Since that is not the only way it can be made, we can not say or assume that the presence of oil proves the past or current presance of life.
It may well still be worth a second look, but it does not prove anything.
Of course the presence of oil on another body would show that life once existed there. What book have you read that said that oil can be created in any manner other than through decomposing biological material?
Let me guess, you probably think that oil is an infinite resource that magically renews itself.
On each rover there is a color-calibration target which is used to determine 'true color correctness' (my words, not theirs). This article from Discover talks about how NASA determines what is the true color of each Mars picture using the color target. A picture of the target, an identical copy of which is kept on Earth and is compared against a picture from Mars in which the target on the rover is present in the picture, is shown in the article.
My legal education is a bit fuzzy but your last sentence hits the nail on the head. The petition does exactly what the article states: Thompson has to tell the judge why he shouldn't be held in contempt for doing whatever it is the court told him not to do.
I haven't read the details but for the sake of argument let's say that the judge told both parties they couldn't do media interviews. Jack then turns around and does an interview with a family-friendly web site. That would be a contempt of court issue. The law firm is now trying to force Jack to explain why he shouldn't face whatever penalty the court said it would impose if either party talked to the media.
This is different from whether Jack has been shown to be guilty. In essence, the law firm is telling the court, "Jack did what you told him not to do. I want you to force him to tell you why he shouldn't suffer the penalty."
So anywhere in the US a 6 year old kid can quite legally buy (say) hardcore S&M poronography?
Oh to live in a place where that would be possible. My younger years would have been much more entertaining though having a 'Calvin and Hobbes'-based life isn't too bad.
Not to sound like a creationist but nowhere in that entire article (yes, I read the whole thing) did it say that green was proven to produce the effects shown. In fact, in the line you site, the words 'may play a role' are used, not 'has been shown'.
Further, at the end of the article it is said, 'has the potential to influence body weight and body composition'. . .
On top of which, the method they used to pursue the study is not the same as that which Coke is using. In the study they used 2 capsules of green tea extract per meal. That amount is far more than one would get from drinking three cans of Coke per day (which is what Coke recommends).
And one final comment. If you read the article it is specifically stated that: the amount of caffeine consumed during treatment with the green tea extract may have reached the critical dose, which, although ineffective by itself, may have enabled a synergistic interaction with other bioactive ingredients in the green tea extract to promote catecholamine-induced thermogenesis and fat oxidation.
In other words, the various ingredients of the green tea extract, when combined with the caffeine, produced the results. It was not the green tea itself which did the work.
Sorry, I still stand by original statement that this green tea nonsense is still a scam. This isn't to say that drinking green tea isn't good for you, it's just not this miracle drink that the marketers are claiming it to be.
Funny how, as others have mentioned, one can never get a copy of any of the supposed studies which 'prove' whatever it is the product claims. Like Kevn Trudeau and hisscam or the now discredited DHEA claim, this too will be shown to be a false promise of getting something for nothing.
I overall like ff, but I find besides the memory feature, that it is just slow and balky compared to IE (and I have tweaked the ff settings for speed).
Are we done with this memory issue crap? The vast, vast, VAST majority of memory issues with Firefox were and are extension related. I've been running it since the 0.8 Phoenix days and have never had any problem with memory issues. This includes my now 1G of ram Windows 2000 system I run at home. Want to see how the current RC version compares in memory usage to IE7 and Opera, try this: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=4685 25
Note the huge discrepancy between memory usage.
Slow and balky? You're obviously a troll because from day one Firefox has always been faster than IE on every page I visit, including Microsoft's own site, regardless of what OS I'm using. On average, Firefox is 1-2 seconds faster loading a page than IE. In some cases the page loading times are nearly five seconds faster using Firefox.
You're free to use whatever browser you want, no matter how insecure its, but stop throwing FUD out. It only makes you look stupid.
I see this as similar to music radio stations, where you get free music, but there's advertising that comes with it, and you can't avoid hearing the ads.
It's called the volume control knob or preset buttons. When I hear a commercial coming I'm off to another station or turn the volume down so I can't hear anything for a few minutes.
Never, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason, no matter how much you are paid, threatened or if everyone else is doing it, use Flash for your opening page.
Nothing short of an excessively annoying car commercial which perpetually runs on local radio stations makes my hand move faster than to get away from a site where Flash is required to see what's there.
go outside, sit on your fat ass, don't look at or talk to the kid next to you so you don't say something the might possibly be construed as offensive or threatening and hope a bee doesn't sting you.
Kids can't be kids any more so why bother with the child labor laws? Just let them become drones at an early age and help their family earn enough to make up for the assualt on the Middle Class.
Don't you know? Oil will never run out! Year after year we keep hearing talk about how we've reached our max ability to pump oil yet the amount of oil supply keeps rising.
This is the golden age of oil, one that will never end.
(If anyone thinks the above was serious you really need to get off the drugs. And yes, that was a Simpsons reference at the end.)
The story may come up in a few hours but for a story like this I give the editors a decent amount of time to post it from someone else before I put it in my journal. I figure if I've seen it, then someone else must have also submitted it.
However, since I had been on MarketWatch's page and saw the announcement come across the wire, I can't imagine someone else submitting the story first.
Then again, Zonk is on duty and he rejects a majority of my stories so maybe it's just a grudge thing.
In my state the hypocrisy is reaching new heights as the GOP governor continues to try to allow slot machines at horse tracks while it is still technically illegal to play poker among friends.
That's ok. I have a Democratic Governor who signed a bill passed by the GOP controlled Congress to allow slot machines at horse tracks because the tracks would have gone out of business in another decade or so.
Think I'm kidding? The bill specifically gives licenses to six horse tracks and one harness-racing track with an additional seven going to non-track sites. Read this article and take specific note of the last few paragraphs.
Ostensibly the revenue the state gets from the slots parlors will go towards reducing property taxes and more funding for schools but most estimates have shown the average reduction to be no more than $300, probably substantially less. However, there is/was a measure in the GOP-controlled Senate to increase the property tax reduction depending on how much we, the voters, agree to raise the earned income tax. See this article on how Republicans want to raise taxes on people.
Yeah, let's allow slots but not poker or blackjack because as everyone knows, gambling is evil.
I prefer 'Invisible Rubberbands'. I once used that phrase in a letter-to-the-editor in a reply to someone who tried the whole, "It's a theory!" nonsense when talking about ID.
After all, if evolution can be challenged by a theological precept which cannot be tested in any fashion, then so can the Theory of Gravity be challenged by the Theory of Invisible Rubberbands.
If you're making phone calls to terrorists, or they're making phone calls to you, your lines will get tapped.
But the only way for the government to know if I'm calling a terrorist, or someone they suspect of being a terrorist, is to tap my line.
Thus, my rights ARE being violated because they're not getting a warrant to find out if I'm calling someone they should know about.
If you're not and they try something like that, you can sue the living crap out of the people that are doing it, and you'll have lawyers out the door to back you up. And you'll win.
No you won't because the government will say that they were doing so in the interest of national security. Once those magical words come out it is extremely unlikely that any judge will penalize the government for vacuuming your calls.
Yes, a judge recently ruled that the wiretapping, as a whole, is illegal but in this case you're talking about one person. Witness the Canadian citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil because the RCMP claimed he had met with terrorists and was sent to Syria to be tortured.
I think most people would rather vote for an individual rather than a party.
It would be nice to think so but that's not how things work. In my state of PA, I have heard people call into talk shows about who they were going to vote for in the upcoming Senate race and I heard this gem:
Voter: "I'm still undecided about voting for Santorum. There are many things he's done that I'm not happy with."
Host: "What about Casy? Would you consider him?"
Voter: "I'd never vote for Casey because he's a Democrat. I may have to not vote for Santorum but I'll never vote for Casey."
I have heard this repeated time and again (from people of both persuasions) so it is more prevelant than you think. I dare say that if Osama Bin Laden were on the ticket for one of the parties there are people who would still vote a straight party ticket even with him on it simply because he's registered with their party.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public. You'll save yourself much grief in so doing.
Slashdot Mirror
It may well still be worth a second look, but it does not prove anything.
Of course the presence of oil on another body would show that life once existed there. What book have you read that said that oil can be created in any manner other than through decomposing biological material?
Let me guess, you probably think that oil is an infinite resource that magically renews itself.
On each rover there is a color-calibration target which is used to determine 'true color correctness' (my words, not theirs). This article from Discover talks about how NASA determines what is the true color of each Mars picture using the color target. A picture of the target, an identical copy of which is kept on Earth and is compared against a picture from Mars in which the target on the rover is present in the picture, is shown in the article.
This won't do anything since the people who are normally too lazy to get off their fat asses and vote won't be visiting such sites anyway.
Besides, to quote Bill Vaughan:
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election.
Judging by the way things are, that's not too far from the truth.
My legal education is a bit fuzzy but your last sentence hits the nail on the head. The petition does exactly what the article states: Thompson has to tell the judge why he shouldn't be held in contempt for doing whatever it is the court told him not to do.
I haven't read the details but for the sake of argument let's say that the judge told both parties they couldn't do media interviews. Jack then turns around and does an interview with a family-friendly web site. That would be a contempt of court issue. The law firm is now trying to force Jack to explain why he shouldn't face whatever penalty the court said it would impose if either party talked to the media.
This is different from whether Jack has been shown to be guilty. In essence, the law firm is telling the court, "Jack did what you told him not to do. I want you to force him to tell you why he shouldn't suffer the penalty."
Oh to live in a place where that would be possible. My younger years would have been much more entertaining though having a 'Calvin and Hobbes'-based life isn't too bad.
Further, at the end of the article it is said, 'has the potential to influence body weight and body composition'. . .
On top of which, the method they used to pursue the study is not the same as that which Coke is using. In the study they used 2 capsules of green tea extract per meal. That amount is far more than one would get from drinking three cans of Coke per day (which is what Coke recommends).
And one final comment. If you read the article it is specifically stated that: the amount of caffeine consumed during treatment with the green tea extract may have reached the critical dose, which, although ineffective by itself, may have enabled a synergistic interaction with other bioactive ingredients in the green tea extract to promote catecholamine-induced thermogenesis and fat oxidation.
In other words, the various ingredients of the green tea extract, when combined with the caffeine, produced the results. It was not the green tea itself which did the work.
Sorry, I still stand by original statement that this green tea nonsense is still a scam. This isn't to say that drinking green tea isn't good for you, it's just not this miracle drink that the marketers are claiming it to be.
Funny how, as others have mentioned, one can never get a copy of any of the supposed studies which 'prove' whatever it is the product claims. Like Kevn Trudeau and his scam or the now discredited DHEA claim, this too will be shown to be a false promise of getting something for nothing.
Are we done with this memory issue crap? The vast, vast, VAST majority of memory issues with Firefox were and are extension related. I've been running it since the 0.8 Phoenix days and have never had any problem with memory issues. This includes my now 1G of ram Windows 2000 system I run at home. Want to see how the current RC version compares in memory usage to IE7 and Opera, try this: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=468
Note the huge discrepancy between memory usage.
Slow and balky? You're obviously a troll because from day one Firefox has always been faster than IE on every page I visit, including Microsoft's own site, regardless of what OS I'm using. On average, Firefox is 1-2 seconds faster loading a page than IE. In some cases the page loading times are nearly five seconds faster using Firefox.
You're free to use whatever browser you want, no matter how insecure its, but stop throwing FUD out. It only makes you look stupid.
It's already been done and found to be a hoax.
Anything else you want to complain about?
It's called the volume control knob or preset buttons. When I hear a commercial coming I'm off to another station or turn the volume down so I can't hear anything for a few minutes.
So yes, you can avoid hearing the ads.
Never, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason, no matter how much you are paid, threatened or if everyone else is doing it, use Flash for your opening page.
Nothing short of an excessively annoying car commercial which perpetually runs on local radio stations makes my hand move faster than to get away from a site where Flash is required to see what's there.
Kids can't be kids any more so why bother with the child labor laws? Just let them become drones at an early age and help their family earn enough to make up for the assualt on the Middle Class.
Jesse Ventura and Ross Perot? In both cases they were so far out of the norm that it would have been fun to see what they could do.
Unfortunately, only one got in and I couldn't vote or benefit from his election.
When I first read the headline I thought it said, "FDA Set To Approve Products from Cloned Clowns"
Don't you know? Oil will never run out! Year after year we keep hearing talk about how we've reached our max ability to pump oil yet the amount of oil supply keeps rising.
This is the golden age of oil, one that will never end.
(If anyone thinks the above was serious you really need to get off the drugs. And yes, that was a Simpsons reference at the end.)
The story may come up in a few hours but for a story like this I give the editors a decent amount of time to post it from someone else before I put it in my journal. I figure if I've seen it, then someone else must have also submitted it.
However, since I had been on MarketWatch's page and saw the announcement come across the wire, I can't imagine someone else submitting the story first.
Then again, Zonk is on duty and he rejects a majority of my stories so maybe it's just a grudge thing.
it probably has something to do with Google buying YouTube.
Close, but you missed a bit. It's a drunk, GAY, pedophile who happens to serve in Congress.
That's ok. I have a Democratic Governor who signed a bill passed by the GOP controlled Congress to allow slot machines at horse tracks because the tracks would have gone out of business in another decade or so.
Think I'm kidding? The bill specifically gives licenses to six horse tracks and one harness-racing track with an additional seven going to non-track sites. Read this article and take specific note of the last few paragraphs.
Ostensibly the revenue the state gets from the slots parlors will go towards reducing property taxes and more funding for schools but most estimates have shown the average reduction to be no more than $300, probably substantially less. However, there is/was a measure in the GOP-controlled Senate to increase the property tax reduction depending on how much we, the voters, agree to raise the earned income tax. See this article on how Republicans want to raise taxes on people.
Yeah, let's allow slots but not poker or blackjack because as everyone knows, gambling is evil.
(For those thinking to mod me Troll or Flamebait, look up the word sarcasm)
I prefer 'Invisible Rubberbands'. I once used that phrase in a letter-to-the-editor in a reply to someone who tried the whole, "It's a theory!" nonsense when talking about ID.
After all, if evolution can be challenged by a theological precept which cannot be tested in any fashion, then so can the Theory of Gravity be challenged by the Theory of Invisible Rubberbands.
But the only way for the government to know if I'm calling a terrorist, or someone they suspect of being a terrorist, is to tap my line.
Thus, my rights ARE being violated because they're not getting a warrant to find out if I'm calling someone they should know about.
If you're not and they try something like that, you can sue the living crap out of the people that are doing it, and you'll have lawyers out the door to back you up. And you'll win.
No you won't because the government will say that they were doing so in the interest of national security. Once those magical words come out it is extremely unlikely that any judge will penalize the government for vacuuming your calls.
Yes, a judge recently ruled that the wiretapping, as a whole, is illegal but in this case you're talking about one person. Witness the Canadian citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil because the RCMP claimed he had met with terrorists and was sent to Syria to be tortured.
The Justice Department is trying to claim "state secrets privilege" in his case against them.
So, how far do you think you'd get if you found out your phone was being tapped?
I would never have guessed.
It would be nice to think so but that's not how things work. In my state of PA, I have heard people call into talk shows about who they were going to vote for in the upcoming Senate race and I heard this gem:
Voter: "I'm still undecided about voting for Santorum. There are many things he's done that I'm not happy with."
Host: "What about Casy? Would you consider him?"
Voter: "I'd never vote for Casey because he's a Democrat. I may have to not vote for Santorum but I'll never vote for Casey."
I have heard this repeated time and again (from people of both persuasions) so it is more prevelant than you think. I dare say that if Osama Bin Laden were on the ticket for one of the parties there are people who would still vote a straight party ticket even with him on it simply because he's registered with their party.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public. You'll save yourself much grief in so doing.
It is blatantly obvious that my remark on the survey about unneeded editors was correct.