It seems to me that the British scientist who is wagering that the Earth will get warmer could better spend his $10,000 doing something more productive. Like, oh, say, trying to halt global warming?
"The point is a US citizen can be declared an enemy combatant without proof and without *any* kind of trial or hearing. Once this is done, it's over -- unless this case is decided favorably by the Supreme Court. As it is now, I could be declared an enemy combatant (maybe because someone in the gov doesn't like my posts), I'd be put in custody. If --that's IF-- I'm lucky, I'll be able to contact my family and tell them what's happened. As it is now, though, they could declare me an enemy combatant, lock me up, and nobody would know where I was or what happened to me."
This here proves exactly why the PATRIOT Act is absolutely out of control. Since when does a country with the freedoms we have lock up citizens simply on a whim?
Being well acquainted with math and science, I don't feel a need to defend my proficiency in them. I just hate them. I would prefer to study English and not worry about String Theory or the citric acid cycle. That's why people can choose their professions. Those drawn to science can do as they choose, and when they put their commas outside of the quotation marks, I won't hold it against them. It seems that others have a problem seeing the inverse of this, however.
Why do I care how much an English major impacts the world relative to science? Not everyone wants to spend their lives curing disease or trying to stop world hunger. Obviously no work of fiction has the same weight as some of those things you mentioned, but what's your point? Fiction works are pointless because they don't solve planetary problems? Let's just stop having books, music and movies, they're obviously useless.
Yes, my priorities be damned. I can see where several grueling classes in microbiology or biochemistry would come in handy for someone who wants to live out their days writing fiction novels and/or short stories. Why should I bother to take difficult science classes? I've taken college level AP courses for calculus and biology, and am far more competent in those and other sciences than the average person need be. Why should I spend more of my valuable time taking rigorous classes for which I have no use when I'm going to have hard courses I care about, as well as four hours of swim practice every day?
You seem a bit bitter towards the way college education is run. Perhaps you couldn't handle the freedom to take the classes you would like to. Take too many classes on chemistry and not enough on basic grammar, namely capitalization?
Because not everyone is a science major. I'm going to be majoring in English in the fall, why would I want to spend my time taking grueling math and science classes? I have far more important things to worry about.
Besides, I feel classes that discuss the social repercussions of science are plenty valuable. Science always has to answer to society, it doesn't have carte blanche to do whatever it chooses (at least, here in the US, I can't really speak for the rest of the world). Generally, a new technological advancement doesn't become commonplace until it is accepted by the public. Think about cloning, we have the technology, but many people have problems with it. I personally encourage it, but I think if one is majoring in some sort of science field, it is important to realize how new advancements affect the populace
America is facing a serious fulcrum. Either we can continue to busy ourselves with our moral and ethical dilemmas which I feel partly stem from our Puritan ancestors and let the rest of the world pass us by. Or, we decide that we'd like to be a recognizable technological force in the 21st century and realize that our ethical dilemmas are rather unfounded.
The rest of the world doesn't seem too have much trouble figuring out where they stand on issues like abortion, gay marriage and nanotech. Why do we?
I rented Doom III. I played it. And I really really enjoyed it. Specifically because it's not like other FPS of the current day. It's not about that run and gun mentality.
I would go so far as to put Doom III in a class of its own. It's a FPS, perhaps lacking in the typical conventions of a FPS. But I think if id had wanted to make a typical FPS, they are not lacking the talent to do so. They simply chose an alternative route. The goal, as I see it, of Doom III was not to provide a challenging run and gun atmosphere. It was instead to create an interactive cinematic experience designed solely for the purpose of scaring the hell out of the player.
I spent a good deal of time playing Doom III at night, and it was one of the scariest things I've ever done. There aren't many things that make me yelp in fear. I don't think I can remember any movies that have scared me as much as Doom III. The atmosphere was crafted perfectly. The darkness, the sound effects, the great monster models and animation. Everything came together perfectly. I think id accomplished exactly what they set out to do. If you went into Dooom III looking for action like Halo, you were bound to be disappointed, but that's not what Doom III was ever supposed to be about. It was a change of pace that I would welcome again.
I may be mistaken, but I believe there's some international law that prevents the detonation of nuclear devices in space. Which is why this project never got off the ground.
For most well adjusted people, it probably IS harmeless. But for a developing child? You have to be fucking kidding me.
If a developing child is playing GTA, the parents should be flogged. There's a distinguishable line between kids/young adults who may have psychological issues playing a game like GTA, and small children playing it. Neither the unstable or the immature should be playing games like that, but unfortunately only one of those groups can be verified from a visual standpoint as to whether they should be able to play them.
I'll admit, games like GTA or Postal 2 are incredibly violent, and allow you to do things that are pretty sadistic. But I've got no problem with anyone trying to "hide behind this conjured BS" and make the games seem a little less twisted tthan they are. They're only trying to counter the Video Game Violence Panic Button that the media and Washington jump all over every time a kid shoots someone. What politicians seem to want is an era of video game McCarthyism, where because 1 kid played violent video games and murdered a bunch of people, everyone else who plays games like that must all be of the same mindset.
It's ridiculous, and it needs to stop, and if developers or people like Brooks Brown need to claim that the games are about Overarching Story Line X rather than killing cops, I'm behind them.
I have no way of actually proving what sort of mileage my car gets. I was giving an estimate and I could be way off.
You may have way more horsepower, but your engine is also 4.4 L bigger. It's a testament to the ingenuity of the rotary engine. Besides, I could drop a 2.0 Liter 3 rotor engine into it, and with some work, be pushing 400 hp, blow away your Camaro and still have 3.7 L less displacement.:)
There's no way the third gen is bigger. It's several hundred pounds lighter and is definitely smaller. I don't have any measurements, but I'm 99% sure the third gen is a significantly smaller car than the second gen.
I'm aware the third-gen RX-7 is vastly superior. Though, I think I like the styling of the second-gen better. And the RX-8 just looks stupid. The rumors of a 2006 RX-7 with 300+ bhp have me wetting myself though.
And, I'm aware my car is slow. Remember though, the 80's wasn't exactly the best decade for sports cars. Even a late 80's Testarossa will only do 0-60 in 5.5, which for a Ferrari is abominably slow. Stupid oil shortage...
Indeed, we Americans are obsessed with our big cars. But it's not just our SUVs. Even our American "sports cars" are enormous. I had my 1988 RX-7 parked next to a 2005 Ford Mustang the other day, and I thought the Mustang was going to eat my car alive.
Americans are about bigger and faster. Look at any truck or SUV from five to ten years ago. They're puny, both in size and power to what we have today, for the most part.
I regularly watch the Speed channel, and one day they had a show discussing the state of our automobiles these days. Apparently from 1990-2000 the average gas mileage of trucks actually increased. But in the past few years, it's actually dropped back below where it was in 1990, which astounds me.
Sure, the Wankel rotary isn't the most efficient thing on the planet. It's supposed to get 24 MPG, but it's probably 18-19 the way I drive it. But the size and inefficiency of cars on the road today is somewhat sickening. There isn't a day that goes by when I have trouble seeing around some SUV on the freeway, or watch a huge Ford truck go plowing past me at 100 mph with enough force to actually cause my car to be sucked to one side by the draft. I shudder, because if someone driving a 7000 lb Hummer hits someone going 90-95, it's all over for the other car. And being a driver of a tiny 3000 lb sports car, I constantly fear for my life and eye Hummer owners with much disdain.
I think we know the solution to this problem. We're going to have to introduce the owners of the Big 3 to fine European reliability, efficiency and styling. If American cars were smaller and better looking, they might interest me. Instead, I'm perfectly content with my RX-7, as I love the way it looks. And its appearance matters more to me than the fact that it's only pushing a 1.3 liter rotary with 140 hp.
Slashdot Mirror
That's really not the point. It's like betting your own money that your car will break down, and then never taking it in for regular maintenance.
It seems to me that the British scientist who is wagering that the Earth will get warmer could better spend his $10,000 doing something more productive. Like, oh, say, trying to halt global warming?
My father used to work for Wall Data in Berkeley, CA in the 90's. Not that it matters, but just thought that was interesting.
"The point is a US citizen can be declared an enemy combatant without proof and without *any* kind of trial or hearing. Once this is done, it's over -- unless this case is decided favorably by the Supreme Court. As it is now, I could be declared an enemy combatant (maybe because someone in the gov doesn't like my posts), I'd be put in custody. If --that's IF-- I'm lucky, I'll be able to contact my family and tell them what's happened. As it is now, though, they could declare me an enemy combatant, lock me up, and nobody would know where I was or what happened to me."
This here proves exactly why the PATRIOT Act is absolutely out of control. Since when does a country with the freedoms we have lock up citizens simply on a whim?
Being well acquainted with math and science, I don't feel a need to defend my proficiency in them. I just hate them. I would prefer to study English and not worry about String Theory or the citric acid cycle. That's why people can choose their professions. Those drawn to science can do as they choose, and when they put their commas outside of the quotation marks, I won't hold it against them. It seems that others have a problem seeing the inverse of this, however.
Why do I care how much an English major impacts the world relative to science? Not everyone wants to spend their lives curing disease or trying to stop world hunger. Obviously no work of fiction has the same weight as some of those things you mentioned, but what's your point? Fiction works are pointless because they don't solve planetary problems? Let's just stop having books, music and movies, they're obviously useless.
Yes, my priorities be damned. I can see where several grueling classes in microbiology or biochemistry would come in handy for someone who wants to live out their days writing fiction novels and/or short stories. Why should I bother to take difficult science classes? I've taken college level AP courses for calculus and biology, and am far more competent in those and other sciences than the average person need be. Why should I spend more of my valuable time taking rigorous classes for which I have no use when I'm going to have hard courses I care about, as well as four hours of swim practice every day?
You seem a bit bitter towards the way college education is run. Perhaps you couldn't handle the freedom to take the classes you would like to. Take too many classes on chemistry and not enough on basic grammar, namely capitalization?
Because not everyone is a science major. I'm going to be majoring in English in the fall, why would I want to spend my time taking grueling math and science classes? I have far more important things to worry about.
Besides, I feel classes that discuss the social repercussions of science are plenty valuable. Science always has to answer to society, it doesn't have carte blanche to do whatever it chooses (at least, here in the US, I can't really speak for the rest of the world). Generally, a new technological advancement doesn't become commonplace until it is accepted by the public. Think about cloning, we have the technology, but many people have problems with it. I personally encourage it, but I think if one is majoring in some sort of science field, it is important to realize how new advancements affect the populace
America is facing a serious fulcrum. Either we can continue to busy ourselves with our moral and ethical dilemmas which I feel partly stem from our Puritan ancestors and let the rest of the world pass us by. Or, we decide that we'd like to be a recognizable technological force in the 21st century and realize that our ethical dilemmas are rather unfounded.
The rest of the world doesn't seem too have much trouble figuring out where they stand on issues like abortion, gay marriage and nanotech. Why do we?
Touché, touché indeed. Geneva what?
I rented Doom III. I played it. And I really really enjoyed it. Specifically because it's not like other FPS of the current day. It's not about that run and gun mentality.
I would go so far as to put Doom III in a class of its own. It's a FPS, perhaps lacking in the typical conventions of a FPS. But I think if id had wanted to make a typical FPS, they are not lacking the talent to do so. They simply chose an alternative route. The goal, as I see it, of Doom III was not to provide a challenging run and gun atmosphere. It was instead to create an interactive cinematic experience designed solely for the purpose of scaring the hell out of the player.
I spent a good deal of time playing Doom III at night, and it was one of the scariest things I've ever done. There aren't many things that make me yelp in fear. I don't think I can remember any movies that have scared me as much as Doom III. The atmosphere was crafted perfectly. The darkness, the sound effects, the great monster models and animation. Everything came together perfectly. I think id accomplished exactly what they set out to do. If you went into Dooom III looking for action like Halo, you were bound to be disappointed, but that's not what Doom III was ever supposed to be about. It was a change of pace that I would welcome again.
I may be mistaken, but I believe there's some international law that prevents the detonation of nuclear devices in space. Which is why this project never got off the ground.
If a developing child is playing GTA, the parents should be flogged. There's a distinguishable line between kids/young adults who may have psychological issues playing a game like GTA, and small children playing it. Neither the unstable or the immature should be playing games like that, but unfortunately only one of those groups can be verified from a visual standpoint as to whether they should be able to play them.
I'll admit, games like GTA or Postal 2 are incredibly violent, and allow you to do things that are pretty sadistic. But I've got no problem with anyone trying to "hide behind this conjured BS" and make the games seem a little less twisted tthan they are. They're only trying to counter the Video Game Violence Panic Button that the media and Washington jump all over every time a kid shoots someone. What politicians seem to want is an era of video game McCarthyism, where because 1 kid played violent video games and murdered a bunch of people, everyone else who plays games like that must all be of the same mindset.
It's ridiculous, and it needs to stop, and if developers or people like Brooks Brown need to claim that the games are about Overarching Story Line X rather than killing cops, I'm behind them.
I have no way of actually proving what sort of mileage my car gets. I was giving an estimate and I could be way off.
:)
:)
You may have way more horsepower, but your engine is also 4.4 L bigger. It's a testament to the ingenuity of the rotary engine. Besides, I could drop a 2.0 Liter 3 rotor engine into it, and with some work, be pushing 400 hp, blow away your Camaro and still have 3.7 L less displacement.
And... an automatic? Have you no shame?
There's no way the third gen is bigger. It's several hundred pounds lighter and is definitely smaller. I don't have any measurements, but I'm 99% sure the third gen is a significantly smaller car than the second gen.
I'm aware the third-gen RX-7 is vastly superior. Though, I think I like the styling of the second-gen better. And the RX-8 just looks stupid. The rumors of a 2006 RX-7 with 300+ bhp have me wetting myself though. And, I'm aware my car is slow. Remember though, the 80's wasn't exactly the best decade for sports cars. Even a late 80's Testarossa will only do 0-60 in 5.5, which for a Ferrari is abominably slow. Stupid oil shortage...
Indeed, we Americans are obsessed with our big cars. But it's not just our SUVs. Even our American "sports cars" are enormous. I had my 1988 RX-7 parked next to a 2005 Ford Mustang the other day, and I thought the Mustang was going to eat my car alive. Americans are about bigger and faster. Look at any truck or SUV from five to ten years ago. They're puny, both in size and power to what we have today, for the most part. I regularly watch the Speed channel, and one day they had a show discussing the state of our automobiles these days. Apparently from 1990-2000 the average gas mileage of trucks actually increased. But in the past few years, it's actually dropped back below where it was in 1990, which astounds me. Sure, the Wankel rotary isn't the most efficient thing on the planet. It's supposed to get 24 MPG, but it's probably 18-19 the way I drive it. But the size and inefficiency of cars on the road today is somewhat sickening. There isn't a day that goes by when I have trouble seeing around some SUV on the freeway, or watch a huge Ford truck go plowing past me at 100 mph with enough force to actually cause my car to be sucked to one side by the draft. I shudder, because if someone driving a 7000 lb Hummer hits someone going 90-95, it's all over for the other car. And being a driver of a tiny 3000 lb sports car, I constantly fear for my life and eye Hummer owners with much disdain. I think we know the solution to this problem. We're going to have to introduce the owners of the Big 3 to fine European reliability, efficiency and styling. If American cars were smaller and better looking, they might interest me. Instead, I'm perfectly content with my RX-7, as I love the way it looks. And its appearance matters more to me than the fact that it's only pushing a 1.3 liter rotary with 140 hp.
Figures, since I'm suddenly realizing this thigh bone can be used as a club...
... the motherboard, or my culinary restraint.
Single frame of porn to flash on screen at start-up for .08 seconds, anyone?
Way to go Microsoft! I must say I admire their dedication to producing quality software...
Wait... citizens of Alabama deserve things?