Unfortunately, it doesn't necessarily use a word list that corresponds to where you live.
At least, mine doesn't. FF 2.0.0.5 on Ubuntu Feisty keeps telling me that "color" should be colour and "Firefox" should be Firebox (or Fire fox). Which would peachy if I lived in original York, and ate fish and chips all the time.
Sadly, the world I live in has a lot of "new"s in the names of places, so we had to drop as many superfluous "u"s as we could.
If they're making "little more than minimum wage" then their self-interest is to keep things the way they are. Raising the minimum means some of 'em will lose their jobs. People all over will choose to make a little less money in exchange for a smaller chance of making zero money.
Just because you have shallow economics skills doesn't mean that the people currently at the bottom don't understand the fundamental problem.
Minimum Wage Hikers like to pull out the "rising tide raises all boats" phrase that is also used by supply-siders to justify lowering taxation. But the problem is that a minimum wage increase isn't a rising tide. It's a boat-lift on a large number of small boats, which in a fixed volume of water means the tide itself actually lowers.
The supply-siders are also a bit shallow in their understanding, though. It's not the taxes, per se, that constrict the wealth generating power of the economy, but inefficient central spending. Inflation is just another kind of tax.
It's the same as with hydrogen: there is sufficient supply right now to provide for a few tens of thousands of rich people to show off their sleek toys. There is not enough to replace the transportation infrastructure in a fundamental way, and there won't be for at least 10 years.
What you need to do if you want this is to start campaigning for new nuclear, hydro, and geothermal plants. Heck, even solar and wind farms will help, but they need to get built, and all of those are being stymied by NIMBYs and people with imaginary concerns hyping up legitimate concerns to kill projects. You also need to upgrade the distribution infrastructure, and many of the same groups are using the same tactics to slow that down as well.
It looks that way so that drivers will be able to show off how much they love the environment. If you want a more efficient hybrid, but that doesn't look like a hybrid, you should consider a Civic.
Ironically, the cars those people were saying would never take off were *also* electric. It wasn't until ICEs were common that the automobile really took off.
But, more to the point, electric cars won't ever be common without significant increase in electrical generating capacity, and since it takes 10-20 years (and growing) to bring a new plant online, it's not going to happen anytime soon.
Frankly, I'm starting to get sick of this phrase in any incarnation. All you get by using it is an incessant flamefight between people who claim an esoteric meaning of a straightforward phrase is more correct vs. people who claim that a literal meaning of the same phrase is more correct.
I think we should just avoid it altogether in the future. Boo to the editors for using such a pointlessly inflamatory turn of words in the summary of an article on a site where that particular turn of words is so inexplicably, vehemently argued about.
here you go. But it requires a license and won't make phone calls unless you've prearranged an autopatch within your signal footprint. On the plus side, it includes an broadcast AM/FM reciever and a marine radio transceiver, is waterproof (to ~3' Don't take it scuba-ing), floats, and has numerous interesting accessories. No bluetooth, though.
The range is a bit better than a cell phone, though, so it's probably a better choice for fishing out in the middle of nowhere anyway.
Well, the opposing party has been in power for half a year, now. So why haven't the proceedings begun?
BTW, the wiretapping you oppose isn't warrantless. It may be illegal to convene secret courts to issue secret warrants, however the searches themselves do have some kind of warrant.
The President did not deceive the country into war, however certain points of his justification for war that were played up by the Democrats and the Press have proven to have had less confidence than was implied during the lead-up. You just weren't paying attention at the time to understand what was going on, so your recollection now includes only the hyped-points. It is now far too late for me to try explain why I thought it was a good idea, or why I believed it would be a pretty long-term action that we probably wouldn't have the stomach for enduring.
If you really want to blame somebody for the war, blame Hans Blix, who in the years preceding would vacillate between being a bit too chummy with Saddam and accusing Saddam of refusing to allow access to sites of interest. He played this game until it became clear that the US was intent on actually enforcing UN resolutions, even if the UN wasn't. Then left Iraq completely to try to diffuse the situation he was partially responsible for creating. If Hans Blix and the Weapons Inspectors (great name for a band, btw) had done their jobs instead of trying to play diplomat, perhaps the whole thing could've been avoided. But you've got problems when even the UN enforcement agency isn't taking the UN resolutions seriously.
Yes, and it's not precisely easy to do either, and casinos specifically leave it in there to give gamblers the false hope that THEY can do it. Why not just shuffle ever hand, for instance.
But it is possible to, through skill, take away money from the casino in a statistical sense. No other game at the casino even has that possibility, and poker doesn't even come close. The casino never loses at poker, primarily because the casino doesn't actually play poker. They just take a portion of the pot at no risk to themselves whatsoever. If poker's your game, you shouldn't be playing it in a casino.
You do realize that the power level from the transmitter in your pocket is significantly greater than the power level from the tower, don't you? We're talking orders of magnitude. The tower might be more significant than your neighbor's cell phone, but the (up to) 1.2 W omnidirectional transmitter you keep four inches from your wang trumps everything.
Unless the reason you're feeling no regret is that the "I don't wanna live under a tower" ninnies who won't buy that land will prevent the property from appreciating in value. Then you've got a pretty good case. argumentum ad {people are stupid} is a pretty good argument.
If the BJ is so unimportant, why did he lie about it to a grand jury? Surely you don't think justice is less important than holding a failed marriage together.
At the very top of an article, right below the address bar, there are some links set up to look like tabs. One of them is bolded text, "Edit this page." Click that to edit the page. The buttons are to help you insert markup, but you can edit many things without them. There is a link to a sandbox on the page as well, for you to try out some of the markup options without defacing a real page.
Also at the top is a link labelled "discussion" which brings you to the talk page.
Your email idea was pretty good though, especially as it worked.
Based on his recent efforts at nationalizing the oil industry, a pretty unambiguous move toward full central planning, I'd say that Chavez is probably pretty pro-capitolism. He might not be very fond of capitalism though.
Overly pedantic perhaps, but in this case you've inadvertently invented a word that would mean almost exactly the opposite of what you intended.
He's somewhat correct. The laws of physics are the axioms on which theories are derived. When a physical effect has been "Lawified" that simply means that we could not determine a more basic principle from which the effect can be derived. Also there must be significant evidence that the effect is real, and no contradictory evidence.
Moore's law fits a fast-and-loose definition of law, in that it describes an observed effect and is taken to be true over short timescales, and isn't derived from more basic principles, but it certainly fails any rigorous definition. Not the least of which is that it is plainly clear that there are more basic principles from which Moore's effect emerges.
I think the problem is that people get all mixed up with the definitions of laws and theories and hypotheses and whatnot.
Theory: If a and b are true, then c is the mechanism for observation d Law: a and b have been observed and are believed to be true.
For instance, the theory of special relativity is derived using the law of constant speed of light in all reference frames.
The interesting thing about the law of gravity is that it will definitely eventually be "broken" in the sense that we will have enough information to derive it from more basic principles. This is true for every law until we find the one law (or set of laws) to rule them all and in the darkness bind them. Assuming such a law exists.
When you come across errors like that, FIX THEM. It only costs you a few minutes. You don't even have to go to the post office. If you're going to complain about errors, at least complain about errors you've spent time fixing, rather than errors you saw but didn't bother correcting for the next guy.
If you're not sure enough to fix it, then put something in the talk page. That's what it's there for.
Yeah, if they were smart, they'd make it a FOUR-finger keyboard. Since most people have one finger that's quite a bit shorter than the others and more suited to keeping the device in the hands.
Scott Adams wrote a whole chapter about people who add redundancy or nonsense to strengthen their statements.
Although I suppose I should say that they elucidate a plethora of needless added extra redundancy to give more force, pizazz and oomph to their otherwise mundane, banal and uncertain statements to elicit illicit confidence.
That presupposes that your brain depends upon quantum effects.
Consider that an asteroid is also a massive collection of probability distributions. But it's so very very massive. No one would argue that it has free will, and very few would argue that its trajectory is in any way chaotic.
Consider a very small rock. It also is large enough that its collection of probability distributions is essentially "fixed." It has no free will, and it does not suddenly begin to move around either. Its trajectory is easily determined if you are aware of outside forces.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, it doesn't necessarily use a word list that corresponds to where you live.
At least, mine doesn't. FF 2.0.0.5 on Ubuntu Feisty keeps telling me that "color" should be colour and "Firefox" should be Firebox (or Fire fox). Which would peachy if I lived in original York, and ate fish and chips all the time.
Sadly, the world I live in has a lot of "new"s in the names of places, so we had to drop as many superfluous "u"s as we could.
If they're making "little more than minimum wage" then their self-interest is to keep things the way they are. Raising the minimum means some of 'em will lose their jobs. People all over will choose to make a little less money in exchange for a smaller chance of making zero money.
Just because you have shallow economics skills doesn't mean that the people currently at the bottom don't understand the fundamental problem.
Minimum Wage Hikers like to pull out the "rising tide raises all boats" phrase that is also used by supply-siders to justify lowering taxation. But the problem is that a minimum wage increase isn't a rising tide. It's a boat-lift on a large number of small boats, which in a fixed volume of water means the tide itself actually lowers.
The supply-siders are also a bit shallow in their understanding, though. It's not the taxes, per se, that constrict the wealth generating power of the economy, but inefficient central spending. Inflation is just another kind of tax.
It's the same as with hydrogen: there is sufficient supply right now to provide for a few tens of thousands of rich people to show off their sleek toys. There is not enough to replace the transportation infrastructure in a fundamental way, and there won't be for at least 10 years.
What you need to do if you want this is to start campaigning for new nuclear, hydro, and geothermal plants. Heck, even solar and wind farms will help, but they need to get built, and all of those are being stymied by NIMBYs and people with imaginary concerns hyping up legitimate concerns to kill projects. You also need to upgrade the distribution infrastructure, and many of the same groups are using the same tactics to slow that down as well.
You can't have progress without progress.
It is true that Churchill was not fond of Democracy. But, to be fair, he hated it slightly less than all other forms of government.
It looks that way so that drivers will be able to show off how much they love the environment. If you want a more efficient hybrid, but that doesn't look like a hybrid, you should consider a Civic.
Ironically, the cars those people were saying would never take off were *also* electric. It wasn't until ICEs were common that the automobile really took off.
But, more to the point, electric cars won't ever be common without significant increase in electrical generating capacity, and since it takes 10-20 years (and growing) to bring a new plant online, it's not going to happen anytime soon.
Frankly, I'm starting to get sick of this phrase in any incarnation. All you get by using it is an incessant flamefight between people who claim an esoteric meaning of a straightforward phrase is more correct vs. people who claim that a literal meaning of the same phrase is more correct.
I think we should just avoid it altogether in the future. Boo to the editors for using such a pointlessly inflamatory turn of words in the summary of an article on a site where that particular turn of words is so inexplicably, vehemently argued about.
Who wants a 2 megapixel cameraphone? I'll take a nice low-noise 76 kilopixel camera over bullet-point "2 Millions Pixels, Hooray!" lie.
here you go. But it requires a license and won't make phone calls unless you've prearranged an autopatch within your signal footprint. On the plus side, it includes an broadcast AM/FM reciever and a marine radio transceiver, is waterproof (to ~3' Don't take it scuba-ing), floats, and has numerous interesting accessories. No bluetooth, though.
The range is a bit better than a cell phone, though, so it's probably a better choice for fishing out in the middle of nowhere anyway.
Well, the opposing party has been in power for half a year, now. So why haven't the proceedings begun?
BTW, the wiretapping you oppose isn't warrantless. It may be illegal to convene secret courts to issue secret warrants, however the searches themselves do have some kind of warrant.
The President did not deceive the country into war, however certain points of his justification for war that were played up by the Democrats and the Press have proven to have had less confidence than was implied during the lead-up. You just weren't paying attention at the time to understand what was going on, so your recollection now includes only the hyped-points. It is now far too late for me to try explain why I thought it was a good idea, or why I believed it would be a pretty long-term action that we probably wouldn't have the stomach for enduring.
If you really want to blame somebody for the war, blame Hans Blix, who in the years preceding would vacillate between being a bit too chummy with Saddam and accusing Saddam of refusing to allow access to sites of interest. He played this game until it became clear that the US was intent on actually enforcing UN resolutions, even if the UN wasn't. Then left Iraq completely to try to diffuse the situation he was partially responsible for creating. If Hans Blix and the Weapons Inspectors (great name for a band, btw) had done their jobs instead of trying to play diplomat, perhaps the whole thing could've been avoided. But you've got problems when even the UN enforcement agency isn't taking the UN resolutions seriously.
Yes, and it's not precisely easy to do either, and casinos specifically leave it in there to give gamblers the false hope that THEY can do it. Why not just shuffle ever hand, for instance.
But it is possible to, through skill, take away money from the casino in a statistical sense. No other game at the casino even has that possibility, and poker doesn't even come close. The casino never loses at poker, primarily because the casino doesn't actually play poker. They just take a portion of the pot at no risk to themselves whatsoever. If poker's your game, you shouldn't be playing it in a casino.
You do realize that the power level from the transmitter in your pocket is significantly greater than the power level from the tower, don't you? We're talking orders of magnitude. The tower might be more significant than your neighbor's cell phone, but the (up to) 1.2 W omnidirectional transmitter you keep four inches from your wang trumps everything.
Unless the reason you're feeling no regret is that the "I don't wanna live under a tower" ninnies who won't buy that land will prevent the property from appreciating in value. Then you've got a pretty good case. argumentum ad {people are stupid} is a pretty good argument.
If the BJ is so unimportant, why did he lie about it to a grand jury? Surely you don't think justice is less important than holding a failed marriage together.
If playing in a casino,
With enough skill at blackjack, you can beat the casino.
With enough skill at poker, you can pay the casino and beat your friends.
Goat silk?
'cause it doesn't actually produce silk. It produces milk with some concentration of proteins needed for production of artificial spider silk.
And how do you think people meet the people that they know who help them break into entertainment?
So.. carbon traces on a diamond substrate...
All we need now is a transistor made of soot and we can finally have the elusive all-carbon computer!
At the very top of an article, right below the address bar, there are some links set up to look like tabs. One of them is bolded text, "Edit this page." Click that to edit the page. The buttons are to help you insert markup, but you can edit many things without them. There is a link to a sandbox on the page as well, for you to try out some of the markup options without defacing a real page.
Also at the top is a link labelled "discussion" which brings you to the talk page.
Your email idea was pretty good though, especially as it worked.
Based on his recent efforts at nationalizing the oil industry, a pretty unambiguous move toward full central planning, I'd say that Chavez is probably pretty pro-capitolism. He might not be very fond of capitalism though.
Overly pedantic perhaps, but in this case you've inadvertently invented a word that would mean almost exactly the opposite of what you intended.
He's somewhat correct. The laws of physics are the axioms on which theories are derived. When a physical effect has been "Lawified" that simply means that we could not determine a more basic principle from which the effect can be derived. Also there must be significant evidence that the effect is real, and no contradictory evidence.
Moore's law fits a fast-and-loose definition of law, in that it describes an observed effect and is taken to be true over short timescales, and isn't derived from more basic principles, but it certainly fails any rigorous definition. Not the least of which is that it is plainly clear that there are more basic principles from which Moore's effect emerges.
I think the problem is that people get all mixed up with the definitions of laws and theories and hypotheses and whatnot.
Theory: If a and b are true, then c is the mechanism for observation d
Law: a and b have been observed and are believed to be true.
For instance, the theory of special relativity is derived using the law of constant speed of light in all reference frames.
The interesting thing about the law of gravity is that it will definitely eventually be "broken" in the sense that we will have enough information to derive it from more basic principles. This is true for every law until we find the one law (or set of laws) to rule them all and in the darkness bind them. Assuming such a law exists.
When you come across errors like that, FIX THEM. It only costs you a few minutes. You don't even have to go to the post office. If you're going to complain about errors, at least complain about errors you've spent time fixing, rather than errors you saw but didn't bother correcting for the next guy.
If you're not sure enough to fix it, then put something in the talk page. That's what it's there for.
Yeah, if they were smart, they'd make it a FOUR-finger keyboard. Since most people have one finger that's quite a bit shorter than the others and more suited to keeping the device in the hands.
France has double-digit unemployment. What does UK have?
Scott Adams wrote a whole chapter about people who add redundancy or nonsense to strengthen their statements.
Although I suppose I should say that they elucidate a plethora of needless added extra redundancy to give more force, pizazz and oomph to their otherwise mundane, banal and uncertain statements to elicit illicit confidence.
That presupposes that your brain depends upon quantum effects.
Consider that an asteroid is also a massive collection of probability distributions. But it's so very very massive. No one would argue that it has free will, and very few would argue that its trajectory is in any way chaotic.
Consider a very small rock. It also is large enough that its collection of probability distributions is essentially "fixed." It has no free will, and it does not suddenly begin to move around either. Its trajectory is easily determined if you are aware of outside forces.
Now, a duck on the other hand...