated to have killed during the invasion, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, on the order of the thousands.
Whether that plays out in the long run remains to be seen, but to many in Iraq, it is still seen that western policy (specifically US) - as sanctions or war - was or continues to be responsible for those deaths.
Telling someone, hey - we killed a lot less of you than we might have doesn't exactly do much to secure a place in their hearts.
Granted it will have a 68040 in it, but it will run OS 7.5 just fine.
Has there been an update? Anybody got a gopher link that describes it?
Re:Amazon is censoring - A simple questionaire
on
Katie Jones Interviewed
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"You are about to review any Amazon book, or comment on a review. Please indicate which of the following is most accurate about yourself:
(x) Gandhi took lessons from me.
( ) George Washington was a lightweight.
( ) I could pass a polygraph with a tack in my shoe.
( ) Waffle maker at the IHOP.
( ) Misson accomplished.
( ) I am not a crook.
( ) I'm an editor for Amazon book reviews.
Your input is very valuable to us, Sincerely. The editorial staff at Amazon.
Or, more germanely, that one shouldn't try to fix a problem at all, because it will still be fucked up, anyway?
Of course it will still be fucked up. It's the web. The *company* cannot be reliably counted on monitor the reviews that sadly contribute to its revenue stream. The thought that anyone with half a brain actually believes those reviews is pathetic. Check out that link again I posted - The author himself posting his own reviews - what a joke - And read further - "Internet sites like Amazon.com don't seem as concerned with conflict of interest". They only change it when it suits their purposes.
Because those reviews are obviously from people who haven't read the book.
The choice is not whether one has read the book, but *is it helpful* - as in does it help you make the selection in buying the book.. To answer *No* it is not required that one already have ready the book.
As for this: They're also bound to be blatantly unobjective and biassed, which skews the rating of the book./. fucked with amazon's data, and they unfucked it. What's wrong with that?
If you think Amazon's data is not already skewed and therefore in need of *unfucking with* - Then consider what has been business-as-usual for Amazon (they have had the ability to know of the practice since the database contains the necessary information):
"Everyone could see that - oops - some of the site's reviewers really were the author's friends, relatives and even, at times, the author himself. Perhaps worse, other "reviewers" were really arch-enemies of the author, intent on sinking their rivals' work."
Interestingly in this story - a former Amazon literary editor said in the article (link above) - ""Think of it as a chat room," says Marcus. "Anonymity is part of the Web in general." So in effect, to have this book about the potential evil of chat rooms, by using the name of a woman's site who gains income by hosting chat rooms, and then have Amazon decide to take the (cough) "high road" in this current story? Methinks the purpose of removing unfavorable comments is to boost sales.
To the chat room aspects of katie.com - a sort of backhanded way extra jab at a site that bears nominal similarity to what lured Katie T. into her situation. Wouldn't that be something if intent to cause damages besides sheer stupidity were behind this?
If this is any indication, Bush writes about as well as he speaks (and on the No Child Left Behind page too... You'd think they'd at least check that).
"Foreword by President George W. Bush
Bipartisan education reform will be the cornerstone of my Administration.
The quality of our public schools directly affects us all as parents, as students, and as citizens...
It doesnt [sic] have to be this way.
Bipartisan solutions are within our reach. If our country fails in its responsibility to educate every child, were [sic] likely to fail in many other areas. But if we succeed in educating our youth, many other successes will follow throughout our country and in the lives of our citizens..."
"Turns out Woody Guthrie lifted the melody of "This Land is Your Land" essentially note-for-note from "When the World's on Fire," a song recorded by country/bluegrass legends, The Carter Family, ten years before Guthrie wrote his classic song. Here's a short snippet (380k mp3) of the song (the song can be found on the box set, The Carter Family: 1927-34). You don't need to be a musicologist to hear what we're talking about.
Now we've got nothing against Woody's borrowing. In fact, it's a part of the "folk process" that Woody himself championed. I can't imagine that The Carter Family minded.
But in the letter threatening copyright litigation over JibJab's animated political parody, "This Land," Ludlow's lawyer goes out of his way to attack JibJab for copying "the entire melody, harmony, rhythm and structure of the [sic] Mr. Guthrie's song."
Er, sorry there Ludlow, but actually, the entire melody, harmony, rhythm, and structure of "This Land is Your Land" doesn't belong to you. And I'd like to think Mr. Guthrie would never have claimed credit for them, if he were still alive to ask."
Since the stock market screen shot on the sample page (the main page was/. ed) but the sample screen was for Crude oil prices - maybe that was related to his DOT job - and the *personal* stocks could be checked to see if those were in any way job realted as well.
The solitaire - errrr... maybe that was doing a statisical analysis of games of chance compared to the reliability of the stock market - yeah - that's it.
We're talking about bio-diesel-- usually in the form of recycled vegetable oil.
Yes, but he has also been looking at all biomass derived fuels. As others have pointed out, right now - there is virtually no demand for what is being discarded as a waste product, so this makes sense to use. But the calculations still hold for no matter what *vegetable* (usually an oil seed - which is somewhat more efficient than corn/ethanol). His most optimistic calculations for the US (the ones used I used in the parent) were the 1/8 of land surface, slightly less than 50% of energy needs. (The link I provided was to corn ethanol). This is from an older source - I can't find his most recent paper - It came out this year, but it did a more refined calculation that actually took into account all animal biomass as well.
"In the US, the annual amount of solar energy captured by vegetation -- agricultural crops, forests, lawns, gardens and wild growth -- is 54 quads (one quad equals one quadrillion British Thermal Units). Americans currently use 40 percent more fossil energy than the total amount of solar energy captured by plants."
No, it's called parasitic energy, the energy you have to put into a system to get a return. If it's a net loss, the system isn't worth pursuing for energy needs. Pimental is saying you have to use more fossil fuels to produce a substitue for those fossil fuels, than just simply using them without going through the steps in between. The solar input does not make up for the fact that to make the product viable, we use petroleum in making fertilizers, planting, harvesting, processing, etc. And it's a net loss.
Pimental at Cornell has calculated that biofuels require more fossil fuels to grow and process into ethanol than the energy they deliver, while the promise of sustainable use of biofuels for the US would take 1/8 of all available surface area and still only account for about half of energy needs.
Among his calculations: "An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol."
Slashdot Mirror
In one model - there are 4 groups in the *bully/victim* scenario:
1. *Bullies* - who repeatedly make some sort of attack on someone who is (for some reason or another) unable to defend against it (an *asymmetric* relationship).
2. *Passive victims* - who usually don't provoke the bully, they might just be different - or weak - or handicapped - or smart - or not something...
3. *Active Victims* - who tend to be very good at getting under someone's skin - either by the way they say things (perhaps they have a great way to humiliate someone verbally) - but they usually end up seen as the ultimate victim. If you trace things back, active victims look a lot like bullies, but in a different way. They often blame others with a type of rapid revisionist history of events.
4. *Bystanders* - they tend to *normalize* what is accepted in the social setting - so what might be considered bullying by one group, might be considered *normal* by another - which is one reason why you can talk to a teenager all day about not bullying, and they have one view of what that means and sending a *mean IM* probably isn't going to be it, unless that child identifies themselves themselves as the victim.
On a related note - however kids define bullying, more than half say they have been both victims and bullies in different situations, and like all models - the *4 groups* listed above is just a handy way to help some get a handle on the way many situations play out.
These numbers are ether TOTALLY WRONG AND FASLEIFIED or they busted some kind of massively well funded organization?
Al Peta?
HTML files created by Word are full of useless junk. (Absolutely true, of course.) He says something hand-waving-ish about if the HTML is bad, the XML is probably bad, so he's never tried the XML.
I started teaching myself html about a year and half ago. Totally a newbie. I used Word for a number of pages, and found a few frustrating things, like the head tag would always appear as whatever the first few lines were of the top text. So I learned how to edit that with a really cheap editor. Then I was curious about the folder that Word created for images. One thing I discovered was that in addition to loading the original, it also created a *very* small jpg. Now to make for much faster uploads, I create a Word web page with the image I want, save it - and then use the small jpg on the real page I am using - using html (I have much yet to learn about scripting languages). It saves space on the hosting service I am using, without all these associated folders to upload, just a few small jpgs. Image quality is not noticeably degraded for my purposes. I'm sure there are other ways to go about this. In a way - the XML showed me what I could dispense with, though I am trying to figure out what it actually does...
Oh wait...
Cornell is giving away music downloads this year.
but I think you've missed the point that you could parade me past a hundred everyday "approved" items and I could tell you how to use 90 of them as weapons.
Well no - I think I got it exactly - No one really intent on causing harm is likely to announce their plans, and someone who is really *trained* in all manner of things can turn practically anything into a weapon - Which makes security checks basically an illusion. My point was just that *mentioning* that you are a master of death in the toothbrush and desire to use it on this flight will keep you off the flight, and perhaps arrested.
Guess maybe I should remember never to mention to the airport folks that shoelaces make a nice garrot. Nevermind a belt or the strap on a carry-on.
Way back when...
When planes were hijacked to Cuba, a judge in my hometown made a joke when going through security (which was then a new thing) that he had a bomb in his carry-on(which was the *standard way* to make a threat to divert a flight). He was promptly arrested, protesting that he was Judge So and So... and that it was a joke. If I remember correctly, I think he got a judicial reprimand, but the charges were dropped.
My mother is dealing with nonresectable pancreatic cancer right now. She too has been mostly fortunate, after one round of radiation and is in her third round of chemo. She's in her early late sixties and did "all the right things" throughout her life. She was a dancer, and later a nurse, and knows what's in store.
There's a story that Utah Phillips tells about when he was in the Army in Korea. He was hot and wanted to go for a swim in this river. He could see Chinese soldiers on the far bank swimming since it was a hot day. His S. Korean companion said *we don't swim in this river.* The reason was that when a new child was born to a family, there wasn't enough food, so the oldest family member went to the banks and sat until they starved, and they honored the person by letting them float down to join the sea.
Since March of 2003, *including* the 10000-15000 Iraqis US and coalition forces are estimated to have killed during the invasion, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, on the order of the thousands.
Whether that plays out in the long run remains to be seen, but to many in Iraq, it is still seen that western policy (specifically US) - as sanctions or war - was or continues to be responsible for those deaths.
Telling someone, hey - we killed a lot less of you than we might have doesn't exactly do much to secure a place in their hearts.
It seems people have called those responsible for planning this liberals, but isn't it pretty clear they are anarchists?
I would definitely remember if there were dildos in the Bible. There aren't.
Job's friends were dildos.
Best book in the Bible. Really hot.
Granted it will have a 68040 in it, but it will run OS 7.5 just fine.
Has there been an update? Anybody got a gopher link that describes it?
"You are about to review any Amazon book, or comment on a review. Please indicate which of the following is most accurate about yourself:
(x) Gandhi took lessons from me.
( ) George Washington was a lightweight.
( ) I could pass a polygraph with a tack in my shoe.
( ) Waffle maker at the IHOP.
( ) Misson accomplished.
( ) I am not a crook.
( ) I'm an editor for Amazon book reviews.
Your input is very valuable to us,
Sincerely. The editorial staff at Amazon.
Or, more germanely, that one shouldn't try to fix a problem at all, because it will still be fucked up, anyway?
Of course it will still be fucked up. It's the web. The *company* cannot be reliably counted on monitor the reviews that sadly contribute to its revenue stream. The thought that anyone with half a brain actually believes those reviews is pathetic. Check out that link again I posted - The author himself posting his own reviews - what a joke - And read further - "Internet sites like Amazon.com don't seem as concerned with conflict of interest". They only change it when it suits their purposes.
Because those reviews are obviously from people who haven't read the book.
/. fucked with amazon's data, and they unfucked it. What's wrong with that?
The choice is not whether one has read the book, but *is it helpful* - as in does it help you make the selection in buying the book.. To answer *No* it is not required that one already have ready the book.
As for this:
They're also bound to be blatantly unobjective and biassed, which skews the rating of the book.
If you think Amazon's data is not already skewed and therefore in need of *unfucking with* - Then consider what has been business-as-usual for Amazon (they have had the ability to know of the practice since the database contains the necessary information):
This was earlier this year -
"Everyone could see that - oops - some of the site's reviewers really were the author's friends, relatives and even, at times, the author himself. Perhaps worse, other "reviewers" were really arch-enemies of the author, intent on sinking their rivals' work."
Interestingly in this story - a former Amazon literary editor said in the article (link above) - ""Think of it as a chat room," says Marcus. "Anonymity is part of the Web in general." So in effect, to have this book about the potential evil of chat rooms, by using the name of a woman's site who gains income by hosting chat rooms, and then have Amazon decide to take the (cough) "high road" in this current story? Methinks the purpose of removing unfavorable comments is to boost sales.
To the chat room aspects of katie.com - a sort of backhanded way extra jab at a site that bears nominal similarity to what lured Katie T. into her situation. Wouldn't that be something if intent to cause damages besides sheer stupidity were behind this?
That's what Bush did wasn't it?
If this is any indication, Bush writes about as well as he speaks (and on the No Child Left Behind page too... You'd think they'd at least check that).
"Foreword by President George W. Bush
Bipartisan education reform will be the cornerstone of my Administration.
The quality of our public schools directly affects us all as parents, as students, and as citizens...
It doesnt [sic] have to be this way.
Bipartisan solutions are within our reach. If our country fails in its responsibility to educate every child, were [sic] likely to fail in many other areas. But if we succeed in educating our youth, many other successes will follow throughout our country and in the lives of our citizens..."
From this link:
"Turns out Woody Guthrie lifted the melody of "This Land is Your Land" essentially note-for-note from "When the World's on Fire," a song recorded by country/bluegrass legends, The Carter Family, ten years before Guthrie wrote his classic song. Here's a short snippet (380k mp3) of the song (the song can be found on the box set, The Carter Family: 1927-34). You don't need to be a musicologist to hear what we're talking about.
Now we've got nothing against Woody's borrowing. In fact, it's a part of the "folk process" that Woody himself championed. I can't imagine that The Carter Family minded.
But in the letter threatening copyright litigation over JibJab's animated political parody, "This Land," Ludlow's lawyer goes out of his way to attack JibJab for copying "the entire melody, harmony, rhythm and structure of the [sic] Mr. Guthrie's song."
Er, sorry there Ludlow, but actually, the entire melody, harmony, rhythm, and structure of "This Land is Your Land" doesn't belong to you. And I'd like to think Mr. Guthrie would never have claimed credit for them, if he were still alive to ask."
Since the stock market screen shot on the sample page (the main page was /. ed) but the sample screen was for Crude oil prices - maybe that was related to his DOT job - and the *personal* stocks could be checked to see if those were in any way job realted as well.
The solitaire - errrr... maybe that was doing a statisical analysis of games of chance compared to the reliability of the stock market - yeah - that's it.
We're talking about bio-diesel-- usually in the form of recycled vegetable oil.
Yes, but he has also been looking at all biomass derived fuels. As others have pointed out, right now - there is virtually no demand for what is being discarded as a waste product, so this makes sense to use. But the calculations still hold for no matter what *vegetable* (usually an oil seed - which is somewhat more efficient than corn/ethanol). His most optimistic calculations for the US (the ones used I used in the parent) were the 1/8 of land surface, slightly less than 50% of energy needs. (The link I provided was to corn ethanol). This is from an older source - I can't find his most recent paper - It came out this year, but it did a more refined calculation that actually took into account all animal biomass as well.
"In the US, the annual amount of solar energy captured by vegetation -- agricultural crops, forests, lawns, gardens and wild growth -- is 54 quads (one quad equals one quadrillion British Thermal Units). Americans currently use 40 percent more fossil energy than the total amount of solar energy captured by plants."
It's called entropy
No, it's called parasitic energy, the energy you have to put into a system to get a return. If it's a net loss, the system isn't worth pursuing for energy needs. Pimental is saying you have to use more fossil fuels to produce a substitue for those fossil fuels, than just simply using them without going through the steps in between. The solar input does not make up for the fact that to make the product viable, we use petroleum in making fertilizers, planting, harvesting, processing, etc. And it's a net loss.
Pimental at Cornell has calculated that biofuels require more fossil fuels to grow and process into ethanol than the energy they deliver, while the promise of sustainable use of biofuels for the US would take 1/8 of all available surface area and still only account for about half of energy needs.
Among his calculations:
"An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol."
"Plagiarism is basic to all culture." Pete Seeger claims that his father, a Harvard musicologist, told him that.
Monkey gets sick. Can't walk like other monkeys.
Congress is now sponsoring the "Y-Prize", which awards 1M to the first private spaceship that safely lands on Mars surface
But only if they repeat it with the same equipment within two weeks.