I live in the city of Johnstown, PA, where the steel mills formed the basis of the local economy for several decades. Some time ago, the steelworkers' union went on strike. Shortly thereafter, the steel mills in Johnstown closed. Most are yet to reopen.
A few years later, a local dairy plant's union went on strike. Shortly thereafter, Sani*Dairy closed its Johnstown operation.
Unionizing would do well, if we were talking about a business that was ready to "do the right thing." As it is, they're not. And that's how unions end up "on the wrong side of the law."
Re:Anhydrous ethanol is usually spiked
on
Hacking Vodka
·
· Score: 1
Maybe they do, but they're not so hyped up on posting about it everywhere the same as you are?
Re:Better than a Volcano
on
Hacking Vodka
·
· Score: 1
I've heard that as a justification for why people get drunk a little faster with something like champagne.
Some Food Network or Discovery Channel "Science of Christmas" bit, I think.
Re:It is probably to protect the company.
on
Hacking Vodka
·
· Score: 1
You really, truly, deeply in your heart believe that your choices in reading material and the aversions that resulted therefrom will guide the course of a thread on Slashdot?
Vodka distillers don't make good sources for such data, actually. It's in their best interests to come up with new bells and whistles that make their products sound better than the average booze to the consumer. Pronouncing "science" is just another bell. You'd be better off to cite a journal article, preferably written by someone studying organic chemistry... rather than vodka marketing.
Oh, wait.
And yes I know it cant get to 100%, but 90+ is close enough to call it 100%. This isn't a chem. lab, its real life.
Somehow I don't think you'd know what to do with the journal article if you had it. Sorry, Chachi, but 90 != 100, chem lab or not.
And if you noticed what I said a bit closer, I was talking that in today's percentages of alcohol / impurities its the impurities that are causing the hangover.. and that making it 100%, which isn't practical, but if done, in theory, it would then move any hangover to the responsibility of the remaining alcohol..
Huh?
Read that paragraph again. When you figure out that it doesn't make a singular lick of sense, come back and try again. Really.
No, the unanimous (of course it was unanonymous, but get your adjectives right in context) vote in the Senate does not prove the PATRIOT Act perfect, but it doesn't testify to any "fundamentally reasonable core," either.
Just how long after 9/11 did the PATRIOT Act appear? Maybe I've got my recent history wrong, but it wasn't all that lengthy a period, IIRC. What are politicians doing at that point, be they in Senate, House, DOJ, or White House? Simple. They're scraping for ways to make themselves look in control of the situation and in pursuit of means of prevention. PATRIOT did that.
Note the verb 'look.'
Further, the unanimous vote, in historical context, doesn't mean much when one considers the fact that an awful lot of these people don't read what they sign. Michael Moore demonstrated this easily enough when he played the dumb bumpkin to one of our "friends" in Washington. The moment wasn't scripted. It couldn't have been. The politician derisively asked if Moore thought that they read everything they sign. Obviously they don't. You feel that they read PATRIOT, just because? They're going to take the time to slog through that thing, more or less as a break from their panic, just because? Perhaps you feel that this could not possibly be the case because Michael Moore is the one who brought it up? What, then?
You believe that PATRIOT has stopped major terrorist attacks. That's nice. Prove it. Whether or not you believe it doesn't make it so. Some time ago, Anthony Romero (see ACLU's "Safe and Free" campaign) delivered a radio/realplayer interview in which he reported an outside study that documented that what terrorism control has happened since 9/11 proceeded successfully without invocation of PATRIOT. Breakdown? PATRIOT isn't necessary for prevention of terrorism. Don't believe me? Go root around the ACLU site. The interview should still be archived there. (Incidentally, what did you think of PATRIOT after you read it yourself?)
Is the war on terror "some kind of ruse?" Sure it is. Really. There's a phenomenal amount of bullshit that comes out of the White House, and it's amazing just how much of it comes with an illegitimate tag from the war on terror. Don't expect what you hear to be truth when all you hear comes from the Bush Administration. There are other sides to these stories. Use your head. Success? Sure. Right. Wasn't digging up Iraq's WMD's a part of the war on terror? George's awfully 'successful' with that one right about now.
And what about Dick "Re-elect Bush or there will be another terrorist attack" Cheney? Can't beat that logic. Change a few words ("Re-elect Bush" into "Pay me/Promote me/Get me a job" and "terrorist attack" into "fire/murder") and pull it out of the political context and you have a Mafia threat. Let the Vice President say it and it's A-OK. Bush is preventing terror. Yup. Pardon me if I think it sounds like a considerably less fanciful rehash of Dragonheart.
Are terrorists out to get us? Probably. Are they looking to take over our neighborhoods? No. Terrorism isn't nearly as omnipresent as the Bush Administration (and its daughter joint, DHS) make it out to be. It happens. Really, it does. When I spoke to some folks from the UK shortly after 9/11, they explained that terrorism is a fact of life there, and while there are measures in place to prevent it, there isn't the cut-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face approach the US has been demonstrating. Yes, there are terrorists and loss of life on American soil thanks to their activities should indeed be prevented, but no, ordering someone's library records or instructing the populace to duct-tape their homes won't prevent an attack. Neither will drafting out kneejerk legislation that ends up "sacrificing liberty for safety." No. Use what legal means are available to deal with terrorism, and if those are found to fail or be less than adequate (but at this point, as a citizen supposedly with protection against unreasonable search and seizure, I rea
This came up in the EE preview panel at Dragon*Con this year. Essentially, the idea was that waiting until approx. Dec. 14 to release the EE would pass up the lucrative Black Friday shopping pattern. Surely New Line would want to get some profit during that period.
The possibility (and only a possibility) presented was that the EE could appear in theaters for a little while before DVD sales start.
Honestly? I'm afraid the answer is yes. And you're seeing some of the better brackets of the American population here.
An interesting study is to follow the editorial section of a small, local US paper to get an idea of how a lot of "average" Americans handle bias. There'll be quotes from major networks' news programs, a religious line from Aunt Mabel who died twenty years ago, and some dodgy statistics all wrapped up in neat bundles of bias that fit in the Letters to the Editor section. It's truly frightening to read some of what comes dribbling out of there, if only by showing that a number of people who are intelligent enough to form complex English sentences are incapable of performing the simplest analyses of what they see and hear in the media.
Religious references are extremely common (you should've seen the paper around here when the Atheists' societies held a rally for recognition), which isn't a problem (at least, as far as I'm concerned) until the references and conclusions are getting tossed around by someone who doesn't know much outside of Bible verses to quote. Note that this is, quite frankly, a frequent event.
Fascinating. Really. In the US, politicians are big on hushing up what happens in-committee. This blog is honest and thorough... and doesn't hide a lot of what some of the spinmeisters here would.
For my part, I'm particularly impressed that this kind of attention would focus on an environmental issue. American politics? Heh. Yeah. Mountains are being exploded and it doesn't make news or get attention outside of the county in which it happens. (And in some places, I doubt there's even that much coverage.)
That's nice. People are deciding their preference of who leads the US based upon blue jeans and a t-shirt. Mm-hmm. Educated. Sure. Weighing the issues. Yup.
From where I live in southwestern PA, I can tell you that I sure don't love it, and I sure as hell don't "identify with" any such thing. "Simple" is one thing. Bush is no Samwise Gamgee. No, Bush is only a simpleton, and for the Presidency, there should be a lot more to winning and maintaining the office than cultivating a "down-home quality" with "worn in blue jeans." As it stands, he doesn't do a whole lot beyond that at all... certainly not anything to recommend him.
They're not different subspecies at all. They're the same genera, but the trivial names are different. They are, in fact, different species. A subspecies would have an extra trivial name -- for example, Tursiops truncatus gilli. The differences between the species and subspecies would then be the differences between Tursiops truncatus and T. truncatus gilli. (Species name, at least the way I learned it, is the combination of the genus and trivial names; hence, Tursiops truncatus is the species name for the bottlenose dolphin, and truncatus isn't.)
So, no, it's nothing like a Calico giving birth to a Siamese. Sorry.
And as for referring to the species by their full names, well, this is Slashdot. The original article doesn't get posted here, but the general gist of it does. There is a link to the original article, is there not? It should list the full names. Glancing at that should take as long as... well, as long as wanking about not seeing the full scientific names in the Slashdot article.
According to the article MATRIX -- Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange '...cross-references government records from both public and private databases, putting together a dossier on individuals for use by law enforcement.' The state's homeland security specialist dismisses concerns: '...any data gleaned for Utah's participation in MATRIX is information already available to law enforcement.' The Utah legislature is trying to figure out how to get the state out of the program but the question is how was the Governor able to enroll the -whole state- without anyone knowing?"
For one thing, this sounds like something that deserves a referendum somewhere. I'm more than halfway tempted to wonder if the Governor's up for reelection this year and wanted something he could brag about.
What I don't understand is, if all of this information was previously available to law enforcement, why bother? The information was already out there for use. Granted, it probably took convincing a judge in order to get it, but this just puts up, unless I misunderstand, one big open file. Just which terrorist groups are out there putting the Mormon Tabernacle on their hit lists such that it justifies putting everyone in the state on record?
I renew my position that homeland security isn't about security of the homeland at all, but about job security for politicians who would otherwise be SOL.
One of these schools offers an online course in Nursing. Yep. RN/BSN kinda stuff.
Given that nursing at my college entailed a lot of labs and clinicals, I can't say that I have an overwhelming amount of enthusiasm for Nursing via Internet Correspondence Course. (And no, I wasn't a nursing student -- I just got to tutor them in Physiology and Microbiology and field their questions as per "Why the hell do I have to know all of this about the body?!")
Much of this is, of course, at the discretion of the university... Mine required better than a 92% for an A, better than an 88% for an A-, and on down the line. Professors adjusted this themselves to their whim for classes... One of my profs required a 94% for an A.
And the Berenstain Bears are a bunch of socialists.
You know, those were among my favorite books when I was small, and I can honestly say that I never wasted any time analyzing the sociopolitical themes of that (or any other) children's book.
Maybe you should add to your record... I understand there's a manuscript out there that goes into great detail about how Eeyore is a depression patient in need of treatment, Tigger has ADHD, and Winnie the Pooh is an addictive personality. Analysis always makes for better understandings. Yep.
As to your third point.... all sequels suck so any Toy Story 3s and Finding Nemo Agains are doomed no matter how you slice it.
Without clarification of how quality is to be judged, this comment makes no sense. As it stands, I must congratulate you on a truly thorough example of the genetic logic fallacy. Gold star for the day!
I don't think the parent meant "oral tradition" in terms of "free speech," but rather "oral tradition" in terms of structure and mood. The stories sound as though they have been passed down through time. As with most stories with that quality, they inherently have some room for... ah... interpretation.
Um, whoa, there, sparky. I hope you mean to use the royal "us," because I resent you speaking for me.
And watch that "every damm [sic] fool who saw the movie or rented the movie" bit. You may not be in a part of the planet blessed with intelligent people beyond yourself, but please understand that there are people who saw the movies, read the books, and came away with an appreciation of both each as they are. Yes, Virginia, such people exist. The fact that they're not parading their wisdom in front of you for approval doesn't mean they cannot be found on the globe.
Just how much respect for this canon you're ranting about do you have if you're willing to abandon it so quickly as one replaced by "Happy Meal toys?" If you have a problem with how people relate the book to the film, then set them straight -- but quit trying to impress others who have knowledge of the book with some overdramatic wheeze and bawl about this perceived ruin of "another wonderful part of our culture."
OTOH, a 100% accurate adaptation is pretty much impossible -- at least in the eyes of the beholders. "Accuracy" for adapting a work would depend upon realization of vision created by the text, which has a persnickety (ahem) ability to vary from person to person.
No matter what ends up on the reel, someone will say it's inaccurate.
Um, the hobbits did indeed have accents. The accent, however, was not Irish. One of them, I believe the one wearing a tartan outfit at the end of the movie, spoke with a Scottish accent, did he not...? And the other three sounded notably English. I don't know where you're getting Irish from.
Thank you. I was doing a lot of battle over that point on the Oscar nom topic... I'm glad someone else has made note of that fact without considering it "silly," a "flaw," or a "legend."
Slashdot Mirror
So, ah... what hours do you work, again?
I live in the city of Johnstown, PA, where the steel mills formed the basis of the local economy for several decades. Some time ago, the steelworkers' union went on strike. Shortly thereafter, the steel mills in Johnstown closed. Most are yet to reopen.
A few years later, a local dairy plant's union went on strike. Shortly thereafter, Sani*Dairy closed its Johnstown operation.
Unionizing would do well, if we were talking about a business that was ready to "do the right thing." As it is, they're not. And that's how unions end up "on the wrong side of the law."
Definitely Sloshdot. Yep.
Maybe they do, but they're not so hyped up on posting about it everywhere the same as you are?
I've heard that as a justification for why people get drunk a little faster with something like champagne.
Some Food Network or Discovery Channel "Science of Christmas" bit, I think.
You really, truly, deeply in your heart believe that your choices in reading material and the aversions that resulted therefrom will guide the course of a thread on Slashdot?
Holy smokes, that must be some aversion.
Vodka distillers don't make good sources for such data, actually. It's in their best interests to come up with new bells and whistles that make their products sound better than the average booze to the consumer. Pronouncing "science" is just another bell. You'd be better off to cite a journal article, preferably written by someone studying organic chemistry... rather than vodka marketing.
Oh, wait.
And yes I know it cant get to 100%, but 90+ is close enough to call it 100%. This isn't a chem. lab, its real life.
Somehow I don't think you'd know what to do with the journal article if you had it. Sorry, Chachi, but 90 != 100, chem lab or not.
And if you noticed what I said a bit closer, I was talking that in today's percentages of alcohol / impurities its the impurities that are causing the hangover.. and that making it 100%, which isn't practical, but if done, in theory, it would then move any hangover to the responsibility of the remaining alcohol..
Huh?
Read that paragraph again. When you figure out that it doesn't make a singular lick of sense, come back and try again. Really.
Clearly you haven't had to put in a tech support call recently.
No, the unanimous (of course it was unanonymous, but get your adjectives right in context) vote in the Senate does not prove the PATRIOT Act perfect, but it doesn't testify to any "fundamentally reasonable core," either.
Just how long after 9/11 did the PATRIOT Act appear? Maybe I've got my recent history wrong, but it wasn't all that lengthy a period, IIRC. What are politicians doing at that point, be they in Senate, House, DOJ, or White House? Simple. They're scraping for ways to make themselves look in control of the situation and in pursuit of means of prevention. PATRIOT did that.
Note the verb 'look.'
Further, the unanimous vote, in historical context, doesn't mean much when one considers the fact that an awful lot of these people don't read what they sign. Michael Moore demonstrated this easily enough when he played the dumb bumpkin to one of our "friends" in Washington. The moment wasn't scripted. It couldn't have been. The politician derisively asked if Moore thought that they read everything they sign. Obviously they don't. You feel that they read PATRIOT, just because? They're going to take the time to slog through that thing, more or less as a break from their panic, just because? Perhaps you feel that this could not possibly be the case because Michael Moore is the one who brought it up? What, then?
You believe that PATRIOT has stopped major terrorist attacks. That's nice. Prove it. Whether or not you believe it doesn't make it so. Some time ago, Anthony Romero (see ACLU's "Safe and Free" campaign) delivered a radio/realplayer interview in which he reported an outside study that documented that what terrorism control has happened since 9/11 proceeded successfully without invocation of PATRIOT. Breakdown? PATRIOT isn't necessary for prevention of terrorism. Don't believe me? Go root around the ACLU site. The interview should still be archived there. (Incidentally, what did you think of PATRIOT after you read it yourself?)
Is the war on terror "some kind of ruse?" Sure it is. Really. There's a phenomenal amount of bullshit that comes out of the White House, and it's amazing just how much of it comes with an illegitimate tag from the war on terror. Don't expect what you hear to be truth when all you hear comes from the Bush Administration. There are other sides to these stories. Use your head. Success? Sure. Right. Wasn't digging up Iraq's WMD's a part of the war on terror? George's awfully 'successful' with that one right about now.
And what about Dick "Re-elect Bush or there will be another terrorist attack" Cheney? Can't beat that logic. Change a few words ("Re-elect Bush" into "Pay me/Promote me/Get me a job" and "terrorist attack" into "fire/murder") and pull it out of the political context and you have a Mafia threat. Let the Vice President say it and it's A-OK. Bush is preventing terror. Yup. Pardon me if I think it sounds like a considerably less fanciful rehash of Dragonheart.
Are terrorists out to get us? Probably. Are they looking to take over our neighborhoods? No. Terrorism isn't nearly as omnipresent as the Bush Administration (and its daughter joint, DHS) make it out to be. It happens. Really, it does. When I spoke to some folks from the UK shortly after 9/11, they explained that terrorism is a fact of life there, and while there are measures in place to prevent it, there isn't the cut-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face approach the US has been demonstrating. Yes, there are terrorists and loss of life on American soil thanks to their activities should indeed be prevented, but no, ordering someone's library records or instructing the populace to duct-tape their homes won't prevent an attack. Neither will drafting out kneejerk legislation that ends up "sacrificing liberty for safety." No. Use what legal means are available to deal with terrorism, and if those are found to fail or be less than adequate (but at this point, as a citizen supposedly with protection against unreasonable search and seizure, I rea
This came up in the EE preview panel at Dragon*Con this year. Essentially, the idea was that waiting until approx. Dec. 14 to release the EE would pass up the lucrative Black Friday shopping pattern. Surely New Line would want to get some profit during that period.
The possibility (and only a possibility) presented was that the EE could appear in theaters for a little while before DVD sales start.
Honestly? I'm afraid the answer is yes. And you're seeing some of the better brackets of the American population here.
An interesting study is to follow the editorial section of a small, local US paper to get an idea of how a lot of "average" Americans handle bias. There'll be quotes from major networks' news programs, a religious line from Aunt Mabel who died twenty years ago, and some dodgy statistics all wrapped up in neat bundles of bias that fit in the Letters to the Editor section. It's truly frightening to read some of what comes dribbling out of there, if only by showing that a number of people who are intelligent enough to form complex English sentences are incapable of performing the simplest analyses of what they see and hear in the media.
Religious references are extremely common (you should've seen the paper around here when the Atheists' societies held a rally for recognition), which isn't a problem (at least, as far as I'm concerned) until the references and conclusions are getting tossed around by someone who doesn't know much outside of Bible verses to quote. Note that this is, quite frankly, a frequent event.
Fucked up, indeed.
Fascinating. Really. In the US, politicians are big on hushing up what happens in-committee. This blog is honest and thorough... and doesn't hide a lot of what some of the spinmeisters here would.
For my part, I'm particularly impressed that this kind of attention would focus on an environmental issue. American politics? Heh. Yeah. Mountains are being exploded and it doesn't make news or get attention outside of the county in which it happens. (And in some places, I doubt there's even that much coverage.)
Thank you.
That's nice. People are deciding their preference of who leads the US based upon blue jeans and a t-shirt. Mm-hmm. Educated. Sure. Weighing the issues. Yup.
From where I live in southwestern PA, I can tell you that I sure don't love it, and I sure as hell don't "identify with" any such thing. "Simple" is one thing. Bush is no Samwise Gamgee. No, Bush is only a simpleton, and for the Presidency, there should be a lot more to winning and maintaining the office than cultivating a "down-home quality" with "worn in blue jeans." As it stands, he doesn't do a whole lot beyond that at all... certainly not anything to recommend him.
They're not different subspecies at all. They're the same genera, but the trivial names are different. They are, in fact, different species. A subspecies would have an extra trivial name -- for example, Tursiops truncatus gilli. The differences between the species and subspecies would then be the differences between Tursiops truncatus and T. truncatus gilli. (Species name, at least the way I learned it, is the combination of the genus and trivial names; hence, Tursiops truncatus is the species name for the bottlenose dolphin, and truncatus isn't.)
So, no, it's nothing like a Calico giving birth to a Siamese. Sorry.
And as for referring to the species by their full names, well, this is Slashdot. The original article doesn't get posted here, but the general gist of it does. There is a link to the original article, is there not? It should list the full names. Glancing at that should take as long as... well, as long as wanking about not seeing the full scientific names in the Slashdot article.
According to the article MATRIX -- Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange '...cross-references government records from both public and private databases, putting together a dossier on individuals for use by law enforcement.' The state's homeland security specialist dismisses concerns: '...any data gleaned for Utah's participation in MATRIX is information already available to law enforcement.' The Utah legislature is trying to figure out how to get the state out of the program but the question is how was the Governor able to enroll the -whole state- without anyone knowing?"
For one thing, this sounds like something that deserves a referendum somewhere. I'm more than halfway tempted to wonder if the Governor's up for reelection this year and wanted something he could brag about.
What I don't understand is, if all of this information was previously available to law enforcement, why bother? The information was already out there for use. Granted, it probably took convincing a judge in order to get it, but this just puts up, unless I misunderstand, one big open file. Just which terrorist groups are out there putting the Mormon Tabernacle on their hit lists such that it justifies putting everyone in the state on record?
I renew my position that homeland security isn't about security of the homeland at all, but about job security for politicians who would otherwise be SOL.
One of these schools offers an online course in Nursing. Yep. RN/BSN kinda stuff.
Given that nursing at my college entailed a lot of labs and clinicals, I can't say that I have an overwhelming amount of enthusiasm for Nursing via Internet Correspondence Course. (And no, I wasn't a nursing student -- I just got to tutor them in Physiology and Microbiology and field their questions as per "Why the hell do I have to know all of this about the body?!")
Much of this is, of course, at the discretion of the university... Mine required better than a 92% for an A, better than an 88% for an A-, and on down the line. Professors adjusted this themselves to their whim for classes... One of my profs required a 94% for an A.
And the Berenstain Bears are a bunch of socialists.
You know, those were among my favorite books when I was small, and I can honestly say that I never wasted any time analyzing the sociopolitical themes of that (or any other) children's book.
Maybe you should add to your record... I understand there's a manuscript out there that goes into great detail about how Eeyore is a depression patient in need of treatment, Tigger has ADHD, and Winnie the Pooh is an addictive personality. Analysis always makes for better understandings. Yep.
As to your third point.... all sequels suck so any Toy Story 3s and Finding Nemo Agains are doomed no matter how you slice it.
Without clarification of how quality is to be judged, this comment makes no sense. As it stands, I must congratulate you on a truly thorough example of the genetic logic fallacy. Gold star for the day!
I don't think the parent meant "oral tradition" in terms of "free speech," but rather "oral tradition" in terms of structure and mood. The stories sound as though they have been passed down through time. As with most stories with that quality, they inherently have some room for... ah... interpretation.
Parent, would you care to clarify?
Um, whoa, there, sparky. I hope you mean to use the royal "us," because I resent you speaking for me.
And watch that "every damm [sic] fool who saw the movie or rented the movie" bit. You may not be in a part of the planet blessed with intelligent people beyond yourself, but please understand that there are people who saw the movies, read the books, and came away with an appreciation of both each as they are. Yes, Virginia, such people exist. The fact that they're not parading their wisdom in front of you for approval doesn't mean they cannot be found on the globe.
Just how much respect for this canon you're ranting about do you have if you're willing to abandon it so quickly as one replaced by "Happy Meal toys?" If you have a problem with how people relate the book to the film, then set them straight -- but quit trying to impress others who have knowledge of the book with some overdramatic wheeze and bawl about this perceived ruin of "another wonderful part of our culture."
OTOH, a 100% accurate adaptation is pretty much impossible -- at least in the eyes of the beholders. "Accuracy" for adapting a work would depend upon realization of vision created by the text, which has a persnickety (ahem) ability to vary from person to person.
No matter what ends up on the reel, someone will say it's inaccurate.
Two words: fuzzy slippers. Need I say more?
Um, the hobbits did indeed have accents. The accent, however, was not Irish. One of them, I believe the one wearing a tartan outfit at the end of the movie, spoke with a Scottish accent, did he not...? And the other three sounded notably English. I don't know where you're getting Irish from.
Thank you. I was doing a lot of battle over that point on the Oscar nom topic... I'm glad someone else has made note of that fact without considering it "silly," a "flaw," or a "legend."