Sure, the Japanese robots are less expensive, get better milage, but they use cheaper parts, break down more, and repairs are expensive because American mechanics' hands aren't small enough. Japanese robots have no style, no luxury models. I'll take a robot, but make mine American... might cost more upfront, might get crappy miliage, but at least you can't blame me for handing my country over to a bunch of small fisted binars!
Their business is not like all others. Drug dealers sell you what you want, and they've successfully been prosecuted using the P.Act. McDonald's is more like Big Tobacco than, say, IBM. Mcdonald's should be held accountable for the effects of its product, even if we want that product. Wouldn't you want Smith & Wessen held accountable if their most popular product killed 5% of its users? It would be a good thing, causing them to rethink their product to be less dangerous to use. Car manufacturers are often held accountable for defective manufacturing or design, why not McDonald's? Just because you think it tastes good doesn't make it good. Have you ever tasted antifreeze? Maybe McDonald's should sell that.
Your post is appeciated. Before the PATRIOT Act is repealed, they should use it to prosecute McDonald's, because they've killed more Americans in the last hundred years than all terrorist organizations combined. It should be so easy to eat healthy that you can't escape it. Instead... we get the exact opposite.
It appears most Americans are more easily offended...
THANK YOU, that is most perceptive. That is the real issue, not Apple censorship. Its the US that is to blame, the moral majority. Apple is merely complying with national sentiment, like American broadcast and cable compannies. Apple doesn't dictate morality!
MOD PARENT UP (keep up the good work, we're all countin on you)
Treatment of mental illness must remain between a doctor and a patient.
What if the patient is a community, or nation? Sometimes doctors have a conflicting interest. I don't think it would be good for the psychiatrics wing if there was a miracle drug to cure mental illness, just as a miracle cure for cancer probably would wipe out oncology as we know it. But if such a drug exists, its probably Lithium. Then again, arguably, all effective drugs/treatments are miracles.
Lithium stands out among other mood-stabilizers. In modern medicene, it is old, perhaps older than any other effective treatment for depression/mania. Pretty sure there are locations all over that in ancient times were known as something like healing waters where there was a high concentration of naturally disovled Lithium. The point is its not that its process to achieve its effect is understood, per se, but that its been used safely for perhaps millennia, and it pretty much always works. Consider if they decided to test putting Xanax or Depokote in drinking water supplies... these drugs didn't exist 50 years ago. They seem to be pretty good drugs, but who knows what bad things we might discover about them 450 years from now?
Also, I don't think its insignificant that the drug is basically just a naturally forming mineral/ element. Although many drugs are naturally occuring, they usually require, unlike Lithium, some more complex process to isolate that molecule that is the drug.
The actual cannon is, I believe, that the growths were always there on the Klingon's foreheads, but during the short time period of TOS (?4 years), there was a fashion trend that was popular among Klingons to flatten their foreheads. Worf says at some point in DS9 (the other tribbles episode) that "we do not speak of it," so it was apparently an embarassing trend that they try to forget (think about all the straight-laced former hippies burning pics of themselves out of embarrassment).
hmm... listing pkgsrc as a drawback? Every admin I know sez its better than any other available... perhaps for this reason its been ported to most other platforms even...
I guess you're right... It just seems so absurd to me that there's plenty of of other power generating methods, some really really cool ones that work well and don't make that kind of waste. Some are more practical in some areas than others, but there's other choices. There's stuff we know, like about what fission produces and what it can be used for, then there's all the other industrial processes that somehow make bad waste that we never hear about... deadly waste management is a thriving industry. And unnecessarily. My perfect solution would be if we stopped advancement of nuclear power globally, except those plants in production maybe, which could be phased out eventually, and some small scale research or military power plants... and then provided power to most humans on the planet by any other means, hopefully something smart and clean, but if not, then dirty, and anything but nuclear. Boo nukes. We have other means of providing electricity. My personal favorite is wind. I'd like to own a giant power generating wind turbine some day. And hydro is popular, and that weird generator that makes power from ocean waves is interesting. Geothermal power generation is outstanding. And did you hear what the Pope is doing?
I never intimated that we need a way to mitigate the deadliness
That's correct, Jurily was the one who brought up the subject of recycling and how it may lower the amount of danger nuclear power poses. He wasn't changing or ignoring the meaning of your statements, only adding his own. And that's why everyone else knows he wasn't using a straw man - you cannot make a straw man argument by adding new information, only by misrepresenting what another person says, which he hasn't done.
That's exactly what he's done, and you just aren't capable of conceding, or seeing the difference in what I have said and to what you are answering.
No. Even if recycling nuclear waste was easy, cheap, and widespread (all of which recycling is not) it could not make nuclear waste any safer. I believe I've made this point quite enough times, and I appreciate that you disagree with me.
Whenever the NEC got around to designing and building all those power plants, do you really think they said "ok, we're gonna make a lot of waste here... and its bad stuff... but its not so bad that we shouldn't use fission widespread for energy production," i.e., they had the same opinion as you and Jurily? Actually, this fact was brushed aside, likely not even considered seriously... because we needed fuel for bombs. The major reason we have so many plants is that apparently, we grossly overestimated the amount of fuel for bombs that we needed or wanted. Flash forward a few decades, and we have a whole economy/culture surrounding nuclear power. Suddenly, it looks better than clean energy because an infrastructure is already in place (that we built when we needed fuel for bombs). Yes, we have problems... like what to do with the waste, et al., but apparently, arguments will solve this.
More to the point, you seem to think that we're disputing the fact that nuclear power plants make nuclear waste - we aren't.
you've said a few times now. No, I'm not.
We're disputing the idea that nuclear power plants are too dangerous to use, which is an opinion based on the difference between a person's tolerance for danger and their assessment of the danger posed by the plants.
Unfortunately, nuclear power plants aren't like skydiving, where its a single individual that pretty much decides if they're jumping out of the plane or not. A person's tolerance for danger had absolutely nothing to do with the construction of any of the currently operating nuclear power plants. Surely there were studies into something similar, such as what how many rads does to what kind of living tissue or something.
Because the results of recycling that waste can change that assessment,
right, as I explained, like taking a cup of water from an ocean changes its total volume, yet... its really not significant, is it? Recycling plastic is so much cheaper, easier, widespread... and yet we have plastic garbage nearly everywhere. You are not changing the assessment of any waste except the waste that is recycled, not all nuclear waste.
they're germane to the conversation.
sure, which is why oceanographers and conservationists are measuring oceans to the milliliter... because every drop counts.
my meaning is that we have no option but to cease production of the stuff.
That is a good example of the perfect solution fallacy.
great... so I wrote a perfect solution fallacy between the lines. I can't believe you.
Anyway, this thread should be closed to new posts soon, and it's pretty clear that you're beyond my ability to help. So good luck, I think you'll need it.
Hey, really appreciate your attempts at condescension and, of course, the inaccurate assessment of my argument. Take care.
Again, you are attempting to weaken the meaning. I never intimated that we need a way to mitigate the deadliness, right or wrong, my meaning is that we have no option but to cease production of the stuff.
here's another crappy metaphor:
c-Guns are deadly.
y-We have bullet-proof vests.
c-can a bullet still kill?
y-sure, no one doubts that
c-then your responce is a straw man because my point is not that we need to mitigate (LOVE that word) a gun's deadliness by giving everyone bullet-proof vests, even if now they may survive being shot, guns are still deadly. We should stop production of guns and bullets.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, the Japanese robots are less expensive, get better milage, but they use cheaper parts, break down more, and repairs are expensive because American mechanics' hands aren't small enough. Japanese robots have no style, no luxury models. I'll take a robot, but make mine American... might cost more upfront, might get crappy miliage, but at least you can't blame me for handing my country over to a bunch of small fisted binars!
Their business is not like all others. Drug dealers sell you what you want, and they've successfully been prosecuted using the P.Act. McDonald's is more like Big Tobacco than, say, IBM. Mcdonald's should be held accountable for the effects of its product, even if we want that product. Wouldn't you want Smith & Wessen held accountable if their most popular product killed 5% of its users? It would be a good thing, causing them to rethink their product to be less dangerous to use. Car manufacturers are often held accountable for defective manufacturing or design, why not McDonald's? Just because you think it tastes good doesn't make it good. Have you ever tasted antifreeze? Maybe McDonald's should sell that.
Your post is appeciated.
Before the PATRIOT Act is repealed, they should use it to prosecute McDonald's, because they've killed more Americans in the last hundred years than all terrorist organizations combined.
It should be so easy to eat healthy that you can't escape it. Instead... we get the exact opposite.
Now THAT is a nerd's nerd. At the age of eleven, names a planet after a Roman god.
Not all that original, really... they're all named after Roman gods. Now if she had suggested "Loki" or perhaps "Hellboy," I'd call her my nerd.
she lived to see it lose its planet status... couldn't those selfish astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists waited a few more years?
&&FP
Where can I buy this bond?
Why would you want to? Why invest in a proprietary bond that locks you in to one vendor? Linux bonds are free.
they just boot Windows
Are you sure? I've never seen one that wasn't running Slackware. I'm pretty sure they just boot Slackware.
if the hacker has any sense, he'll hack the U.S. Constitution and restore the backups of Habeas corpus
... that one is by an actual reporter with actual fact checking.
but... it makes no sense... just what business would such an individual have at the LA Times?
It appears most Americans are more easily offended...
THANK YOU, that is most perceptive. That is the real issue, not Apple censorship. Its the US that is to blame, the moral majority. Apple is merely complying with national sentiment, like American broadcast and cable compannies. Apple doesn't dictate morality!
Thanks!
MOD PARENT UP
(keep up the good work, we're all countin on you)
Treatment of mental illness must remain between a doctor and a patient.
What if the patient is a community, or nation? Sometimes doctors have a conflicting interest. I don't think it would be good for the psychiatrics wing if there was a miracle drug to cure mental illness, just as a miracle cure for cancer probably would wipe out oncology as we know it. But if such a drug exists, its probably Lithium. Then again, arguably, all effective drugs/treatments are miracles.
Lithium stands out among other mood-stabilizers. In modern medicene, it is old, perhaps older than any other effective treatment for depression/mania. Pretty sure there are locations all over that in ancient times were known as something like healing waters where there was a high concentration of naturally disovled Lithium. The point is its not that its process to achieve its effect is understood, per se, but that its been used safely for perhaps millennia, and it pretty much always works. Consider if they decided to test putting Xanax or Depokote in drinking water supplies... these drugs didn't exist 50 years ago. They seem to be pretty good drugs, but who knows what bad things we might discover about them 450 years from now?
Also, I don't think its insignificant that the drug is basically just a naturally forming mineral/ element. Although many drugs are naturally occuring, they usually require, unlike Lithium, some more complex process to isolate that molecule that is the drug.
am... am I talking... to Miranda, now?
The actual cannon is, I believe, that the growths were always there on the Klingon's foreheads, but during the short time period of TOS (?4 years), there was a fashion trend that was popular among Klingons to flatten their foreheads. Worf says at some point in DS9 (the other tribbles episode) that "we do not speak of it," so it was apparently an embarassing trend that they try to forget (think about all the straight-laced former hippies burning pics of themselves out of embarrassment).
hmm... listing pkgsrc as a drawback? Every admin I know sez its better than any other available... perhaps for this reason its been ported to most other platforms even...
2009 is the Year of the NetBSD & OpenBSD Desktop!
$0.10/gb * 500 GB = $50. I can buy a 1 TB hard drive for around $80. Why would I use this stuff?
Show me this $80 1TB hard drive!
Assuming all the big equipment, cabling and infrastructure is paid for... what is the real cost to the provider for using that much bandwidth?
I guess you're right... It just seems so absurd to me that there's plenty of of other power generating methods, some really really cool ones that work well and don't make that kind of waste. Some are more practical in some areas than others, but there's other choices. There's stuff we know, like about what fission produces and what it can be used for, then there's all the other industrial processes that somehow make bad waste that we never hear about... deadly waste management is a thriving industry. And unnecessarily. My perfect solution would be if we stopped advancement of nuclear power globally, except those plants in production maybe, which could be phased out eventually, and some small scale research or military power plants... and then provided power to most humans on the planet by any other means, hopefully something smart and clean, but if not, then dirty, and anything but nuclear. Boo nukes. We have other means of providing electricity. My personal favorite is wind. I'd like to own a giant power generating wind turbine some day. And hydro is popular, and that weird generator that makes power from ocean waves is interesting. Geothermal power generation is outstanding. And did you hear what the Pope is doing?
I never intimated that we need a way to mitigate the deadliness
That's correct, Jurily was the one who brought up the subject of recycling and how it may lower the amount of danger nuclear power poses. He wasn't changing or ignoring the meaning of your statements, only adding his own. And that's why everyone else knows he wasn't using a straw man - you cannot make a straw man argument by adding new information, only by misrepresenting what another person says, which he hasn't done.
That's exactly what he's done, and you just aren't capable of conceding, or seeing the difference in what I have said and to what you are answering.
No. Even if recycling nuclear waste was easy, cheap, and widespread (all of which recycling is not) it could not make nuclear waste any safer. I believe I've made this point quite enough times, and I appreciate that you disagree with me.
Whenever the NEC got around to designing and building all those power plants, do you really think they said "ok, we're gonna make a lot of waste here... and its bad stuff... but its not so bad that we shouldn't use fission widespread for energy production," i.e., they had the same opinion as you and Jurily? Actually, this fact was brushed aside, likely not even considered seriously... because we needed fuel for bombs. The major reason we have so many plants is that apparently, we grossly overestimated the amount of fuel for bombs that we needed or wanted. Flash forward a few decades, and we have a whole economy/culture surrounding nuclear power. Suddenly, it looks better than clean energy because an infrastructure is already in place (that we built when we needed fuel for bombs). Yes, we have problems... like what to do with the waste, et al., but apparently, arguments will solve this.
More to the point, you seem to think that we're disputing the fact that nuclear power plants make nuclear waste - we
aren't.
you've said a few times now. No, I'm not.
We're disputing the idea that nuclear power plants are too dangerous to use, which is an opinion based on the difference between a person's tolerance for danger and their assessment of the danger posed by the plants.
Unfortunately, nuclear power plants aren't like skydiving, where its a single individual that pretty much decides if they're jumping out of the plane or not. A person's tolerance for danger had absolutely nothing to do with the construction of any of the currently operating nuclear power plants. Surely there were studies into something similar, such as what how many rads does to what kind of living tissue or something.
Because the results of recycling that waste can change that assessment,
right, as I explained, like taking a cup of water from an ocean changes its total volume, yet... its really not significant, is it? Recycling plastic is so much cheaper, easier, widespread... and yet we have plastic garbage nearly everywhere. You are not changing the assessment of any waste except the waste that is recycled, not all nuclear waste.
they're germane to the conversation.
sure, which is why oceanographers and conservationists are measuring oceans to the milliliter... because every drop counts.
my meaning is that we have no option but to cease production of the stuff.
That is a good example of the perfect solution fallacy.
great... so I wrote a perfect solution fallacy between the lines. I can't believe you.
Anyway, this thread should be closed to new posts soon, and it's pretty clear that you're beyond my ability to help. So good luck, I think you'll need it.
Hey, really appreciate your attempts at condescension and, of course, the inaccurate assessment of my argument. Take care.
You make excellent points, and suggest to me another.
This may be nitpicking.
As great as linux is, its dependability is weakened by the hardware its running on...
Solaris gets its nines (seriously ridiculous uptimes) by the software/hardware combo: Solaris running on Solaris hardware.
Linux still is amazingly stable, but that Dell server will fail long before the Solaris hardware.
One of the things that makes Linux great is how easy it is to run on anything, but that plasticity adds variables that Sun has eliminated.
Again, you are attempting to weaken the meaning. I never intimated that we need a way to mitigate the deadliness, right or wrong, my meaning is that we have no option but to cease production of the stuff.
here's another crappy metaphor:
c-Guns are deadly.
y-We have bullet-proof vests.
c-can a bullet still kill?
y-sure, no one doubts that
c-then your responce is a straw man because my point is not that we need to mitigate (LOVE that word) a gun's deadliness by giving everyone bullet-proof vests, even if now they may survive being shot, guns are still deadly. We should stop production of guns and bullets.
maybe... should have sold some radio ads?
She split her cherry on my ham.