You seem to be suggesting that because of the advent of Nu Metal, everything else that qualifies as metal no longer does. I entirely disagree.
Nu Metal != Metal.
Music has changed, and we have a new genre to show for it: Nu Metal. We now have to a new place to put Korn, and Papa Roach, and Adema, and Coal Chamber, etc. Despite the genre being called Nu Metal, and having the word Metal in it's name, most metal aficionados, including myself, would cry blasphemy at the lumping of the two genres. May-be you could get away with classifying Nu Metal as a subgenre of metal. The trend of Nu Metal is not to be disturbing, but primarily is to communicate a feeling of angst. Though Metal is sometimes agressive, with screaming lyrics and violent/fast power chords, the genre is in no way defined by an angst theme the way Nu Metal is.
Your idea that Korn defines the genre of metal, and that the tag follows everything they make, is false. There are 40 years of metal bands that define the genre. When a band ceases to belong to a genre, they simply cease to belong to it, and possibly belong to a new genre instead. In your case, Korn ceases to be Metal and becomes Nu Metal. When Danzig releases a classical album, it isn't called a metal album. And when he goes back and releases a metal album, it isn't called a classical album.
I am one of the "old folk" who was around to see the beginning of Nu Metal. Your evaluation of Metal entirely slights that Metal continues to be made, and has coexisted with Nu Metal since it's inception. In Flames, Annihilator, Cradle of Filth, Dragonforce, and Dio have all put out albums within the past 5 years, so I don't understand where you get the idea that metal is an old fogy renamed genre. Nu Metal is simply a new genre, with a new name, to classify a new type of music. It just so happens to be one type of music getting lots of commercial radio play.
To GP: I agree that commercial radio generally sucks. If you're lucky, you might have a college station around that could provide you with something nice once in a while. Alternatively, you might give Dio (a classic) and Dragonforce (epic dragon slaying music) a try.
The numbers in the corner of my computer are almost the same as the numbers on the front of my cable box! The numbers in the corner of your computer screen keep flashing 12:00 12:00 12:00?
...exposes the fact that they are doing this under the motivation of short-sighted greed. Month after month, for the past year or two, Wizards has released a must have $30 book. Each book will have feats, spells, prestige classes, maybe even a base class. Despite having more options, my gaming experience has degraded. I have to compete with my group to have a useful build, and every new book that comes out makes that more difficult. When creating a character, I feel like I have to consult 10+ books, just to make sure I'm not missing out on some better way of making the build. I don't feel that the flood of expensive books is much other than "short-sighted greed", so I don't see why more evidence of greed is surprising now.
So a giant holo-shark appearing in the air abouve you and then twisting above you and closing its jaws right on you can be created in the air with lasers? Do keep in mind that when it bites you, it burns you with lasers.
The National Association of Theater Owners supports Regal's 'zero-tolerance' prosecution standard: 'We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing." If the managers cannot think for themselves, make decisions for themselves, and evaluate situations for themselves, why are they managers? Zero tolerance policy or not, it is disturbing that the National Association of Theater Owners is suggesting that the managers cannot think for themselves and that an organization could do a better job, doing their thinking for them.
Guess what: everybody knows tobacco is bad for you, and excess sugar is bad for you. Thats just the problem, not everybody knows that tobacco is bad for you. And in particular, not everybody knew when they started smoking.
Awareness of the dangers of smoking has increased dramatically over the past 40 years. The surgeons general warning has evolved, anti-smokng ad campaigns have evolved, education on the ill effects of tobacco has evolved. And smoking statistics reflect this. In 1965, 42% of the US population smoked. As of 2004, 21% of the US population smoked. (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables /adult/table_2.htm)
My point is, it is not completely obvious that smoking is bad for you, as smoker rate diminished as awareness increased.
(A slighted fact, restrictions on smoking advertising may also be a cause of reduced smokers.)
Similarly, everyone does not know that fructose specifically is bad for you. What's worse, there are no fructose awareness campaigns that I know of. During my time in school, I don't recall any education regarding the dangers of fructose. And there are no restrictions on their advertising to me. And I've been drinking soda and eating candy bars since forever, and there is no surgeon's general warning on any of them telling me of an increased risk of obesity, LDL, and high blood pressure. And yet, nowhere, until now, has anyone told me that eating fructose, specifically, increases my chances of obesity specifically because it sets off some vicious cycle that makes me consume more.
What's more, good common sense should tell you that levels of sugar and fat modern westerners consume can't be good for health. I concede this point. There is some level of responsibility that falls to the consumer. In the case of cigarettes, I think the vast majority of smokers these days are aware of the health effects. However, after this article, I'm not really sure where to peg the blame with obesity. Yes, eating too much causes people to become fat. Yes, it is easy to blame fat people for being fat, because it is seen as a lack of self-control. But, eating fructose triggers some chemical reaction that makes me want to eat more, uncontrollably? And that this may be the root cause for someone's obesity? Maybe it's not so easy to blame them for being fat anymore.
Interesting you should bring that up, as in 1994 a conservative MP died from auto-erotic asphyxiation, combined with self-bondage and cross-dressing. How do you die from crossdressing?... "These heels are killing me!"?
A two in one card is more desirable than 2 one in one cards, and may be easier to get a hold of. If you want to steal somebodies credit/debit card and their license, you almost certainly have to go into their wallet to do so. But if you just want one card, there are plenty of opportunities to get that one card. People leave ATM cards on/around ATM machines all the time (some ATM machines will eat cards left in them). People leave/lose all sorts of cards at convenience stores while trying to juggle their coffee and pack of smokes. Other people leave credit/debit cards next to the card swiper at the checkout at the convenience/grocery/whatever store. I myself have almost left my credit card at a restaurant (but didn't due to the wait staff), and I have left my license at a pool hall where they use your driver's license as collateral for the billiard balls. In all of these cases, if you had one of these all-in-one cards, you would have been exposed to a much higher degree of identity theft. Being mugged or having your wallet stolen isn't so common an occurrence compared to the number of people who leave just one of their cards someplace. And, just to put this out there, it is a lot easier to sleight of hand (and hide) a 1mm thick piece of plastic than it is to swipe that inch think wallet.
Even the ready-made PCs have the DIY look about them. But DIYers aren't interested in buying from Dell because they can't get what they want. I looked at dell before I built my computer, but I didn't think the options they offered, for the price they offered, was worth taking them up on. However, marketing cases to DIYers in an attempt to get their money has the side benefit of making flashier cases that might mean one more person buys a Dell rather than a Gateway, or whoever. I don't think DIYers dominate the market, but I do think they influence it.
Why can't I buy a PC that is as small and neat as a mac mini? The shuttle is huge in comparison. How is the comparison of the shuttle to the mac mini relevant? Do you know of a PC maker that mass builds shuttle PCs for corporate use?
Maybe you can't buy a non-mac PC as small as a mac mini. However, dell does offer small form factor computers. Though they probably aren't as small as a Mac Mini, it beats a mini-tower.
Part of the reason is that we insist on 'expandability' but that is now a crock. Unless you are going to buy a machine and replace the graphics card within a year the bus is going to be obsolete by the time you get to do it. As I said above, small PCs are out there. If you don't want expandability, you don't have to have it.
Unless you are going to buy a machine and replace the graphics card within a year the bus is going to be obsolete by the time you get to do it. [. . . ] The only time I upgraded a graphics card was when I upgraded a machine to XP and discovered that the 3DFX Voodoo card that was in the box was no longer supported. As it turned out the reliability problem that was the reason for moving from Windows 98 disappeared as soon as I replaced the video board. So, your graphics card went bad, and because of expandability, you were able to easily replace it.
I have my own reasons for wanting expandability, and I'm not going to go into the "i want to build/upgrade my computer as i go" and "i want a good cheap video card which means no dx10 card but i eventually want to upgrade to a dx10 card when windows releases it for XP or i finally switch to vista,", etc. You're right that computers are probably bigger and clunkier than they need to be. On the other hand, you never know when expandability will be useful, and thats why we have it. It would suck to have to buy a new pc because you filled your hard drive.
The PC market seems to be dominated by the DIY aesthetic. I think I disagree with this. It may be that the DIYers are the most vocal, and the most likely for us to encounter online, but I do not think that they dominate.
The reason I think this?
The average person doesn't need a custom built pc. If someone needs a PC for internet and office suite, they don't need a computer with handpicked components. This is probably the majority of corporate computer use, along with who knows how many home users who just need something that works. I would argue that these two groups dominate, and both only require a trip to Dell's website. It is unreasonable for a company to DIY 3000 computers unless they are in the business of selling computers. It is unreasonable for mom or pop, with minimal requirements, to DIY a computer when they could get a low cost dell and some sort of tech support package. Sure, they aren't getting the most bang for their buck, but my point is that they don't need to if they just want something that works.
On the other hand, you have your general DIY crowd which is made up largely of gamers. Among the gamer crowd, Alienware and other commercial gaming PCs are not nearly as reviled as they used to be. Despite this, gamers still often build their own PCs, as commercial gaming PCs are expensive, and configuring a Dell just doesn't get most gamers close to what they desire. (For instance, I just built a gaming PC because the options offered by Dell were very few and they had nothing in the way of a microATX with room for a big GFX card.) These gamers are likely the people we encounter in tech/game/hardware reviews/forums, and these same people are more likely to bring up their PC in day to day chat than your average Joe.
The gamer market seems larger than it really is because of the lack of input from the technical novice. Though their voices are more often heard, I do not think gamers/DIYers outnumber the corporate + general home computer users.
If the wormhole is created by a collapsing star on one side, the event that occurs on the other side of the wormhole may be the collapse of another star. Perhaps stars that collapse in pairs have a chance of becoming wormholes, while individual stars that collapse become black holes. Also, the article mentions that the shape of the wormhole may determine the length of time it takes an object to travel through it. It may be that wormholes are not created whole but instead require time to propagate, to create the wormtunnel, which might allow for two stars which do not simultaneously collapse to become connected. The implication of this is that any star that collapses to form a worm hole may actually be on the second side and not on the first.
Please note IANAP and I am largely talking out of my ass : )
(But hey, it sounds good in theory, right?)
Noone is saying that natural remedies have no side effects, or that they are particularly effective. What we are saying... Are you telling me I didn't just read SpecialAgentXXX railing VIOXX and then tote natural remedies as having no serious side effects?
What are the warnings on herbs and vitamins? None! If you take too much the most you'll get is a tummyache. Are you telling me I didn't just read that?
What we are saying is that people should be allowed to take them or use them without them having to spend billions of dollars and 15 years of clinical testing in order to be approved This is what *you* are saying. What SpecialAgentXXX is saying is that natural remedies are superior in most, if not all, ways, and that we should use them exclusively, and that we should be extremely skeptical of all drugs developed by major corporations. He isn't saying that we should have a choice, he is saying that we should have his choice.
What is so terribly frightening to you that you need the government to regulate natural remedies?[. . . ] I think at the very root of things, if a natural remedy works, there is some scientific reason that it works, and that it should be discoverable as to what that reason is. However, sometimes the supposed reason that a treatment works is unverifiable, unobservable, nonexistent, and generally outside the realm of science. And sometimes the effectiveness of a natural remedy does not exceed the effectiveness of a placebo. Both of these things do not sit well with me.
Additionally, see Michael Woodhams's post:
Big Pharma need someone to stand over them with a big stick to try to keep them honest. So do alternative medicine peddlers. The difference is that, occasionally, the big stick gets used on Big Pharma, but the snake-oil salesmen opperate with impunity in Alternative Medicine, playing Russian Roulette with other people's lives for their own profit.
I don't know if regulating natural remedies as drugs is the right solution, but I do think there needs to be some way to protect consumers from remedies with unverifiable claims and no perceivable health benefits. I do realize that there are useful natural remedies out there and that we have derived some medicines from them (aspirin, quinine), but I also realize that Merck (et al) isn't interested isn't interested in investigating and developing them, so it is likely that we have two problems to solve, instead of just one. I wouldn't be the first to admit that there is something broken with a system where my taxes go to the government who pays Merck to develop a drug which it then patents and charges the consumers, who paid for the development of the drug to begin with, an arm and a leg for.
Besides, it's already been shown that Big Pharma's drugs cause heart attacks. . . Wow, all drugs made by big corporations cause heart attacks? Oh man, I guess I better stop taking all of my commercial meds for high blood pressure, because it would be bad if I had a heart attack, right? I know, I'll switch to all natural medicines, because everything natural must be good and cannot possibly be bad. Lets see here, what looks like it would make me feel good? OH! Look! Cocaine! Why yes, it is ALL NATURAL!!! It can't possibly have any detrimental affects!
We're f'ing with Mother Nature. We've been fucking with mother nature since the day we were born. For some reason some people just don't get this. We got where we are by constantly expanding the borders of our technology, and we're going to continue to do that, with or without you, until we conquer the universe, get stomped, or destroy ourselves. There is little room in the future for a fringe group who fears technology. We will continue to evolve technologically. One day we will have picorobots patrolling our blood for invaders and building drugs to strengthen us and cure our illnesses. Have fun banging rocks together.
Over the last decade or two they have snuck palm oil in, and sometimes even wax, and most consumers didn't notice. I noticed the wax. It's called Hershey's.
It's that second part that worries me. Let me direct you to a snippet of an interview with Peter Hines of Bethesda.
SPOnG: One of the things that crops up a lot in reviews and discussions of about Fallout is that a lot of the fans like the about Fallout humour. What does this mean to you?
Pete Hines: Well, Todd Howard (Executive Producer at Bethesda) has talked a little about this. We're not big fans of jokes... developers that try to tell jokes, it tends not to work very well. You know, the humour in Fallout 3 is that you can get a weapon and blow a guy to a bloody mess, then when you pull up your interface, you see a little smiling cartoon character holding his thumb up. Like that's funny... funny not in terms of jokes or winks at the camera and such...
The humor of Fallout is far more than just "a little smiling cartoon" telling you that you did a-okay with that SMG. It involves sarcasm, irony, coincidence, dark humor, and Monty Python references. Hines's answer suggests that they are going to stray far from the established norm, and not in a good way.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think GP's point was that we can already play drm files on WIN XP/2000. What functionality does vista add to that? We already had the ability to play DRM'd files. It's not like this is some new vista-only technology, so why pass it off like Vista is the only way to play files with DRM? Yes, vista can play DRM files. Also, the sun rises in the morning.
Was there a different point you were trying to make, perhaps relating to content providers and some sort of Vista only DRM?
I'm fairly certain that even if a tongue piercing is properly sized, your teeth will be worn away. Every time you rub the barbell against your teeth, you wear away at the enamel. Some people do this as a nervous habit, some people do it in their sleep, some people do it just to make clinking noises, and sometimes it just happens accidentally. The end result is the same: the enamel gets worn down. Acrylic balls may not cause the problem because they are softer, but I don't know one way or the other for sure.
1) The defendant wants his lawyers bill paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff says that the amount the defendant is requesting be paid is unreasonable, that the lawyer is charging an unreasonable amount of money for his services. The defendant is therefore requesting the disclosure of the amount of money the plaintiffs are paying their lawyers. If that is a large amount of money, it shows that the plaintiff's argument that the defendant's lawyer fees are inflated is bunk, and that it is entirely reasonable for the defendant's lawyer fees to be as high as they are.
2) I don't really know. The plaintiff may be spending a disproportionate amount of money on this lawsuit. This may be useful in setting some sort of precedent, or may expose the plaintiff to additional criticism and skepticism in future lawsuits. If the money spent is much larger than they sought to gain, maybe it could be construed as a frivolous lawsuit? Maybe somebody can correct me on this?
I'm surprised that nobody has examined this angle of it: Say an adult who weighs 150 pounds burns 476 running 5 mph for an hour. Thats a significant number of calories. Now say you're a 50 lbs kid. That 476 calories turns into 158 calories, and thats from running 5 miles in an hour (which by my sedentary lifestyle standard is a lot of activity). The smaller the child, the smaller the calorie burn from exercise; the smaller the calorie burn from exercise, the more profound the effect food has on weight compared to the effect exercise has. I don't see why their conclusion is any surprise. All it takes is 1 soda, or 1 treat and a cup of juice to offset 1 hour of activity. A number of cups of juice or snacks later, even with that hour of exercise you aren't much better off. Sure, this is true for adults, but it is doubly so for children. To treat the problem through exercise would probably involve hours of running around, which just seems unreasonable.
From T-Mobile's Prepaid FAQ:
To help ensure that you never lose your unused minutes, T-Mobile will send you a text message when your account is within 5 days of expiring. That way, you'll have plenty of time to refill your account and carry forward any unused minutes to your new expiration date.
That sure as hell sounds like rollover to me.
For T-Mobile, A $100 recharge card gets you 1000 minutes. You don't need to spend $250 to get this. Buy a phone, or just a prepaid sim card, whatever, and redeem a $100 card and you'll have 1000 minutes. It's been like this for a number of years (I got my phone 3 or 4 years ago, I got my dad his phone about a year and a half ago, and I just got my uncle one for giftmas), so Net 10 can't claim this is some recent happening and that their page is out of date. If you purchase a smaller quantity card, you're going to get a worse rate on the minutes. But if you're the sort of person that thinks far enough ahead to check out the per minute rate, you can probably handle some basic math like "cost of card / # of minutes = cost per minute." There is no hidden fee (except state tax, DOH), and there is no requirement to purchase cards that cost more per minute.
300 minutes every two months is 1800 minutes a year, at 10 cents a minute that becomes $180/year.
T-Mobile's PAYGO gives you 1000 minutes on a $100 recharge card and the minutes don't expire for a year. Unused minutes roll over and are good until the new expiration date. You have to buy the $100 card to get the 10 cents/minute rate. I know, It's still 10 cents a minute, but if you are, say, my father, and you don't even use 1000 minutes in a year, paying $100/year beats paying $180/year.
Also, I don't think I've ever heard of a pay as you go plan that does free nights/weekends.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be suggesting that because of the advent of Nu Metal, everything else that qualifies as metal no longer does. I entirely disagree.
Nu Metal != Metal.
Music has changed, and we have a new genre to show for it: Nu Metal. We now have to a new place to put Korn, and Papa Roach, and Adema, and Coal Chamber, etc. Despite the genre being called Nu Metal, and having the word Metal in it's name, most metal aficionados, including myself, would cry blasphemy at the lumping of the two genres. May-be you could get away with classifying Nu Metal as a subgenre of metal. The trend of Nu Metal is not to be disturbing, but primarily is to communicate a feeling of angst. Though Metal is sometimes agressive, with screaming lyrics and violent/fast power chords, the genre is in no way defined by an angst theme the way Nu Metal is.
Your idea that Korn defines the genre of metal, and that the tag follows everything they make, is false. There are 40 years of metal bands that define the genre. When a band ceases to belong to a genre, they simply cease to belong to it, and possibly belong to a new genre instead. In your case, Korn ceases to be Metal and becomes Nu Metal. When Danzig releases a classical album, it isn't called a metal album. And when he goes back and releases a metal album, it isn't called a classical album.
I am one of the "old folk" who was around to see the beginning of Nu Metal. Your evaluation of Metal entirely slights that Metal continues to be made, and has coexisted with Nu Metal since it's inception. In Flames, Annihilator, Cradle of Filth, Dragonforce, and Dio have all put out albums within the past 5 years, so I don't understand where you get the idea that metal is an old fogy renamed genre. Nu Metal is simply a new genre, with a new name, to classify a new type of music. It just so happens to be one type of music getting lots of commercial radio play.
To GP: I agree that commercial radio generally sucks. If you're lucky, you might have a college station around that could provide you with something nice once in a while. Alternatively, you might give Dio (a classic) and Dragonforce (epic dragon slaying music) a try.
...exposes the fact that they are doing this under the motivation of short-sighted greed. Month after month, for the past year or two, Wizards has released a must have $30 book. Each book will have feats, spells, prestige classes, maybe even a base class. Despite having more options, my gaming experience has degraded. I have to compete with my group to have a useful build, and every new book that comes out makes that more difficult. When creating a character, I feel like I have to consult 10+ books, just to make sure I'm not missing out on some better way of making the build. I don't feel that the flood of expensive books is much other than "short-sighted greed", so I don't see why more evidence of greed is surprising now.Awareness of the dangers of smoking has increased dramatically over the past 40 years. The surgeons general warning has evolved, anti-smokng ad campaigns have evolved, education on the ill effects of tobacco has evolved. And smoking statistics reflect this. In 1965, 42% of the US population smoked. As of 2004, 21% of the US population smoked. (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/table
(A slighted fact, restrictions on smoking advertising may also be a cause of reduced smokers.)
Similarly, everyone does not know that fructose specifically is bad for you. What's worse, there are no fructose awareness campaigns that I know of. During my time in school, I don't recall any education regarding the dangers of fructose. And there are no restrictions on their advertising to me. And I've been drinking soda and eating candy bars since forever, and there is no surgeon's general warning on any of them telling me of an increased risk of obesity, LDL, and high blood pressure. And yet, nowhere, until now, has anyone told me that eating fructose, specifically, increases my chances of obesity specifically because it sets off some vicious cycle that makes me consume more. What's more, good common sense should tell you that levels of sugar and fat modern westerners consume can't be good for health. I concede this point. There is some level of responsibility that falls to the consumer. In the case of cigarettes, I think the vast majority of smokers these days are aware of the health effects. However, after this article, I'm not really sure where to peg the blame with obesity. Yes, eating too much causes people to become fat. Yes, it is easy to blame fat people for being fat, because it is seen as a lack of self-control. But, eating fructose triggers some chemical reaction that makes me want to eat more, uncontrollably? And that this may be the root cause for someone's obesity? Maybe it's not so easy to blame them for being fat anymore.
How about you give me pleasure first, and then I give you money?
A two in one card is more desirable than 2 one in one cards, and may be easier to get a hold of. If you want to steal somebodies credit/debit card and their license, you almost certainly have to go into their wallet to do so. But if you just want one card, there are plenty of opportunities to get that one card. People leave ATM cards on/around ATM machines all the time (some ATM machines will eat cards left in them). People leave/lose all sorts of cards at convenience stores while trying to juggle their coffee and pack of smokes. Other people leave credit/debit cards next to the card swiper at the checkout at the convenience/grocery/whatever store. I myself have almost left my credit card at a restaurant (but didn't due to the wait staff), and I have left my license at a pool hall where they use your driver's license as collateral for the billiard balls. In all of these cases, if you had one of these all-in-one cards, you would have been exposed to a much higher degree of identity theft. Being mugged or having your wallet stolen isn't so common an occurrence compared to the number of people who leave just one of their cards someplace. And, just to put this out there, it is a lot easier to sleight of hand (and hide) a 1mm thick piece of plastic than it is to swipe that inch think wallet.
Maybe you can't buy a non-mac PC as small as a mac mini. However, dell does offer small form factor computers. Though they probably aren't as small as a Mac Mini, it beats a mini-tower. Part of the reason is that we insist on 'expandability' but that is now a crock. Unless you are going to buy a machine and replace the graphics card within a year the bus is going to be obsolete by the time you get to do it. As I said above, small PCs are out there. If you don't want expandability, you don't have to have it. Unless you are going to buy a machine and replace the graphics card within a year the bus is going to be obsolete by the time you get to do it. [. . . ] The only time I upgraded a graphics card was when I upgraded a machine to XP and discovered that the 3DFX Voodoo card that was in the box was no longer supported. As it turned out the reliability problem that was the reason for moving from Windows 98 disappeared as soon as I replaced the video board. So, your graphics card went bad, and because of expandability, you were able to easily replace it.
I have my own reasons for wanting expandability, and I'm not going to go into the "i want to build/upgrade my computer as i go" and "i want a good cheap video card which means no dx10 card but i eventually want to upgrade to a dx10 card when windows releases it for XP or i finally switch to vista,", etc. You're right that computers are probably bigger and clunkier than they need to be. On the other hand, you never know when expandability will be useful, and thats why we have it. It would suck to have to buy a new pc because you filled your hard drive.
The reason I think this?
The average person doesn't need a custom built pc. If someone needs a PC for internet and office suite, they don't need a computer with handpicked components. This is probably the majority of corporate computer use, along with who knows how many home users who just need something that works. I would argue that these two groups dominate, and both only require a trip to Dell's website. It is unreasonable for a company to DIY 3000 computers unless they are in the business of selling computers. It is unreasonable for mom or pop, with minimal requirements, to DIY a computer when they could get a low cost dell and some sort of tech support package. Sure, they aren't getting the most bang for their buck, but my point is that they don't need to if they just want something that works.
On the other hand, you have your general DIY crowd which is made up largely of gamers. Among the gamer crowd, Alienware and other commercial gaming PCs are not nearly as reviled as they used to be. Despite this, gamers still often build their own PCs, as commercial gaming PCs are expensive, and configuring a Dell just doesn't get most gamers close to what they desire. (For instance, I just built a gaming PC because the options offered by Dell were very few and they had nothing in the way of a microATX with room for a big GFX card.) These gamers are likely the people we encounter in tech/game/hardware reviews/forums, and these same people are more likely to bring up their PC in day to day chat than your average Joe.
The gamer market seems larger than it really is because of the lack of input from the technical novice. Though their voices are more often heard, I do not think gamers/DIYers outnumber the corporate + general home computer users.
If the wormhole is created by a collapsing star on one side, the event that occurs on the other side of the wormhole may be the collapse of another star. Perhaps stars that collapse in pairs have a chance of becoming wormholes, while individual stars that collapse become black holes. Also, the article mentions that the shape of the wormhole may determine the length of time it takes an object to travel through it. It may be that wormholes are not created whole but instead require time to propagate, to create the wormtunnel, which might allow for two stars which do not simultaneously collapse to become connected. The implication of this is that any star that collapses to form a worm hole may actually be on the second side and not on the first.
Please note IANAP and I am largely talking out of my ass : ) (But hey, it sounds good in theory, right?)
What we are saying is that people should be allowed to take them or use them without them having to spend billions of dollars and 15 years of clinical testing in order to be approved This is what *you* are saying. What SpecialAgentXXX is saying is that natural remedies are superior in most, if not all, ways, and that we should use them exclusively, and that we should be extremely skeptical of all drugs developed by major corporations. He isn't saying that we should have a choice, he is saying that we should have his choice.
What is so terribly frightening to you that you need the government to regulate natural remedies?[. . . ] I think at the very root of things, if a natural remedy works, there is some scientific reason that it works, and that it should be discoverable as to what that reason is. However, sometimes the supposed reason that a treatment works is unverifiable, unobservable, nonexistent, and generally outside the realm of science. And sometimes the effectiveness of a natural remedy does not exceed the effectiveness of a placebo. Both of these things do not sit well with me.
Additionally, see Michael Woodhams's post:
I don't know if regulating natural remedies as drugs is the right solution, but I do think there needs to be some way to protect consumers from remedies with unverifiable claims and no perceivable health benefits. I do realize that there are useful natural remedies out there and that we have derived some medicines from them (aspirin, quinine), but I also realize that Merck (et al) isn't interested isn't interested in investigating and developing them, so it is likely that we have two problems to solve, instead of just one. I wouldn't be the first to admit that there is something broken with a system where my taxes go to the government who pays Merck to develop a drug which it then patents and charges the consumers, who paid for the development of the drug to begin with, an arm and a leg for.
We're f'ing with Mother Nature. We've been fucking with mother nature since the day we were born. For some reason some people just don't get this. We got where we are by constantly expanding the borders of our technology, and we're going to continue to do that, with or without you, until we conquer the universe, get stomped, or destroy ourselves. There is little room in the future for a fringe group who fears technology. We will continue to evolve technologically. One day we will have picorobots patrolling our blood for invaders and building drugs to strengthen us and cure our illnesses. Have fun banging rocks together.
The humor of Fallout is far more than just "a little smiling cartoon" telling you that you did a-okay with that SMG. It involves sarcasm, irony, coincidence, dark humor, and Monty Python references. Hines's answer suggests that they are going to stray far from the established norm, and not in a good way.
Just for the record, that part of the interview can be found here:
http://spong.com/detail/editorial.jsp?eid=1010951
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think GP's point was that we can already play drm files on WIN XP/2000. What functionality does vista add to that? We already had the ability to play DRM'd files. It's not like this is some new vista-only technology, so why pass it off like Vista is the only way to play files with DRM? Yes, vista can play DRM files. Also, the sun rises in the morning.
Was there a different point you were trying to make, perhaps relating to content providers and some sort of Vista only DRM?
I'm fairly certain that even if a tongue piercing is properly sized, your teeth will be worn away. Every time you rub the barbell against your teeth, you wear away at the enamel. Some people do this as a nervous habit, some people do it in their sleep, some people do it just to make clinking noises, and sometimes it just happens accidentally. The end result is the same: the enamel gets worn down. Acrylic balls may not cause the problem because they are softer, but I don't know one way or the other for sure.
1) The defendant wants his lawyers bill paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff says that the amount the defendant is requesting be paid is unreasonable, that the lawyer is charging an unreasonable amount of money for his services. The defendant is therefore requesting the disclosure of the amount of money the plaintiffs are paying their lawyers. If that is a large amount of money, it shows that the plaintiff's argument that the defendant's lawyer fees are inflated is bunk, and that it is entirely reasonable for the defendant's lawyer fees to be as high as they are.
2) I don't really know. The plaintiff may be spending a disproportionate amount of money on this lawsuit. This may be useful in setting some sort of precedent, or may expose the plaintiff to additional criticism and skepticism in future lawsuits. If the money spent is much larger than they sought to gain, maybe it could be construed as a frivolous lawsuit? Maybe somebody can correct me on this?
I'm surprised that nobody has examined this angle of it: Say an adult who weighs 150 pounds burns 476 running 5 mph for an hour. Thats a significant number of calories. Now say you're a 50 lbs kid. That 476 calories turns into 158 calories, and thats from running 5 miles in an hour (which by my sedentary lifestyle standard is a lot of activity). The smaller the child, the smaller the calorie burn from exercise; the smaller the calorie burn from exercise, the more profound the effect food has on weight compared to the effect exercise has. I don't see why their conclusion is any surprise. All it takes is 1 soda, or 1 treat and a cup of juice to offset 1 hour of activity. A number of cups of juice or snacks later, even with that hour of exercise you aren't much better off. Sure, this is true for adults, but it is doubly so for children. To treat the problem through exercise would probably involve hours of running around, which just seems unreasonable.
To help ensure that you never lose your unused minutes, T-Mobile will send you a text message when your account is within 5 days of expiring. That way, you'll have plenty of time to refill your account and carry forward any unused minutes to your new expiration date.
That sure as hell sounds like rollover to me.
I couldn't get the page to load, so I had to use a google cache. The original URL is:
http://www.t-mobile.com/templates/faq.aspx?PAsset
Alternatively, I just found this support page loads fine:
http://support.t-mobile.com/knowbase/root/public/
rates. Or at least T-Mobile's. Net 10's competitor comparison page: http://www.net10.com/compare.jsp?nextPage=compare. jsp&task=compare
For T-Mobile, A $100 recharge card gets you 1000 minutes. You don't need to spend $250 to get this. Buy a phone, or just a prepaid sim card, whatever, and redeem a $100 card and you'll have 1000 minutes. It's been like this for a number of years (I got my phone 3 or 4 years ago, I got my dad his phone about a year and a half ago, and I just got my uncle one for giftmas), so Net 10 can't claim this is some recent happening and that their page is out of date. If you purchase a smaller quantity card, you're going to get a worse rate on the minutes. But if you're the sort of person that thinks far enough ahead to check out the per minute rate, you can probably handle some basic math like "cost of card / # of minutes = cost per minute." There is no hidden fee (except state tax, DOH), and there is no requirement to purchase cards that cost more per minute.
I'm not affiliated with T-Mobile, I swear.
300 minutes every two months is 1800 minutes a year, at 10 cents a minute that becomes $180/year.
T-Mobile's PAYGO gives you 1000 minutes on a $100 recharge card and the minutes don't expire for a year. Unused minutes roll over and are good until the new expiration date. You have to buy the $100 card to get the 10 cents/minute rate. I know, It's still 10 cents a minute, but if you are, say, my father, and you don't even use 1000 minutes in a year, paying $100/year beats paying $180/year.
Also, I don't think I've ever heard of a pay as you go plan that does free nights/weekends.