what bull. from the left side, it's a^0 is one everywhere. from the right side it's also one everywhere. You're telling me that no one has said, "hey there's a gap here that approaches 1 from both sides" and followed that with "lets fill it in by defining it as 1?"
I remember reading somewhere that movie theater seats tend to test very high for fecal coliform bacteria (compared to other seats). Maybe we should petition for theaters to bring back intermission...
I never listen to "such and such is bad, return it to the store" because I usually only buy perishables within a day of when I plan on cooking them. By the time the recall is issued, I have long since eaten and disposed of the remains of whatever it was that could kill me. So I'd almost rather not know.
Many of the "drink-the-coolaid" cults we are so fond of ridiculing use protein deprivation to make their victims more suggestible. The all-grain diet has certain advantages. So if you know that reducing protein consumption turns populations into sheep, would you as a responsible arm of the ruling elite suggest a level that was appropriate? or a level that satisfies more aims than just health.
I agree on the first point: cattle are not very land efficient*, but the jury's still out on the second.
*but McDonald's is very cattle efficient. You could eat three whoppers and still fall under the 7 oz limit, and what percentage of the cow gets rejected from fast-food-burger patty production?
It's really really expensive to change the inclination of an orbit. Even more expensive to change its axis. I think it's far more likely that the density of the constellation is such that more satellites than necessary are visible at any time. So if one gets knocked out, you've still got enough, but if several inconveniently close ones get knocked out, some areas would not have enough at certain times of day.
Isn't 'People for the American Way' a left-leaning organization?
I have become convinced over time that Bill O'Reilly is not actually a conservative. He is a mock conservative with the intention of discrediting conservative ideas by becoming a reprehensible representative of some of those ideals. He's a self-important blowhard first and a conservative a distant third. if at all.
Bill O'Reilly is as good an example of conservatives as Dan Rather.
I think it's more like going to a party with people you haven't met because someone told you it would be interesting and between arriving, realizing it's not a very nice party at all, and leaving, someone slips coke in your pocket.
Ok that's an interesting factoid about fossils. Now the question that I have is: what evidence is there (other than the fossil itself) that the exchange occured at all? Are we just assuming that since bones are made of carbon and other things that they were made that way millions of years ago and the silicon content in fossils means that there must have been an exchange?
We weren't lied to. YOU chose to believe statements which were false and uttered by the soon-to-be opponants of the war. We went to war because we believed he continually violated every UN resolution presented to him, including 1441 which said "or else" far more firmly than the rest. He confounded the inspectors at every turn and the inspectors believed that he had WMDs that they were being prevented from accessing. (strangly many of Hans Blixs flip floppy statements on that subject are missing from the record, but they can still be found if you look hard enough)
The problem was, and still is, that you can't go to war with a country and remove their government and then just leave. You then owe the citizens something to prevent the chaos that could easily result. That debt is why we are still there.
What is this "try-out" of which you speak? You sign up for classes, you take them. Are you advocating some kind of "it's ok to eat the grapes 'cause i'm buying melons" philosophy?
Before the internet, loonies like you (not loony for disliking the predominant parties, but loony for thinking that a) they're EVIL* and b) the new trend is really all that different) used to pass around badly photocopied pamphlets.
*I would argue that the interests of any political party are simply mostly orthogonal to the welfare of their constituents.
Come on, odd source? you stick a warm nuclear pile under some peltier devices and whammo long term power. You could almost do this with the raw ore. (especially in space where the insulation is very good)
Not nearly as odd as direct nuclear-electric (or as inefficient I might add)
I think maybe he's looking for the plausable deniability and 'original sources' that they can provide. however there is a flaw in his plan: If he's willing to use netflix (who would probably upgrade him to the 5-disk plan for free if he asks nicely) for the rest of his life at the pretty reasonable price of 12 disks per year, why bother ripping them? If there's something you want to see again, just put it in the queue.
It's better to buy the disks anyway. They cost about the same as music CDs (how weird is that? 3hrs of motion picture for the same price as 40-55 minutes of filler and up to 10 minutes of what you wanted) and you get the nice package for your dvd shelf as well as the longevity of a dvd that's physically stamped rather than photochemically "burned"
The entry in the wikipedia is vague enough to also describe the inkjet process. "ses heat to transfer dye to a medium" happens to be how inkjet printers work as well. aside from the posibility that the "ink" may be solid in a dye-sub printer, (a description I have only seen on slashdot) I fail to see any real difference. I wonder if this is just a case of buzzword envy.
Ok, I know what a "dye" is and I know what the verb "to sublime" means in relation to certain solids, but about the only think I can come up with when putting those together is a fancy word for "inkjet" What's the difference?
The gags get you to watch. they're the sugar coating, but no one cares except SAG and their rediculous requirement that credits go at the begining has actually caused me to avoid watching a film (when it was played on TV. If i paid for a ticket I might as well stick around I guess but it's still annoying.)
Wait.. let me get this straight. Non disclosure forbids you to tell us what company you were working for, but allows you to divulge the information which you provided to them? that's totally bass-ackwards.
I can't think of a single good reason to put the "list of everyone who participated" on the film at either end of a movie. At the begining of a film, it's usually just annoying to go through all the people who have to be mentioned while essencially nothing happens. (a very few films have made this work) At the end of the film, no one sticks around long enough to find out who the assistant grip was or who was the best boy let alone even know what those things are. So why are they there in the production run of every feature film?
What's the opposite of insightful. Because that's what this post deserves. It is almost uncanny how very incorrect is the poster's understanding of the two systems.
The main principle of capitalism, in fact the principle for which the system is named, is the concept of property rights. It is the idea that if a person can do what he pleases with what is his (land, items, money, etc.) he will direct its use toward profit which will benefit himself and ultimately society at large. The capitalist believes that the primary function of a government is to secure for its citizens property rights. That means catching and punishing robbers as much as it means avoiding wasteful government spending. The fruits of your labor are your own.
the main principle of communism is the absence of property rights. It is the idea that the primary goal of a society should be an equitable distribution of wealth. You have no right to your land, posessions, and in some implementations, even your person. The fruits of your labor belong to the community.
There are some valid and reasonable points to both systems, but only one has shown to be practical in the real world. Interestingly, although communism would seem to be called for by application of Millsian ethical principles, practice has shown that the correct utilitarian choice is apparantly some form of capitalism.
Both of these are relevant to the discussion at hand. Are patents the logical extension of property rights to include "intellectual property" rights?
In fact, there are already rights you can't sign away in other areas. For instance, afaik, those disclaimers you sign before engaging in any "risky" activity such as rock-climbing, skydiving, etc. are invalid. You cannot sign away your right to sue because of negligence. but IANAL, so maybe I misunderstood.
Of course you could get digital cable and order HBO-onDemand, which comes as part of the digital HBO package. (and the digital package is both cheaper and cheaper per channel for my cable company)
Slashdot Mirror
what bull. from the left side, it's a^0 is one everywhere. from the right side it's also one everywhere. You're telling me that no one has said, "hey there's a gap here that approaches 1 from both sides" and followed that with "lets fill it in by defining it as 1?"
I remember reading somewhere that movie theater seats tend to test very high for fecal coliform bacteria (compared to other seats). Maybe we should petition for theaters to bring back intermission...
I never listen to "such and such is bad, return it to the store" because I usually only buy perishables within a day of when I plan on cooking them. By the time the recall is issued, I have long since eaten and disposed of the remains of whatever it was that could kill me. So I'd almost rather not know.
Yeah recommended by a government organization.
Many of the "drink-the-coolaid" cults we are so fond of ridiculing use protein deprivation to make their victims more suggestible. The all-grain diet has certain advantages. So if you know that reducing protein consumption turns populations into sheep, would you as a responsible arm of the ruling elite suggest a level that was appropriate? or a level that satisfies more aims than just health.
I agree on the first point: cattle are not very land efficient*, but the jury's still out on the second.
*but McDonald's is very cattle efficient. You could eat three whoppers and still fall under the 7 oz limit, and what percentage of the cow gets rejected from fast-food-burger patty production?
It's really really expensive to change the inclination of an orbit. Even more expensive to change its axis. I think it's far more likely that the density of the constellation is such that more satellites than necessary are visible at any time. So if one gets knocked out, you've still got enough, but if several inconveniently close ones get knocked out, some areas would not have enough at certain times of day.
So you can use your hot water heater.
Isn't 'People for the American Way' a left-leaning organization?
I have become convinced over time that Bill O'Reilly is not actually a conservative. He is a mock conservative with the intention of discrediting conservative ideas by becoming a reprehensible representative of some of those ideals. He's a self-important blowhard first and a conservative a distant third. if at all.
Bill O'Reilly is as good an example of conservatives as Dan Rather.
I think it's more like going to a party with people you haven't met because someone told you it would be interesting and between arriving, realizing it's not a very nice party at all, and leaving, someone slips coke in your pocket.
Ok that's an interesting factoid about fossils. Now the question that I have is: what evidence is there (other than the fossil itself) that the exchange occured at all? Are we just assuming that since bones are made of carbon and other things that they were made that way millions of years ago and the silicon content in fossils means that there must have been an exchange?
We weren't lied to. YOU chose to believe statements which were false and uttered by the soon-to-be opponants of the war. We went to war because we believed he continually violated every UN resolution presented to him, including 1441 which said "or else" far more firmly than the rest. He confounded the inspectors at every turn and the inspectors believed that he had WMDs that they were being prevented from accessing. (strangly many of Hans Blixs flip floppy statements on that subject are missing from the record, but they can still be found if you look hard enough)
The problem was, and still is, that you can't go to war with a country and remove their government and then just leave. You then owe the citizens something to prevent the chaos that could easily result. That debt is why we are still there.
What is this "try-out" of which you speak? You sign up for classes, you take them. Are you advocating some kind of "it's ok to eat the grapes 'cause i'm buying melons" philosophy?
Before the internet, loonies like you (not loony for disliking the predominant parties, but loony for thinking that a) they're EVIL* and b) the new trend is really all that different) used to pass around badly photocopied pamphlets.
*I would argue that the interests of any political party are simply mostly orthogonal to the welfare of their constituents.
Come on, odd source? you stick a warm nuclear pile under some peltier devices and whammo long term power. You could almost do this with the raw ore. (especially in space where the insulation is very good)
Not nearly as odd as direct nuclear-electric (or as inefficient I might add)
Wait.. you want Tom DeLay to go to prision for life for commiting the crime of:
not violating a law that didn't at the time exist
AND you're shilling free pr0n?
but you think politicians are scum?
I think maybe he's looking for the plausable deniability and 'original sources' that they can provide. however there is a flaw in his plan: If he's willing to use netflix (who would probably upgrade him to the 5-disk plan for free if he asks nicely) for the rest of his life at the pretty reasonable price of 12 disks per year, why bother ripping them? If there's something you want to see again, just put it in the queue.
It's better to buy the disks anyway. They cost about the same as music CDs (how weird is that? 3hrs of motion picture for the same price as 40-55 minutes of filler and up to 10 minutes of what you wanted) and you get the nice package for your dvd shelf as well as the longevity of a dvd that's physically stamped rather than photochemically "burned"
I think the model is supposed to go something like, subscriptions pay for the paper itself, ads pay for the content?
The entry in the wikipedia is vague enough to also describe the inkjet process. "ses heat to transfer dye to a medium" happens to be how inkjet printers work as well. aside from the posibility that the "ink" may be solid in a dye-sub printer, (a description I have only seen on slashdot) I fail to see any real difference. I wonder if this is just a case of buzzword envy.
Ok, I know what a "dye" is and I know what the verb "to sublime" means in relation to certain solids, but about the only think I can come up with when putting those together is a fancy word for "inkjet" What's the difference?
The gags get you to watch. they're the sugar coating, but no one cares except SAG and their rediculous requirement that credits go at the begining has actually caused me to avoid watching a film (when it was played on TV. If i paid for a ticket I might as well stick around I guess but it's still annoying.)
Wait.. let me get this straight. Non disclosure forbids you to tell us what company you were working for, but allows you to divulge the information which you provided to them? that's totally bass-ackwards.
I can't think of a single good reason to put the "list of everyone who participated" on the film at either end of a movie. At the begining of a film, it's usually just annoying to go through all the people who have to be mentioned while essencially nothing happens. (a very few films have made this work) At the end of the film, no one sticks around long enough to find out who the assistant grip was or who was the best boy let alone even know what those things are. So why are they there in the production run of every feature film?
What's the opposite of insightful. Because that's what this post deserves. It is almost uncanny how very incorrect is the poster's understanding of the two systems.
The main principle of capitalism, in fact the principle for which the system is named, is the concept of property rights. It is the idea that if a person can do what he pleases with what is his (land, items, money, etc.) he will direct its use toward profit which will benefit himself and ultimately society at large. The capitalist believes that the primary function of a government is to secure for its citizens property rights. That means catching and punishing robbers as much as it means avoiding wasteful government spending. The fruits of your labor are your own.
the main principle of communism is the absence of property rights. It is the idea that the primary goal of a society should be an equitable distribution of wealth. You have no right to your land, posessions, and in some implementations, even your person. The fruits of your labor belong to the community.
There are some valid and reasonable points to both systems, but only one has shown to be practical in the real world. Interestingly, although communism would seem to be called for by application of Millsian ethical principles, practice has shown that the correct utilitarian choice is apparantly some form of capitalism.
Both of these are relevant to the discussion at hand. Are patents the logical extension of property rights to include "intellectual property" rights?
In fact, there are already rights you can't sign away in other areas. For instance, afaik, those disclaimers you sign before engaging in any "risky" activity such as rock-climbing, skydiving, etc. are invalid. You cannot sign away your right to sue because of negligence. but IANAL, so maybe I misunderstood.
Of course you could get digital cable and order HBO-onDemand, which comes as part of the digital HBO package. (and the digital package is both cheaper and cheaper per channel for my cable company)
An interesting question that does not appear to have been posed is whether brazil has a pro- or anti- US control stance as a result.