By far Dr. Strangelove. Peter Sellers is an amazing actor (also the president & british officer in the movie) in "Dr. Strangelove or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb".
Favorite Quote: "Deterrence is the art of producing in the enemy the fear of attack".
Actually, the voters do not get to vote on subjects like this. Your REPRESENTATIVE votes for you. Sure I can vote for a democrat or republican, but in the end of the day they listen to wall street instead of me. Voting for a 3rd party (which I've done) seems to produce no results. Explain to me again why I should vote for someone else to make decisions for me? I think the better method is to aim to get rich and buy a politician... I wish I was misguided, but tell me a better strategy?
I found these guys in the bay area that rock. Large scale hardware http://www.berkcom.com/ Fast shipment & EXCELLENT customer service. Unfortunately, there website really doesn't represent their inventory or quality tho.
Living in the Bay Area of San Fran., I recently went to a biodiesel conference. I was a bit disappointed at the unorganized manner of the speakers. They talked down on the idea of a large scale corporation creating biodiesel. I am in favor of this idea, as it would drive down costs. The cheapest I've seen biodiesel is $3.17 a gallon. However, gas prices are approaching that price. In fact, I've seen gas for as much as $3.50 a gallon in downtown San Fran. Regardless, this study states biodiesel requires more energy to create than it produces.
"In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
* Corn requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* Switch grass requires 45% more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* Wood biomass requires 57% more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
* Soybean plants requires 27% more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* Sunflower plants requires 118% more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix."
I don't even see why this is a problem. If anything, this is beneficial for the producers of technology, as their skills become more valuable as a whole culture develops around it. The art of being rich is getting people to depend on you and consuming less than you produce.
This seems to imply Microsoft is doing something bad by quizing potential employees. I have no problem with testing people, even if their credentials are amazing. While Sorkin received an unsolicited invitation, he accepted it! After the 'arrogant pop-quiz' he withdrew his application. Who cares. Instead of proving himself, he withdrew his application. Sorkin is being arrogant as well.
It seems that stories based on hard science, but predicting future events, are very similar to philosophy. If the story uses logic and the base axioms are existing technology, we should categorize it separately.
you can steal the election by the machines. Imagine one corrupt official (not that unrealistic) who changes the votes after the election is complete. How would you know there was voter fraud with the current electonic voting machines?
But a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Glenda Hood said, "This ruling takes Florida back to 2000,"
of course a paper trail takes us back to 2000 where we could actually recount the votes...
what we want is a system different than 2000, where we can steal the election without anyone knowing.
That's funny because I use to live in boston, went to school at Northeastern and now I live in San Francisco. I definitely noticed a culture change, people in California are much more open minded than the people on the east coast.
I'm an independent and like some republicans such as Alan Greenspan and Paul O'Neil. If you've read Paul's book 'the price of loyalty' he talks about this extensively. It seems to me to be a good plan to privatize Social Security because it's going to be bankrupt within the next 20 years. Both Greenspan and O'Neil pushed for this.
In addition, the stock market has ALWAYS gone up over any 10 year period. Assuming you're investing for most of your life, you're basically guarenteed to make more money in returns than you would investing the same money into the current social security system.
I am young, 23 and was wondering how your experience has changed over time? Do you think it's because you are more successful or because society is becoming more tolerant? I was born after the civil rights movement and had very tolerant parents. I have many friends of all races and feel that this is one area where America has improved over the last 200 years. I'm curious what your feelings are on this. Of course there are still a lot of racist people around, but it seems to be targeted towards muslims now instead of race. This seems like an unfortunate consequence of our current circumenstances like the way we treated the Japanese during WW2. While many things are getting worse in America I want to believe that discrimination is one thing we've improved on.
I disagree with "No law has ever stopped gay men from living out life in gay relationships" Obviously the gay men in concentration camps could not live out a life in gay relationships until they were freed. Not to mention the amount of gay people who are scared to come out because of the social implications. If gay people were accepted as humans you'd see more gay relationships. I am not gay but I have a short story for you.
A friend of mine got married and had 3 kids as a result of not being able to live a normal life as a gay man. He didn't come out until his 40's.
Now if homosexuality is genetic, then it seems to me, if people accepted homosexuality and the above situation was avoided, these 'homosexuality' genes would not pass on to future generations. Essentially all you need to do is let people be gay and they'll stop having kids.
I just saw "what the bleep do we know" and have to say it was very interesting but also lacking in scientific facts. There is one section in the movie about the power of thought affecting water. Some guy took pictures of water that he prayed to. The pictures of water that he prayed positive thoughts to looked prettier than the pictures of the water he prayed negative thoughts to. I was very interested in this "scientific" experiment and did a little research. It turns out he used pure water and froze it for the positive thoughts sample and used polluted water for the negative thoughts... this drove me crazy. There was also some other false claims in the movie.
However, to get back on the subject, I do believe that we have a certain degree of free will and this is provable with science. We can change the way our brain works by practicing a skill such as guitar. You actually change your brain by developing nerve paths that make playing guitar easier the more you practice.
hah, that freaky old testament stuff? I find the new testament pretty freaky and filled with hipocracy.
Religion pisses me off. It's handed down to kids and rarely does a person choose their religion. In addition, people take this stuff to be literally true when scientific evidence (independently repeatable experiments) proves that reality does not exist the way the old and new testament claims it does.
Slashdot Mirror
You got my vote bud - I posted the same.
Peter Sellers is awesome! I just saw lolita and he was a few great characters in that movie too.
By far Dr. Strangelove. Peter Sellers is an amazing actor (also the president & british officer in the movie) in "Dr. Strangelove or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb". Favorite Quote: "Deterrence is the art of producing in the enemy the fear of attack".
Anyone else notice they don't say which Korea? Obviously we all know that answer, but come on!
Actually, the voters do not get to vote on subjects like this. Your REPRESENTATIVE votes for you. Sure I can vote for a democrat or republican, but in the end of the day they listen to wall street instead of me. Voting for a 3rd party (which I've done) seems to produce no results. Explain to me again why I should vote for someone else to make decisions for me? I think the better method is to aim to get rich and buy a politician... I wish I was misguided, but tell me a better strategy?
He's also attributed to drawing enough would-be republicans to sway the election to Clinton.
Anyone else remember hearing about this at Defcon last year?
Has everyone forgotten that the United States is NOT a democracy? It's a federal republic.
I found these guys in the bay area that rock. Large scale hardware http://www.berkcom.com/ Fast shipment & EXCELLENT customer service. Unfortunately, there website really doesn't represent their inventory or quality tho.
Living in the Bay Area of San Fran., I recently went to a biodiesel conference. I was a bit disappointed at the unorganized manner of the speakers. They talked down on the idea of a large scale corporation creating biodiesel. I am in favor of this idea, as it would drive down costs. The cheapest I've seen biodiesel is $3.17 a gallon. However, gas prices are approaching that price. In fact, I've seen gas for as much as $3.50 a gallon in downtown San Fran. Regardless, this study states biodiesel requires more energy to create than it produces.
n ol.toocostly.ssl.html
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/etha
From article:
"In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
* Corn requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* Switch grass requires 45% more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* Wood biomass requires 57% more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
* Soybean plants requires 27% more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* Sunflower plants requires 118% more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix."
I don't even see why this is a problem. If anything, this is beneficial for the producers of technology, as their skills become more valuable as a whole culture develops around it. The art of being rich is getting people to depend on you and consuming less than you produce.
This seems to imply Microsoft is doing something bad by quizing potential employees. I have no problem with testing people, even if their credentials are amazing. While Sorkin received an unsolicited invitation, he accepted it! After the 'arrogant pop-quiz' he withdrew his application. Who cares. Instead of proving himself, he withdrew his application. Sorkin is being arrogant as well.
It seems that stories based on hard science, but predicting future events, are very similar to philosophy. If the story uses logic and the base axioms are existing technology, we should categorize it separately.
I have an adwords account and just checked on the projected traffic for "mesothelioma". The results are as follows:
estimated clicks per day: 1.9
estimated average cost per click: $0.73
estimated cost per day: $1.73
estimated average position: 12.3
Again these are just estimates, through google, but who knows how much it costs to be #1 position.
"and I knight thee sir gates to teach the children about sex through toy robots"
An automated count doesn't work if the machine is hacked. You need a paper trail to verify the e-machines weren't tampered with.
you can steal the election by the machines. Imagine one corrupt official (not that unrealistic) who changes the votes after the election is complete. How would you know there was voter fraud with the current electonic voting machines?
how about we have 2 buckets labelled bush and kerry which voters can shit in.
But a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Glenda Hood said, "This ruling takes Florida back to 2000," of course a paper trail takes us back to 2000 where we could actually recount the votes...
what we want is a system different than 2000, where we can steal the election without anyone knowing.
That's funny because I use to live in boston, went to school at Northeastern and now I live in San Francisco. I definitely noticed a culture change, people in California are much more open minded than the people on the east coast.
I'm an independent and like some republicans such as Alan Greenspan and Paul O'Neil. If you've read Paul's book 'the price of loyalty' he talks about this extensively. It seems to me to be a good plan to privatize Social Security because it's going to be bankrupt within the next 20 years. Both Greenspan and O'Neil pushed for this.
In addition, the stock market has ALWAYS gone up over any 10 year period. Assuming you're investing for most of your life, you're basically guarenteed to make more money in returns than you would investing the same money into the current social security system.
I am young, 23 and was wondering how your experience has changed over time? Do you think it's because you are more successful or because society is becoming more tolerant? I was born after the civil rights movement and had very tolerant parents. I have many friends of all races and feel that this is one area where America has improved over the last 200 years. I'm curious what your feelings are on this. Of course there are still a lot of racist people around, but it seems to be targeted towards muslims now instead of race. This seems like an unfortunate consequence of our current circumenstances like the way we treated the Japanese during WW2. While many things are getting worse in America I want to believe that discrimination is one thing we've improved on.
I disagree with "No law has ever stopped gay men from living out life in gay relationships" Obviously the gay men in concentration camps could not live out a life in gay relationships until they were freed. Not to mention the amount of gay people who are scared to come out because of the social implications. If gay people were accepted as humans you'd see more gay relationships. I am not gay but I have a short story for you.
A friend of mine got married and had 3 kids as a result of not being able to live a normal life as a gay man. He didn't come out until his 40's.
Now if homosexuality is genetic, then it seems to me, if people accepted homosexuality and the above situation was avoided, these 'homosexuality' genes would not pass on to future generations. Essentially all you need to do is let people be gay and they'll stop having kids.
I just saw "what the bleep do we know" and have to say it was very interesting but also lacking in scientific facts. There is one section in the movie about the power of thought affecting water. Some guy took pictures of water that he prayed to. The pictures of water that he prayed positive thoughts to looked prettier than the pictures of the water he prayed negative thoughts to. I was very interested in this "scientific" experiment and did a little research. It turns out he used pure water and froze it for the positive thoughts sample and used polluted water for the negative thoughts... this drove me crazy. There was also some other false claims in the movie.
However, to get back on the subject, I do believe that we have a certain degree of free will and this is provable with science. We can change the way our brain works by practicing a skill such as guitar. You actually change your brain by developing nerve paths that make playing guitar easier the more you practice.
hah, that freaky old testament stuff? I find the new testament pretty freaky and filled with hipocracy.
Religion pisses me off. It's handed down to kids and rarely does a person choose their religion. In addition, people take this stuff to be literally true when scientific evidence (independently repeatable experiments) proves that reality does not exist the way the old and new testament claims it does.
jesus was a pacifist. You didn't see him fighting back when he was being tortured.