It is generally very hard to hear us over the noise from the anti-gun crowd and the guns at any cost loonies. Just as it is difficult to hear the majority over those in control of the two dominant parties in this country.
It was not an assault rifle. Stop listening to a bunch of policemen (in this case), reporters and politicians who do not know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and an assault weapon. The weapon in this case was the former. Just because it has a plastic and aluminum stock doesn't mean its an assault rifle or that its only purpose is killing people, en masse or otherwise. If you want to argue your point at least get your facts straight. Do you have an objection to someone carrying a semiautomatic rifle in public? Your objection to assault rifles is moot since open carry does not apply to them.
This is exactly as evolutionary theory proposes. You have confused procreation with predation. Naturalists use the term "target fixation" to describe the behavior. Imagine a predator cat (like a cheetah) without highly evolved "target fixation." It would run after the herd of wildebeest and never catch any because it would continually change targets - not enough time to catch them all. And it isn't really "highly evolved" - as soon as a one celled predator could tell the difference between two of its prey, the behavior was favored evolutionarily. In this case, weak minded individuals self-select to become prey.
An idiot who gets things done is better than a genius who doesn't. If you are surprised at management's position, then your evaluation of who is the idiot is flawed.
Yeah our dog's tags were just the right pitch to change the channel. He had a habit of scratching his neck on fourth down and short when the Redskins were going for the first down. We seemed to miss a lot of key plays. I miss that dog.
I dont see the average household needing 10gbit when most home computers can barely find a use for gigabit. Dont kid yourself, gigabit is really only useful for niche home applications once you get out of the business realm.
Yes, and "640K ought to be enough for anybody." Bill Gates didn't say it and he knew better, shouldn't you?
If you RTFA you would have seen that the original source was the Sydney Morning Herald, to which Fox dutifully provided a link, and which provided additional information. Fox managed to report the news without contradicting the original source or adding its own speculation, something few American media (I hesitate to use 'news') sources seem to be capable of these days.
The same could be said for Britain and the American colonies, the US and Vietnam, or the USSR and Afghanistan. The crucial element is the will to prevail.
Yeah, he was the one who desegregated schools under the law passed during the Kennedy administration. Where were Kennedy and Johnson on that one? As a Senator he voted for the civil rights bills that came to vote. As VP, he helped shepherd the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through Congress. Nixon implemented the Philadelphia Plan in 1970 - the first significant federal affirmative action program. He endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment when it went to the states for ratification. There are lots of true negative things you can say about Nixon, but his Civil Rights record isn't one of them.
Per the 10th they MAY have the authority. The next line of protections of our liberties are the state constitutions which may or may not reserve that power to the state.
What is typical about a quad core android phone? AFAIK there are none available in the US; Meizu and Fujitsu have announced them for second half of the year (when did Verizon, AT&T, Sprint or T-Mobile carry either brand?), and HTC's One X won't have it for us - only countries with different frequencies. Since you clearly don't know WTF you're talking about, I think most readers will dismiss the rest of your post as drivel.
Claimed and implied are different. They didn't imply anything. Their claims were explicit in that they differentiated PCs from Macs ("I'm a Mac.", "And I'm a PC.") and referred to PC viruses. You haven't done your homework, as there are no examples from Apple of what you claim.
Unless you happen to be one of the million or more who clicked on a bogus/rigged link on a spoofed site and got this Flashback Trojan installed.
FTFY
The majority of Macs have one of the cheap/free pieces of software that prevented this trojan from installing - Little Snitch, Xcode, VirusBarrier X6, iAntiVirus, avast!, ClamXav, HTTPScoop, Packet Peeper. I said have rather than run as it is sufficient that the path to the application existed, and the application did not need to be running.
21,000 people have pre-existing condition insurance as a result of the bill, Obama said it would be 375,000 in the first year alone. When the creator of the bill was off by more than an order of magnitude, do you really want the rest of the bill to go into effect? I do not consider a failure of that magnitude to be "doing just fine." I predict that they will not find the individual mandate unconstitutional, as the SCOTUS has a vested interest in Federalism.
You can get much better performance out of a small garden for a family (on a food produced per acre measure) than you can out of a large farm.
Isn't that the wrong measure? How about food produced per man-hour, food produced per barrel of oil, or food produced per Calorie consumed (appropriate for subsistence level farming, i.e. over half the world's population)? By none of those measures does a small garden deliver better performance, because they actually measure return on investment better than your suggestion. Most people on this planet do not have free time, you have a first world distorted view, the third world is what you need to address to reduce the disparity of wealth. Of the 40 people you speak of, 2 will get gold teeth, tatoos drugs, and a big SUV, 2 will have the money taken from them by con artists, 8 will put it in the bank and let someone else invest it, 8 will start a business - 4 will succeed, and 20 will find other creative ways to turn a big pile of money into a small pile of money.
Your analogy may well be true, but since your assumptions are wrong it has lead you to the wrong conclusion - Apparently concentration of wealth is desirable (from an efficiency standpoint), and that seems to be confirmed by the trends we see. Your statement, "I think that there needs to be a monetary incentive to work hard to get the maximum productivity out of society." has been answered (there are incentives; they create larger disparities in wealth) and you just don't like the answer. I'm not advocating it, I'm just reporting it.
Why would you need to raise the oxygen level in any fuel that will be mixed with air in a controlled manner? If you want to oxidize the fuel completely, you increase the air/fuel ratio until it burns clean - that is what oxygen sensors and mass flow meters are for, putting alcohol which has oxygen atoms in it or MTBE in the fuel decreases the available energy per unit volume of the fuel and adjustments are made by the fuel system to compensate. The EPA tests cars using gasoline that does not include alcohol (good luck finding that at the gas station). If a engine were designed so that it could not decrease the air/fuel ratio below that required for EPA testing, it might have serious NOx emission issues on the road that the EPA testing would miss. The scientific method does not include testing something close to what is being tested and saying it is the same - It is the difference between "scientifically valid" and "close enough for Government work."
Trying to correlate price to production cannot succeed. It should be clear that the only possible correlation is production to price. Because oil is an international commodity, its price is largely out of US control, but domestic producers will produce when the price is high enough for them to make a profit and they will shut-in a well when the prices go lower. The correlation is more likely to be production fluctuating with a delay of three to four months in response to price fluctuations. An even better correlation may come from production to oil futures prices.
Are the Republicans wrong? Yes, because if we increase production, Saudi Arabia will reduce production by almost the same amount to leave the world supply essentially unchanged. Should we do it anyway? Yes, because it reduces the US trade deficit and makes the US more independent since we could produce enough to survive and let the rest of the world fight over oil if the other producing countries try to restrict production. Imagine a war without a US presence - well, we can dream can't we?
I did not dodge anything, I thought I was clear that the parent commenter was wrong and his argument fatally flawed, as is yours. Your insistence that one particular mathematical interpretation of the passage is the only valid one puts you in with creationists on lack of reasoning ability. Is it only acceptable to round the circumference, but not the radius? If so, would you please cite a source for such reasoning? Rounding is not false, we must do it to represent pi with numerals. 3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.142, 3.1416, 3.14159,... , which is close enough that you cannot dispute it?
It amazes me that otherwise seemingly intelligent people will go stupid/blind/deaf in discussions of religion regardless of their position. An obvious and reasonable conclusion is that 9.54929659 cubits from brim to brim was rounded to ten and the circumference was thirty cubits, or that both values were rounded. To presume that ten cubits was exact and that the circumference was incorrect mathematically is not logical, but as it serves your purposes you choose to stick to that version in which a conflict exists between the Bible and math or science when it does not. If you read the entire chapter you will see that no fractions were used in any of the descriptions, so we can reasonably conclude that some of those values were rounded, it would be odd if every item mentioned was an integral number of cubits high, wide or deep.
You really should think these things through better. Yours is not even close to a reasonable argument, it is down there with arguments made by creationists and intelligent design advocates. There is no issue with the literal interpretation of that passage, and none that is necessarily inconsistent with science or math. There are hundreds of conflicts between statements in the Bible and science, but you are barking up the wrong tree on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
It is generally very hard to hear us over the noise from the anti-gun crowd and the guns at any cost loonies. Just as it is difficult to hear the majority over those in control of the two dominant parties in this country.
It was not an assault rifle. Stop listening to a bunch of policemen (in this case), reporters and politicians who do not know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and an assault weapon. The weapon in this case was the former. Just because it has a plastic and aluminum stock doesn't mean its an assault rifle or that its only purpose is killing people, en masse or otherwise. If you want to argue your point at least get your facts straight. Do you have an objection to someone carrying a semiautomatic rifle in public? Your objection to assault rifles is moot since open carry does not apply to them.
And a nice chianti.
This is exactly as evolutionary theory proposes. You have confused procreation with predation. Naturalists use the term "target fixation" to describe the behavior. Imagine a predator cat (like a cheetah) without highly evolved "target fixation." It would run after the herd of wildebeest and never catch any because it would continually change targets - not enough time to catch them all. And it isn't really "highly evolved" - as soon as a one celled predator could tell the difference between two of its prey, the behavior was favored evolutionarily. In this case, weak minded individuals self-select to become prey.
Since when are penises measured diagonally?
They aren't responsible for mechanized cheese making. Kraft beat them to it ... by decades. But Kraft wasn't about to help others with the problem.
An idiot who gets things done is better than a genius who doesn't. If you are surprised at management's position, then your evaluation of who is the idiot is flawed.
Back in the days when pennies jingled instead of rattled.
Yeah our dog's tags were just the right pitch to change the channel. He had a habit of scratching his neck on fourth down and short when the Redskins were going for the first down. We seemed to miss a lot of key plays. I miss that dog.
Next you'll be suggesting he have flesh-tone skin.
I dont see the average household needing 10gbit when most home computers can barely find a use for gigabit. Dont kid yourself, gigabit is really only useful for niche home applications once you get out of the business realm.
Yes, and "640K ought to be enough for anybody." Bill Gates didn't say it and he knew better, shouldn't you?
If you RTFA you would have seen that the original source was the Sydney Morning Herald, to which Fox dutifully provided a link, and which provided additional information. Fox managed to report the news without contradicting the original source or adding its own speculation, something few American media (I hesitate to use 'news') sources seem to be capable of these days.
The same could be said for Britain and the American colonies, the US and Vietnam, or the USSR and Afghanistan. The crucial element is the will to prevail.
Yeah, he was the one who desegregated schools under the law passed during the Kennedy administration. Where were Kennedy and Johnson on that one? As a Senator he voted for the civil rights bills that came to vote. As VP, he helped shepherd the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through Congress. Nixon implemented the Philadelphia Plan in 1970 - the first significant federal affirmative action program. He endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment when it went to the states for ratification. There are lots of true negative things you can say about Nixon, but his Civil Rights record isn't one of them.
Per the 10th they MAY have the authority. The next line of protections of our liberties are the state constitutions which may or may not reserve that power to the state.
What is typical about a quad core android phone? AFAIK there are none available in the US; Meizu and Fujitsu have announced them for second half of the year (when did Verizon, AT&T, Sprint or T-Mobile carry either brand?), and HTC's One X won't have it for us - only countries with different frequencies. Since you clearly don't know WTF you're talking about, I think most readers will dismiss the rest of your post as drivel.
Claimed and implied are different. They didn't imply anything. Their claims were explicit in that they differentiated PCs from Macs ("I'm a Mac.", "And I'm a PC.") and referred to PC viruses. You haven't done your homework, as there are no examples from Apple of what you claim.
Unless you happen to be one of the million or more who clicked on a bogus/rigged link on a spoofed site and got this Flashback Trojan installed.
FTFY
The majority of Macs have one of the cheap/free pieces of software that prevented this trojan from installing - Little Snitch, Xcode, VirusBarrier X6, iAntiVirus, avast!, ClamXav, HTTPScoop, Packet Peeper. I said have rather than run as it is sufficient that the path to the application existed, and the application did not need to be running.
21,000 people have pre-existing condition insurance as a result of the bill, Obama said it would be 375,000 in the first year alone. When the creator of the bill was off by more than an order of magnitude, do you really want the rest of the bill to go into effect? I do not consider a failure of that magnitude to be "doing just fine." I predict that they will not find the individual mandate unconstitutional, as the SCOTUS has a vested interest in Federalism.
You can get much better performance out of a small garden for a family (on a food produced per acre measure) than you can out of a large farm.
Isn't that the wrong measure? How about food produced per man-hour, food produced per barrel of oil, or food produced per Calorie consumed (appropriate for subsistence level farming, i.e. over half the world's population)? By none of those measures does a small garden deliver better performance, because they actually measure return on investment better than your suggestion. Most people on this planet do not have free time, you have a first world distorted view, the third world is what you need to address to reduce the disparity of wealth. Of the 40 people you speak of, 2 will get gold teeth, tatoos drugs, and a big SUV, 2 will have the money taken from them by con artists, 8 will put it in the bank and let someone else invest it, 8 will start a business - 4 will succeed, and 20 will find other creative ways to turn a big pile of money into a small pile of money.
Your analogy may well be true, but since your assumptions are wrong it has lead you to the wrong conclusion - Apparently concentration of wealth is desirable (from an efficiency standpoint), and that seems to be confirmed by the trends we see. Your statement, "I think that there needs to be a monetary incentive to work hard to get the maximum productivity out of society." has been answered (there are incentives; they create larger disparities in wealth) and you just don't like the answer. I'm not advocating it, I'm just reporting it.
Why would you need to raise the oxygen level in any fuel that will be mixed with air in a controlled manner? If you want to oxidize the fuel completely, you increase the air/fuel ratio until it burns clean - that is what oxygen sensors and mass flow meters are for, putting alcohol which has oxygen atoms in it or MTBE in the fuel decreases the available energy per unit volume of the fuel and adjustments are made by the fuel system to compensate. The EPA tests cars using gasoline that does not include alcohol (good luck finding that at the gas station). If a engine were designed so that it could not decrease the air/fuel ratio below that required for EPA testing, it might have serious NOx emission issues on the road that the EPA testing would miss. The scientific method does not include testing something close to what is being tested and saying it is the same - It is the difference between "scientifically valid" and "close enough for Government work."
75% dehydration in our population is an urban myth.
Trying to correlate price to production cannot succeed. It should be clear that the only possible correlation is production to price. Because oil is an international commodity, its price is largely out of US control, but domestic producers will produce when the price is high enough for them to make a profit and they will shut-in a well when the prices go lower. The correlation is more likely to be production fluctuating with a delay of three to four months in response to price fluctuations. An even better correlation may come from production to oil futures prices.
Are the Republicans wrong? Yes, because if we increase production, Saudi Arabia will reduce production by almost the same amount to leave the world supply essentially unchanged. Should we do it anyway? Yes, because it reduces the US trade deficit and makes the US more independent since we could produce enough to survive and let the rest of the world fight over oil if the other producing countries try to restrict production. Imagine a war without a US presence - well, we can dream can't we?
I did not dodge anything, I thought I was clear that the parent commenter was wrong and his argument fatally flawed, as is yours. Your insistence that one particular mathematical interpretation of the passage is the only valid one puts you in with creationists on lack of reasoning ability. Is it only acceptable to round the circumference, but not the radius? If so, would you please cite a source for such reasoning? Rounding is not false, we must do it to represent pi with numerals. 3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.142, 3.1416, 3.14159, ... , which is close enough that you cannot dispute it?
It amazes me that otherwise seemingly intelligent people will go stupid/blind/deaf in discussions of religion regardless of their position. An obvious and reasonable conclusion is that 9.54929659 cubits from brim to brim was rounded to ten and the circumference was thirty cubits, or that both values were rounded. To presume that ten cubits was exact and that the circumference was incorrect mathematically is not logical, but as it serves your purposes you choose to stick to that version in which a conflict exists between the Bible and math or science when it does not. If you read the entire chapter you will see that no fractions were used in any of the descriptions, so we can reasonably conclude that some of those values were rounded, it would be odd if every item mentioned was an integral number of cubits high, wide or deep.
You really should think these things through better. Yours is not even close to a reasonable argument, it is down there with arguments made by creationists and intelligent design advocates. There is no issue with the literal interpretation of that passage, and none that is necessarily inconsistent with science or math. There are hundreds of conflicts between statements in the Bible and science, but you are barking up the wrong tree on this one.