Even the dumb ancients could tell the difference between flood and darkness.;-)
And it's the wrong time frame. I don't think humans were around at the time of this event. The time frame for all these ancient writings is on the order of 7-8 thousand years ago - not 65 million. This places the writing very near to the end of the last ice age, IIRC.
Forbidding weapons in space is sorta like forbidding criminals from owning/using guns. Without an overwhelming force (*) to dissuade rogue nations from contravening the treaty, it's useless.
(*) The US as a rogue nation for doing this - and no one is likely to have overwhelming physical force to prevent it. But, "force" can just as easily be peer pressure as physical force. I doubt Bush will listen to that, either.
Also, I doubt other rogue nations which probably have not signed this treaty, would not be eyeing militarisation of space given that the class bully is already watching it closely.
Finally, and IANAL, one of the signatories to the treaty doesn't exist anymore. Does the treaty also therefore not exist, and thus bringing it up is merely blowing smoke by the anti-use-of-military-for-pretty-much-any-reason crowd?
Uneducated guess: that would be most likely due to KDE, not SuSE. The advantage of Fedora over SuSE in this case is solely that FC3 would be using a newer snapshot of the KDE build. (I'm not about to take sides in the RH vs SuSE war!)
There's one group of Linux users (mostly businesses who just want their commodity tools to simply work - sorta like a hammer) who want extreme stability (with lightning-fast fixes for real problems). RH's solution: RH Enterprise Linux.
There's another group of Linux users (mostly us geeky-types) who want the latest and greatest at all times. RH's solution: Fedora Linux.
Oh, I have a thicker skin that that - I didn't say I felt insulted - I said that what you said was insulting. Nor did I claim that you brought IQ in - my disclaimer was merely an attempt to say that this is the best measurement I can use to describe where I'm at, but I don't really trust them, so please don't start a flamewar over the unreliability of IQ measurements.;-)
There is also a world of difference between saying something definitively ("most people who supported Bush are less intelligent on average") and saying something subjectively ("most people I know who supported Bush are..."). The former lumps everyone into a single category, while the latter just says you hang out with the wrong crowd. Or the latter may just say that the level of maturity of your crowd is too low to accurately measure intelligence. Again, when everyone is agreeing with each other, maturity is not required to show your intelligence, while in a disagreement, maturity is required to show intelligence.
Also, in a conversation with everyone in agreement, it's hard to tell the unintelligent - someone nodding their head up and down all evening long may actually be intelligent if somewhat slow-witted (that is, doesn't speak up fast enough to show intelligence), or, contrarily, may be incredibly wise (a wise man keeps quiet, letting all think him a fool, while a foolish man opens his mouth to remove all doubt). Or may just be unintelligently trying to fit in. Really difficult to tell. In subjective areas, such as politics, it's difficult to tell a person's intelligence without disagreeing with them, but it then requires maturity to discern that intelligence.
You didn't say it explicitly, but you continue to imply it. And you continue to insult those of us who do have 140+ IQs and still support Bush. (I'll repeat from an earlier comment: I still think IQ is just a useless number used to label people, but let's pretend for a minute that it means something.) It's a lot easier to have an intelligent conversation with people who agree with you than with those who disagree. The real test of maturity is having an intelligent conversation with those who disagree with you.
I think you're mistaking maturity for intelligence. And I'm sure that when you come away from those "I win! You're a loser" type conversations, your adversary (for lack of a better term) is thinking to him/herself, "What an idiot"... not too far from your thoughts about them.
Don't get me wrong - I have trouble sometimes being charitable to those who disagree with me. If you could find some of my old Fidonet posts from my teenage years, you would, however, be able to see plainly how far I've matured;-)
"People who agreed with me are smarter than people who don't." Perhaps we should rephrase this a bit: Since I am human, and have any sort of an ego (that, in itself, is not bad - it's quite healthy), I think that I am smart. Therefore, anyone who agrees with me must also be smart.
I'm still waiting for the first objective post in favour of Kerry in politics.slashdot.org. Of course, the same could be said for Bush, so anyone taking this as a jab should consider how meaningless of a jab it is.
Same could be said of your religious comment - since you're likely non-religious, you assume that people who disagree with you must be less smart. That must place you at an IQ of at least 180 - since Einstein was still Jewish.
Why? Simple - because most people are either a) too lazy or b) too trusting that the soundbites he gives are the most relevant and honest portions of whatever a person is quoting. Especially of topics that the reader/listener is not convinced is important enough to investigate.
Most readers here will already be skeptical of anything coming from Microsoft. But can you say the same about anything coming from Novell, especially in response to Microsoft? Or on any non-geeky topic?
Why? Because he can, and it will serve to improve his shareholder value. And Novell will respond because it will serve their shareholder value - unfortunately, without a significant impact on MS shareholder value, but that's not Novell's goal, only Novell's shareholder value is important to Novell.
Defending them? You out of your mind? There are many examples of non-union shops that kill/maim their employees through malice or ignorance. And there are likely many more examples of union shops where management truly still cares for the unioned employees above and beyond contractual requirements. Wonderful thing about statistics is that it marginalises the abnormal and emphasises the regular.
I have seen many shops that go out of their way to provide for employee safety. There just is no substitute for safety when long term viability of a company is considered. It's also cheaper to be safe than to train due to increased turnover!
Actually, this gives me an excellent opportunity to rebut my own post (see how long it stays mod'd so high). First, however, I'll address Tibor's point: you're comparing apples to oranges, my friend. With phones, the wireless part is the part you carry around with you. With speakers, generally speaking (no pun intended!), you place the speakers once, and you're done. They're very, very static. Completely unlike anything that can be held in your hand (such as a phone, a laptop, camera, etc. - a camera that doesn't need a wire to hook up to your PC, now that would be useful!).
The advantage of wireless speakers really is that you can have a centrally-located PC-based home-theatre system (and I mean the entire home - a set of speakers in the den, another in the kitchen, another in the front room, another in...). I suspect that this technology is merely for a single output - all rooms get the same sound. What would make this really useful, IMO, is to first get surround-sound output working, and then to be able to have a single wireless soundcard able to handle multiple outputs independantly.
Ok, I have a tangle of wires. A huge tangle (2 monitors, keyboards, mice, 5 computers, one printer, two KVMs,...). But why would I get wireless speakers? Either a) they'll all waste a ton of batteries, or b) they'll all need to be plugged in to the wall. The former is way too expensive, the latter is still another wire - and outlets are at a premium here!
I was hoping this would be a story about mainstream going to surround sound support, for a more realistic audio experience (whether that's playing Doom 4, or listening to a concert-hall performance of Bach or Beethoven).
I don't really care what your hobby is - there are going to be "normal" people doing it, and some rather extreme people. Whipping down a hill at 100mph on nothing put a board of wood or two is not exactly my favourite activity, but skiing at normal paces is fine. Heck, I know people who ski 3 times a week - how do they do it when they have jobs or girlfriends?
Answer: as with anything else in life, it's priorities. For those who don't spend time organising their priorities before doing them, the priorities naturally gravitate to things you feel comfortable doing, and that you are good at. Some people aren't comfortable in social situations as themselves - e.g., low self-esteem. Don't deny them their hobby just because they ain't like you.
The group that I currently game with involves: one MBA, one elementary teacher, one pre-school teacher, one engineer, and one tech graduate. The two teachers are women. We play once every few months. No harm, no foul - keep your paranoia and delusions to yourself.
Mind you... none of us were anywhere near those 30th anniversary games.
Privatising nuclear power is pretty much impossible because no insurance company, or even group of insurance companies, will insure a nuclear plant. Only an organisation which has deep enough pockets to survive without insurance has any hope of going ahead with this. That is pretty much just the government (partly because they can retroactively legislate limitations on damages if they get in too much trouble).
That said, about the only places I've seen where management doesn't care about its employees are highly-unionised shops where the union rules don't allow for personal interaction, having written all interactions down in a contract. Generally speaking, it's bad for business to go around killing your customers or your employees - the former pay you, the latter do the work, and when rumours go out that you're killing your employees, it's often difficult to replace them. (Excepting depression periods, such as the 1930's.)
Finally, my last point is that the US should go ahead with nuclear power, but they should buy all their reactors from Canada. The CanDu (sp?) reactors are the world's safest nuclear reactors, used in many countries to provide cheap, plentiful, and safe energy.
(Yes, I'm Canadian;-> But I don't work for the nuclear power sector, nor does any of my family to my knowledge.)
I do understand that the instant you have to explain a joke to someone, it becomes a lot less funny, but I have to do it...
It looks like it's doing okay. [prosco.net]
At this point, it seems that AndroidCat (229562) is, indeed, missing its parent's joke. However...
Check it out and hit refresh a few times to make sure.
the encouragement to slashdot the hell out of prosco is entertaining in its own right. If I laughed any louder, my coworkers would have complained! AndroidCat's subtle encouragement to cause the joke s/he supposedly missed is a poignant expression of... oh, who am I fooling - it's just plain funny:-)
That works both ways - if a "majority" of the population voted for an "extremist" party (say, 40% - enough to pretty much sweep the parliament in Canada), a small (11% of the vote) party could counter the majority. In other words, the smaller party would have, effectively, 4-5 times the power that the population gave it. Regardless of which direction it's coming from.
(I don't believe Bush is mentally challenged, I don't believe Kerry is mentally challenged, and I sure as heck don't believe that IQ is anything but attaching a meaningless number to people.)
Slashdot Mirror
How long do you put 'em in the nuke for? Mine keep exploding.
Even the dumb ancients could tell the difference between flood and darkness. ;-)
And it's the wrong time frame. I don't think humans were around at the time of this event. The time frame for all these ancient writings is on the order of 7-8 thousand years ago - not 65 million. This places the writing very near to the end of the last ice age, IIRC.
I don't see why not ... doesn't that make /. editors into journalists?
Forbidding weapons in space is sorta like forbidding criminals from owning/using guns. Without an overwhelming force (*) to dissuade rogue nations from contravening the treaty, it's useless.
(*) The US as a rogue nation for doing this - and no one is likely to have overwhelming physical force to prevent it. But, "force" can just as easily be peer pressure as physical force. I doubt Bush will listen to that, either.
Also, I doubt other rogue nations which probably have not signed this treaty, would not be eyeing militarisation of space given that the class bully is already watching it closely.
Finally, and IANAL, one of the signatories to the treaty doesn't exist anymore. Does the treaty also therefore not exist, and thus bringing it up is merely blowing smoke by the anti-use-of-military-for-pretty-much-any-reason crowd?
Uneducated guess: that would be most likely due to KDE, not SuSE. The advantage of Fedora over SuSE in this case is solely that FC3 would be using a newer snapshot of the KDE build. (I'm not about to take sides in the RH vs SuSE war!)
You can't please all the people all the time ...
There's one group of Linux users (mostly businesses who just want their commodity tools to simply work - sorta like a hammer) who want extreme stability (with lightning-fast fixes for real problems). RH's solution: RH Enterprise Linux.
There's another group of Linux users (mostly us geeky-types) who want the latest and greatest at all times. RH's solution: Fedora Linux.
Pick one.
Are you saying that there is no intent to steal votes by Nader? :-)
Oh, I have a thicker skin that that - I didn't say I felt insulted - I said that what you said was insulting. Nor did I claim that you brought IQ in - my disclaimer was merely an attempt to say that this is the best measurement I can use to describe where I'm at, but I don't really trust them, so please don't start a flamewar over the unreliability of IQ measurements. ;-)
There is also a world of difference between saying something definitively ("most people who supported Bush are less intelligent on average") and saying something subjectively ("most people I know who supported Bush are ..."). The former lumps everyone into a single category, while the latter just says you hang out with the wrong crowd. Or the latter may just say that the level of maturity of your crowd is too low to accurately measure intelligence. Again, when everyone is agreeing with each other, maturity is not required to show your intelligence, while in a disagreement, maturity is required to show intelligence.
Also, in a conversation with everyone in agreement, it's hard to tell the unintelligent - someone nodding their head up and down all evening long may actually be intelligent if somewhat slow-witted (that is, doesn't speak up fast enough to show intelligence), or, contrarily, may be incredibly wise (a wise man keeps quiet, letting all think him a fool, while a foolish man opens his mouth to remove all doubt). Or may just be unintelligently trying to fit in. Really difficult to tell. In subjective areas, such as politics, it's difficult to tell a person's intelligence without disagreeing with them, but it then requires maturity to discern that intelligence.
You didn't say it explicitly, but you continue to imply it. And you continue to insult those of us who do have 140+ IQs and still support Bush. (I'll repeat from an earlier comment: I still think IQ is just a useless number used to label people, but let's pretend for a minute that it means something.) It's a lot easier to have an intelligent conversation with people who agree with you than with those who disagree. The real test of maturity is having an intelligent conversation with those who disagree with you.
I think you're mistaking maturity for intelligence. And I'm sure that when you come away from those "I win! You're a loser" type conversations, your adversary (for lack of a better term) is thinking to him/herself, "What an idiot" ... not too far from your thoughts about them.
Don't get me wrong - I have trouble sometimes being charitable to those who disagree with me. If you could find some of my old Fidonet posts from my teenage years, you would, however, be able to see plainly how far I've matured ;-)
"People who agreed with me are smarter than people who don't." Perhaps we should rephrase this a bit: Since I am human, and have any sort of an ego (that, in itself, is not bad - it's quite healthy), I think that I am smart. Therefore, anyone who agrees with me must also be smart.
I'm still waiting for the first objective post in favour of Kerry in politics.slashdot.org. Of course, the same could be said for Bush, so anyone taking this as a jab should consider how meaningless of a jab it is.
Same could be said of your religious comment - since you're likely non-religious, you assume that people who disagree with you must be less smart. That must place you at an IQ of at least 180 - since Einstein was still Jewish.
Yeah, CNN has the exit polls - just look for "EDUCATION" and you should find it.
Why? Simple - because most people are either a) too lazy or b) too trusting that the soundbites he gives are the most relevant and honest portions of whatever a person is quoting. Especially of topics that the reader/listener is not convinced is important enough to investigate.
Most readers here will already be skeptical of anything coming from Microsoft. But can you say the same about anything coming from Novell, especially in response to Microsoft? Or on any non-geeky topic?
Why? Because he can, and it will serve to improve his shareholder value. And Novell will respond because it will serve their shareholder value - unfortunately, without a significant impact on MS shareholder value, but that's not Novell's goal, only Novell's shareholder value is important to Novell.
Defending them? You out of your mind? There are many examples of non-union shops that kill/maim their employees through malice or ignorance. And there are likely many more examples of union shops where management truly still cares for the unioned employees above and beyond contractual requirements. Wonderful thing about statistics is that it marginalises the abnormal and emphasises the regular.
I have seen many shops that go out of their way to provide for employee safety. There just is no substitute for safety when long term viability of a company is considered. It's also cheaper to be safe than to train due to increased turnover!
AGREED. Like cell phones, etc., but unlike speakers, headphones are a personal device which moves with your head.
Oh, and I don't particularly disagree with your coworkers ;-)
Actually, this gives me an excellent opportunity to rebut my own post (see how long it stays mod'd so high). First, however, I'll address Tibor's point: you're comparing apples to oranges, my friend. With phones, the wireless part is the part you carry around with you. With speakers, generally speaking (no pun intended!), you place the speakers once, and you're done. They're very, very static. Completely unlike anything that can be held in your hand (such as a phone, a laptop, camera, etc. - a camera that doesn't need a wire to hook up to your PC, now that would be useful!).
The advantage of wireless speakers really is that you can have a centrally-located PC-based home-theatre system (and I mean the entire home - a set of speakers in the den, another in the kitchen, another in the front room, another in ...). I suspect that this technology is merely for a single output - all rooms get the same sound. What would make this really useful, IMO, is to first get surround-sound output working, and then to be able to have a single wireless soundcard able to handle multiple outputs independantly.
Ok, I have a tangle of wires. A huge tangle (2 monitors, keyboards, mice, 5 computers, one printer, two KVMs, ...). But why would I get wireless speakers? Either a) they'll all waste a ton of batteries, or b) they'll all need to be plugged in to the wall. The former is way too expensive, the latter is still another wire - and outlets are at a premium here!
I was hoping this would be a story about mainstream going to surround sound support, for a more realistic audio experience (whether that's playing Doom 4, or listening to a concert-hall performance of Bach or Beethoven).
I don't really care what your hobby is - there are going to be "normal" people doing it, and some rather extreme people. Whipping down a hill at 100mph on nothing put a board of wood or two is not exactly my favourite activity, but skiing at normal paces is fine. Heck, I know people who ski 3 times a week - how do they do it when they have jobs or girlfriends?
Answer: as with anything else in life, it's priorities. For those who don't spend time organising their priorities before doing them, the priorities naturally gravitate to things you feel comfortable doing, and that you are good at. Some people aren't comfortable in social situations as themselves - e.g., low self-esteem. Don't deny them their hobby just because they ain't like you.
The group that I currently game with involves: one MBA, one elementary teacher, one pre-school teacher, one engineer, and one tech graduate. The two teachers are women. We play once every few months. No harm, no foul - keep your paranoia and delusions to yourself.
Mind you ... none of us were anywhere near those 30th anniversary games.
Privatising nuclear power is pretty much impossible because no insurance company, or even group of insurance companies, will insure a nuclear plant. Only an organisation which has deep enough pockets to survive without insurance has any hope of going ahead with this. That is pretty much just the government (partly because they can retroactively legislate limitations on damages if they get in too much trouble).
That said, about the only places I've seen where management doesn't care about its employees are highly-unionised shops where the union rules don't allow for personal interaction, having written all interactions down in a contract. Generally speaking, it's bad for business to go around killing your customers or your employees - the former pay you, the latter do the work, and when rumours go out that you're killing your employees, it's often difficult to replace them. (Excepting depression periods, such as the 1930's.)
Finally, my last point is that the US should go ahead with nuclear power, but they should buy all their reactors from Canada. The CanDu (sp?) reactors are the world's safest nuclear reactors, used in many countries to provide cheap, plentiful, and safe energy.
(Yes, I'm Canadian ;-> But I don't work for the nuclear power sector, nor does any of my family to my knowledge.)
Or pick another state, please. I first read that as "More spam cases for Viagra". Woops.
I do understand that the instant you have to explain a joke to someone, it becomes a lot less funny, but I have to do it ...
At this point, it seems that AndroidCat (229562) is, indeed, missing its parent's joke. However ...
the encouragement to slashdot the hell out of prosco is entertaining in its own right. If I laughed any louder, my coworkers would have complained! AndroidCat's subtle encouragement to cause the joke s/he supposedly missed is a poignant expression of ... oh, who am I fooling - it's just plain funny :-)
First time I ever saw a site slashdotted before it went live...
That works both ways - if a "majority" of the population voted for an "extremist" party (say, 40% - enough to pretty much sweep the parliament in Canada), a small (11% of the vote) party could counter the majority. In other words, the smaller party would have, effectively, 4-5 times the power that the population gave it. Regardless of which direction it's coming from.
That'll teach me to not use the preview button. Real URL: http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.h tm
Actually, this is the first thing I've seen reports that embryonic stem cells can do something that adult stem cells cannot. In fact, it's the first report that I've seen where we've manage to coax embryonic stem cells to do things - up to now, all successful stem cell research I've been able to find has been from adult stem cells.
If Bush is mentally challenged, what does that say about Kerry?
(I don't believe Bush is mentally challenged, I don't believe Kerry is mentally challenged, and I sure as heck don't believe that IQ is anything but attaching a meaningless number to people.)