Shock value yes, but also death value. Sure, you can drive a van up to the front of a supermarket and detonate the tons of explosives you have inside, but how many people would that kill? Supermarket shoppers are generally spread throughout the store, not congregating around the doorway. On a plane, you don't have to worry about all that. All the people you want to die, you don't have to worry about actually making them all explode, you just have to worry about making an explosion just big enough to put a hole in the side of the plane. Then you could kill quite a few people with the explosion and TWO bonuses. First, the survivors would have to deal with getting pushed out of the plane by the sudden air pressure change caused by the explosion, and second, for everyone left, there would be a very very long fall to look forward to, and an incredibly quick stop at the end.
Re:Remember Vulcan? ( no, not startrek vulcan )
on
Dark Matter Exists
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think you completely missed the point of GPs post. He meant the scientific community at the time considered Volcan's existence to be PROVEN. And that some wackos claimed to have seen it. These claims turned out to be false, however, and now everyone knows that Volcan doesn't exist and never did.
He then compares that situation to the current one - scant evidence that hardly supports, much less PROVES the claims that have been made.
Modern interstate highways have to handle traffic in huge volumes at low latencies; achieving this requires ideas and approaches from all of science: hardware, algorithms, traffic laws, automobile engineering and their integration in a discipline which Donaggie03 calls "traffic algorithmics"
if you consider the time it was written, Lewis' aims and beliefs, his arguments with Tolkein, etc.
I agree completely. You will get a better appreciation out of a piece of art by understanding all the things you list. My argument is that this knowledge is not mandatory. Lewis did not preface his books with a EULA stating every reader must learn about x and y before starting.
a painter delivers a triptych to a gallery with the instructions "all three panels to be aligned horizontally, positioned 3 feet from the floor, against a white wall, with 2 inches between each panel"
I concede this point, but with the disclaimer that I'm slightly anti-modern art for exactly this reason.
"They probably would rather someone like you die than enjoy one of their songs, just due to the principle of someone who 'doesn't understand art' shouldn't be dancing to their backbeat."
If it truly is "art" then once it is released, it should be the art appreciator's decision on how to view/listen to that art. Take any art class, be it music appreciation or modern film or great 20th century literature - they all have the same viewpoint in common, which is that a piece of art only means what the viewer thinks it means, not what the artist wanted it to mean. Did Lewis really mean for the Chronicles of Narnia to be a parable of chrisianity? Whether he did or didn't is irrelevant, what matters is what the reader chooses to believe. It should be the same way here. If a band has this grand artistic vision for an album, good for them, but once they release that album, its up to the listener to decide on how they view that album, or even if they want to go through all that trouble instead of just listening to the art that they enjoy and can appreciate as stand alone songs. These artists need to stop being so pretentious. It may be thier art, but it is not thier right to determine exactly how I appreciate that art.
Why do people always feel it is absolutely necessary to generalize an entire group based on information they learn about a certain small section of the group? So it turned out that Mother Teresa was a psycho who didn't believe in pain medication and some corrupt Catholic officials obused thier power centuries ago. . . that means "this lunacy seems to permeate most of Christianity?" Give me a break. It sounds to me like parent has other issues with religions in general and just HAS to twist every subject into a Christian bash.
The difference here is that once the radioactive waste is cooled and the half life is manipulated, after a short time the substance is not radioactive anymore so the government doesn't have to keep it stored in any special place to keep tabs on it. As it is now, the hundreds of thousands of pounds of nuclear waste has to be counted for indefinitely.
Why mark this redundant? I didn't know what a honeypot was . . To be fair, I was kinda getting the idea from the context of the other posts, but the definition still helps.
That "small building" could have been anything. Maybe it was a terrorist meeting place or hideout. You, and I, have no idea what that building really was. All we do know is that the military had a reason to target that building and anyone who came out of it. So.. are you upset that the military targeted that building and everyone that came out of it, or are you upset about the WAY they did it?
If you are upset about the way they did it, then you need to take a closer look at exactly what these soldier's jobs are. Do you think that soldiers can attack and kill people and feel all sad and regretful and remorseful about every dead body? Of course, that would be a nice clean perfect world to live in, but if that happened, these soldiers would not be able to do thier job very well. When these soldiers joke around like this, it's because they have to give themselves a sense of distance from the actions they are performing. Believe me, they will have enough time to feel bad for all the people they kill later on, after the fact, but while the action is going on, they have to do thier job any way possible, and usually this means joking around with each other.
So there's this word that basically means "a phrase using words that are opposites or otherwise incompatible." I can't think of what that word is at the moment, but I think Microsoft Security would be a good example of that. The end.
What is wrong with a guy doing a little research before implementing an assigned task? I assure you, conversing with colleagues about an issue, whether it is in person or online, and whether you actually know the PERSON or just thier slashdot handle, you are still conversing with colleagues. It sounds to me like you skipped the classes that stressed "teamwork" in your undergraduate curriculum.
If you are moving the mouse, then there has to be SOME joint on your body that is bending. I have a feeling that moving the mouse by bending your elbows and shoulders all day would feel a lot less natural.
C is the middle man right? So either way you look at it, C is getting the (possibly copyrighted) data before sending it on to B right? Ok, so the next argument would likely be "But C only gets very little of the data at a time before it is sent to B, and C never actually USES the data, so its all good!" So they C would just get sued as an accomplice or whatever instead of as a copyright violator. Either way, instead of B getting sued, it will be C that gets sued. Great idea.
From http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_a post.html
Don't use apostrophes for possessive pronouns or for noun plurals.
Apostrophes should not be used with possessive pronouns because possessive pronouns already show possession -- they don't need an apostrophe. His, her, its, my, yours, ours are all possessive pronouns. Here are some examples:
wrong: his' book
correct: his book
wrong: The group made it's decision.
correct: The group made its decision.
(Note: Its and it's are not the same thing. It's is a contraction for "it is" and its is a possesive pronoun meaning "belonging to it." It's raining out= it is raining out. A simple way to remember this rule is the fact that you don't use an apostrophe for the possesives his or hers, so don't do it with its!)
wrong: a friend of yours'
correct: a friend of yours
wrong: She waited for three hours' to get her ticket.
correct: She waited for three hours to get her ticket.
Slashdot Mirror
Shock value yes, but also death value. Sure, you can drive a van up to the front of a supermarket and detonate the tons of explosives you have inside, but how many people would that kill? Supermarket shoppers are generally spread throughout the store, not congregating around the doorway. On a plane, you don't have to worry about all that. All the people you want to die, you don't have to worry about actually making them all explode, you just have to worry about making an explosion just big enough to put a hole in the side of the plane. Then you could kill quite a few people with the explosion and TWO bonuses. First, the survivors would have to deal with getting pushed out of the plane by the sudden air pressure change caused by the explosion, and second, for everyone left, there would be a very very long fall to look forward to, and an incredibly quick stop at the end.
I think you completely missed the point of GPs post. He meant the scientific community at the time considered Volcan's existence to be PROVEN. And that some wackos claimed to have seen it. These claims turned out to be false, however, and now everyone knows that Volcan doesn't exist and never did. He then compares that situation to the current one - scant evidence that hardly supports, much less PROVES the claims that have been made.
Your statements prove that we don't know EVERYTHING. That is not the same as proving we don't know anything.
Hey I never said the system was perfect.
:)
Your concerns will be addressed in TrafficStop 2.0
Modern interstate highways have to handle traffic in huge volumes at low latencies; achieving this requires ideas and approaches from all of science: hardware, algorithms, traffic laws, automobile engineering and their integration in a discipline which Donaggie03 calls "traffic algorithmics"
if you consider the time it was written, Lewis' aims and beliefs, his arguments with Tolkein, etc.
I agree completely. You will get a better appreciation out of a piece of art by understanding all the things you list. My argument is that this knowledge is not mandatory. Lewis did not preface his books with a EULA stating every reader must learn about x and y before starting.
a painter delivers a triptych to a gallery with the instructions "all three panels to be aligned horizontally, positioned 3 feet from the floor, against a white wall, with 2 inches between each panel"
I concede this point, but with the disclaimer that I'm slightly anti-modern art for exactly this reason.
"They probably would rather someone like you die than enjoy one of their songs, just due to the principle of someone who 'doesn't understand art' shouldn't be dancing to their backbeat." If it truly is "art" then once it is released, it should be the art appreciator's decision on how to view/listen to that art. Take any art class, be it music appreciation or modern film or great 20th century literature - they all have the same viewpoint in common, which is that a piece of art only means what the viewer thinks it means, not what the artist wanted it to mean. Did Lewis really mean for the Chronicles of Narnia to be a parable of chrisianity? Whether he did or didn't is irrelevant, what matters is what the reader chooses to believe. It should be the same way here. If a band has this grand artistic vision for an album, good for them, but once they release that album, its up to the listener to decide on how they view that album, or even if they want to go through all that trouble instead of just listening to the art that they enjoy and can appreciate as stand alone songs. These artists need to stop being so pretentious. It may be thier art, but it is not thier right to determine exactly how I appreciate that art.
Why do people always feel it is absolutely necessary to generalize an entire group based on information they learn about a certain small section of the group? So it turned out that Mother Teresa was a psycho who didn't believe in pain medication and some corrupt Catholic officials obused thier power centuries ago. . . that means "this lunacy seems to permeate most of Christianity?" Give me a break. It sounds to me like parent has other issues with religions in general and just HAS to twist every subject into a Christian bash.
The difference here is that once the radioactive waste is cooled and the half life is manipulated, after a short time the substance is not radioactive anymore so the government doesn't have to keep it stored in any special place to keep tabs on it. As it is now, the hundreds of thousands of pounds of nuclear waste has to be counted for indefinitely.
Psh ... duh ...
How can he improve if we aren't here to relentlessly torment him on his mistakes?
Why mark this redundant? I didn't know what a honeypot was . . To be fair, I was kinda getting the idea from the context of the other posts, but the definition still helps.
That "small building" could have been anything. Maybe it was a terrorist meeting place or hideout. You, and I, have no idea what that building really was. All we do know is that the military had a reason to target that building and anyone who came out of it. So .. are you upset that the military targeted that building and everyone that came out of it, or are you upset about the WAY they did it?
If you are upset about the way they did it, then you need to take a closer look at exactly what these soldier's jobs are. Do you think that soldiers can attack and kill people and feel all sad and regretful and remorseful about every dead body? Of course, that would be a nice clean perfect world to live in, but if that happened, these soldiers would not be able to do thier job very well. When these soldiers joke around like this, it's because they have to give themselves a sense of distance from the actions they are performing. Believe me, they will have enough time to feel bad for all the people they kill later on, after the fact, but while the action is going on, they have to do thier job any way possible, and usually this means joking around with each other.
So there's this word that basically means "a phrase using words that are opposites or otherwise incompatible." I can't think of what that word is at the moment, but I think Microsoft Security would be a good example of that. The end.
Slashdot: the one online community where a majority of users catch the bunny references.
what do security questions have to do with the article mentioned?
huh?
Ahh, so "jet" as in a jet of fluid, as opposed to "jet" as in Im leaving on a jet plane . ..
:)
thank
What do black holes and jets have to do with each other?
So you are saying that the experts who do not find convincing evidence for these MECOs are actually thier PROPONENTS? Maybe I'm confused . .
ok. . . . CYNICAL!!
What is wrong with a guy doing a little research before implementing an assigned task? I assure you, conversing with colleagues about an issue, whether it is in person or online, and whether you actually know the PERSON or just thier slashdot handle, you are still conversing with colleagues. It sounds to me like you skipped the classes that stressed "teamwork" in your undergraduate curriculum.
If you are moving the mouse, then there has to be SOME joint on your body that is bending. I have a feeling that moving the mouse by bending your elbows and shoulders all day would feel a lot less natural.
C is the middle man right? So either way you look at it, C is getting the (possibly copyrighted) data before sending it on to B right? Ok, so the next argument would likely be "But C only gets very little of the data at a time before it is sent to B, and C never actually USES the data, so its all good!" So they C would just get sued as an accomplice or whatever instead of as a copyright violator. Either way, instead of B getting sued, it will be C that gets sued. Great idea.
You've read the books, but you still think his hame is "Ashland" ?? Or is it translated into another language that way?
From http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_a post.html
Don't use apostrophes for possessive pronouns or for noun plurals.
Apostrophes should not be used with possessive pronouns because possessive pronouns already show possession -- they don't need an apostrophe. His, her, its, my, yours, ours are all possessive pronouns. Here are some examples:
wrong: his' book
correct: his book
wrong: The group made it's decision.
correct: The group made its decision.
(Note: Its and it's are not the same thing. It's is a contraction for "it is" and its is a possesive pronoun meaning "belonging to it." It's raining out= it is raining out. A simple way to remember this rule is the fact that you don't use an apostrophe for the possesives his or hers, so don't do it with its!)
wrong: a friend of yours'
correct: a friend of yours
wrong: She waited for three hours' to get her ticket.
correct: She waited for three hours to get her ticket.