Indeed, since I find that my dick and my ass are pretty damned appropriate bodily organs and it'd be hard to do without them, yet the word "appendix" isn't considered vulgur or offensive...
Agreed, if anyone has ever used Yahoo IM's chatroom feature, it's near impossible to go into one of those chatrooms without being flooded by pr0n spam bots. I'd almost estimate that about 80% - 90% of the user IDs I see logged into those chats are spam bots. Makes the general chat rooms useless for finding anyone to talk to. If Yahoo incorporated some kind of spam reporting feature so that bots could be identified and booted, it would be a much more pleasant place. I'm sure, however, that the spam bots would find a way to abuse that as well (automatically spam reporting back anyone who reports them, blah blah blah...)
You can really tell when the tech support either doesn't have the first clue about what to do or they just don't care enough to say "You answered your own question just by asking it: you can't, buy a new battery you dumb shit."
Exciting would be something like mLAN on the Yamaha MotifES, kurzweil KSP8, or other equipment. mLan is poised to be the next MIDI, if only Yamaha would get it working as they promised it eventually would: Audio and MIDI, all devices connected and working together over one Firewire cable. Anyone other musicians have any thoughts on mLAN?
No one ever really made a librarian/editor program that was actually useful for the K2x00 series, unfortunately. If you're on a PC, you might try to find a really really old copy of Sounddiver, as they had a K2000.dll for it, but current versions of Sounddiver are Mac-only. My suggestion would be to move it up in your rack.:(
I'm a daily Kurzweil user and I'm the keyboard department manager of the piano store I work for, specializing in all things Kurzweil, so any and all questions can go to my email or ask me directly on AIM at Togakure99.:)
You're wrong. Jordan doesn't use his Kurzweil as only a controller, but also as an extremely capable synthesizer and sampler. The entire Rudess/Morganstein Project was nothing more than Rod on drums and Jordan on a K2500XS. About 90% of the album was recorded "live", with the exception of overdubs for some of the lead solos. I have a number of the Kurzweil Setups for my K2600XS from the RMP as well as some of his work with Dream Theater. It's nice to know these guys personally.;)
It would be so nice if/. would make it so that a hard return in the textbox would be equivelent to a "p" tag so that I wouldn't forget it and have it look like that. Argh!
And BTW, how do you put example HTML so that it displays as inline text instead of actual markup?
The fact that it's so hard to get signed might mean that collectively, mass-market listeners don't want to hear from you that much more than they want to hear from any one of the other 100 bands in line behind you.
I think a key point that may be missed here is that it's not so much that the market doesn't want to hear from one band more than another, but that the mass market may not even get a chance to hear your band in the first place because you can't even make it to that market unless you get signed. You're damned if you do and if you don't.
The only real solution is to take it into your own hands and do your own marketing and PR and everything else that you would normally be paying to the label to do for you. Thanks to the internet, this is becoming more and more feasable as the ability to get your content out to the mass market yourself becomes easier and easier, but it still takes a fair amount of up-front capital for a recording studio (unless you own all the gear yourself and have the skills and knowledge to do it), mixing, mastering, CD duplication, shipping and handling to vendors, etc. Again, going all digital helps a little in the process, but requires an enormous effort.
It's even more plausable than that if you consider that the vast majority of the young planet was covered in an OCEAN of primative chemicals, being struck by lightning all over the entire planet at incredible ratios of strikes/square mile, the fact that certain chemicals tend towards each other more than others, the idea that a chemical structure eventually arose that could create copies of itself isn't very far-fetched, especially considering the extreme lengths of time all these chemical reactions had to occur over and over again all over the planet.
Continue this by realizing that copying processes are not perfect, mistakes are made, and sometimes those mistakes can make a chemical structure that replicates itself in a different way with different chemicals that can still self-replicate the structure and you end up with different varieties of replicating structures competing for the same chemical resources.
Continue this by seeing that some of these self-replicating structures were able to combine with other chemicals for use as an "outer layer" that happened to protect the replication structure from damage by UV rays or other chemicals that would cause its deterioration. You begin to see the prototypes of what we call "cells".
Continue this all over the planet an inconceivable number of times for an inconceivable length of time and plausibility is certainly within grasp.
Mentioning evolution makes it a religious issue because of the history of the evolution/creationism controversy. The sticker doesn't explicitly make any mention of religion, but religion is the driving force behind the sticker being placed there in the first place.
Evolution says nothing about the ultimate origin of species, only that life changes through time. If you're interested in the creation of life from non-living matter, Abiogenesis is for you. Evolution only picks up after that. Evolution does not have to include creation to be valid.
The process that we call evolution does occur, and in that sense evolution is a fact. The mechanics of how this occurs are are what comprise the "theory" of evolution.
Please cite your proof. "Obviousness" of something is not valid as proof anymore than it's "obvious" that the world is flat when I look outside.
It's only the misinterpretation of the data that creationist are able to fit "facts" into their little story. The theory of evolution is in no way dependant on belief or not belief of creationism in that it stands on it's own supported by evidence.
C-14 is only one of the elements used for dating. It's only good for certain time lengths, and other elements are only good for their particular time lengths.
Unfortunately, you haven't been brainwashed, you're just an idiot.
Parent obviously fails to recognize that words may have more than one definition, and that those definitions can vary depending on the context the word is used.
"theory" in everyday conversation = guess, speculation
"theory" in scientific context = "hypothesis supported by a number of facts"
The mathematics of it are pretty self-consistant, however. String theory isn't completely unprovable, it is only unprovable given the current level of technology. That is to say that in the future with bigger particle accelerators we may just catch a glimpse of hitherto unseen but already predicted particles or events that are accounted for in String theory (and particles have already been observed that until their observation had only been predicted in theory).
String theory is called a theory because of the evidence to back it up, which is for the most part mathematical. String theory may ultimately be wrong, in which case all those maths behind it are just a very interesting intellectual exercise, but at the moment the evidence points pretty strongly in its favor.
Apparently a lot of people seem to misunderstand that evolution doesn't say anything about the creation of life (much less anything about the creation of the universe) and is only concerned with the change in life through time. Evolution != abiogenesis.
IANAS, but I've done a lot of personal study on the topic of evolution, as well as evolution vs. "creationism" since all this controversy started up a few months ago. I picked up quite a number of books by Richard Dawkins (One particularly interesting one is "The Selfish Gene" which begins with a great dissertation on abiogenesis and goes through a great story that details how the "chance" of life appearing out the primordial soup is nowhere near as random or billion-to-one as most people believe) and others.
Also, I encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to visit http://www.talkorigins.org/ and study up on how BS the arguments against evolution are, as well as browse various creationist websites to see just how BS they are in general.
One thing my 7th-grade physics teacher taught us was how an atomic bomb works. Most of the class was riveted.
Am I the only one that is slightly scared by this?
I find it highly improbable (though not impossible) that a company would come out and offer the same or comparable service as Yahoo! Mail with the exception of being able to make available the email account of a deceased user to "entitled" individuals.
It's certainly possible that someone may actually do this, but that brings a whole other can of worms to go with it such as the logistics of verifying the user's death, determining who exactly is entitled to the account, abuse (someone saying I'm dead, going through the motions to get to my account and providing fake or forged "evidence"), who would be liable in a case of abuse (company hands over my account to someone who seems to be legit but isn't, then the actual persons entitled to it come along and wonder what happened to it, legal battle ensues..???... loss (negative profit)) and so on.
Now the fact may be that this type of situation isn't a very common occurance and isn't something that the company would be overwhelmed dealing with, but it just seems like it would be way more trouble than it's worth for any company.
This is probably the reason that this particular clause was in the Yahoo TOS in the first place: to leave no question about the situation and prevent this type of debate from occurring. Is the PR the might possibly be generated by changing this agreement really worth the hassle to Yahoo? I would guess no.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, since I find that my dick and my ass are pretty damned appropriate bodily organs and it'd be hard to do without them, yet the word "appendix" isn't considered vulgur or offensive...
Agreed, if anyone has ever used Yahoo IM's chatroom feature, it's near impossible to go into one of those chatrooms without being flooded by pr0n spam bots. I'd almost estimate that about 80% - 90% of the user IDs I see logged into those chats are spam bots. Makes the general chat rooms useless for finding anyone to talk to. If Yahoo incorporated some kind of spam reporting feature so that bots could be identified and booted, it would be a much more pleasant place. I'm sure, however, that the spam bots would find a way to abuse that as well (automatically spam reporting back anyone who reports them, blah blah blah...)
And it's your kid's choice if he chooses to buy it...
You can really tell when the tech support either doesn't have the first clue about what to do or they just don't care enough to say "You answered your own question just by asking it: you can't, buy a new battery you dumb shit."
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html
Exciting would be something like mLAN on the Yamaha MotifES, kurzweil KSP8, or other equipment. mLan is poised to be the next MIDI, if only Yamaha would get it working as they promised it eventually would: Audio and MIDI, all devices connected and working together over one Firewire cable. Anyone other musicians have any thoughts on mLAN?
I'm a daily Kurzweil user and I'm the keyboard department manager of the piano store I work for, specializing in all things Kurzweil, so any and all questions can go to my email or ask me directly on AIM at Togakure99. :)
You're wrong. Jordan doesn't use his Kurzweil as only a controller, but also as an extremely capable synthesizer and sampler. The entire Rudess/Morganstein Project was nothing more than Rod on drums and Jordan on a K2500XS. About 90% of the album was recorded "live", with the exception of overdubs for some of the lead solos. I have a number of the Kurzweil Setups for my K2600XS from the RMP as well as some of his work with Dream Theater. It's nice to know these guys personally. ;)
Please cite some sources that show the hard proof that he existed rather than just a bunch of scientists saying that they're sure he existed.
Who knows, if Jordan ever leaves, maybe he'll let me replace him. He's a good buddy of mine. :)
And BTW, how do you put example HTML so that it displays as inline text instead of actual markup?
The only real solution is to take it into your own hands and do your own marketing and PR and everything else that you would normally be paying to the label to do for you. Thanks to the internet, this is becoming more and more feasable as the ability to get your content out to the mass market yourself becomes easier and easier, but it still takes a fair amount of up-front capital for a recording studio (unless you own all the gear yourself and have the skills and knowledge to do it), mixing, mastering, CD duplication, shipping and handling to vendors, etc. Again, going all digital helps a little in the process, but requires an enormous effort.
What if these were creation science text books? They're called Bibles.
Continue this by realizing that copying processes are not perfect, mistakes are made, and sometimes those mistakes can make a chemical structure that replicates itself in a different way with different chemicals that can still self-replicate the structure and you end up with different varieties of replicating structures competing for the same chemical resources.
Continue this by seeing that some of these self-replicating structures were able to combine with other chemicals for use as an "outer layer" that happened to protect the replication structure from damage by UV rays or other chemicals that would cause its deterioration. You begin to see the prototypes of what we call "cells".
Continue this all over the planet an inconceivable number of times for an inconceivable length of time and plausibility is certainly within grasp.
Mentioning evolution makes it a religious issue because of the history of the evolution/creationism controversy. The sticker doesn't explicitly make any mention of religion, but religion is the driving force behind the sticker being placed there in the first place.
The process that we call evolution does occur, and in that sense evolution is a fact. The mechanics of how this occurs are are what comprise the "theory" of evolution.
It's only the misinterpretation of the data that creationist are able to fit "facts" into their little story. The theory of evolution is in no way dependant on belief or not belief of creationism in that it stands on it's own supported by evidence.
C-14 is only one of the elements used for dating. It's only good for certain time lengths, and other elements are only good for their particular time lengths.
Unfortunately, you haven't been brainwashed, you're just an idiot.
"theory" in everyday conversation = guess, speculation
"theory" in scientific context = "hypothesis supported by a number of facts"
String theory is called a theory because of the evidence to back it up, which is for the most part mathematical. String theory may ultimately be wrong, in which case all those maths behind it are just a very interesting intellectual exercise, but at the moment the evidence points pretty strongly in its favor.
Apparently a lot of people seem to misunderstand that evolution doesn't say anything about the creation of life (much less anything about the creation of the universe) and is only concerned with the change in life through time. Evolution != abiogenesis.
IANAS, but I've done a lot of personal study on the topic of evolution, as well as evolution vs. "creationism" since all this controversy started up a few months ago. I picked up quite a number of books by Richard Dawkins (One particularly interesting one is "The Selfish Gene" which begins with a great dissertation on abiogenesis and goes through a great story that details how the "chance" of life appearing out the primordial soup is nowhere near as random or billion-to-one as most people believe) and others.
Also, I encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to visit http://www.talkorigins.org/ and study up on how BS the arguments against evolution are, as well as browse various creationist websites to see just how BS they are in general.
One thing my 7th-grade physics teacher taught us was how an atomic bomb works. Most of the class was riveted. Am I the only one that is slightly scared by this?
"Can you see it now? Good!"
It's certainly possible that someone may actually do this, but that brings a whole other can of worms to go with it such as the logistics of verifying the user's death, determining who exactly is entitled to the account, abuse (someone saying I'm dead, going through the motions to get to my account and providing fake or forged "evidence"), who would be liable in a case of abuse (company hands over my account to someone who seems to be legit but isn't, then the actual persons entitled to it come along and wonder what happened to it, legal battle ensues..???... loss (negative profit)) and so on.
Now the fact may be that this type of situation isn't a very common occurance and isn't something that the company would be overwhelmed dealing with, but it just seems like it would be way more trouble than it's worth for any company.
This is probably the reason that this particular clause was in the Yahoo TOS in the first place: to leave no question about the situation and prevent this type of debate from occurring. Is the PR the might possibly be generated by changing this agreement really worth the hassle to Yahoo? I would guess no.
Why should Yahoo update their agreement when it already specifically states what happens in exactly this situation?
I bet he couldn't weight to see you after a whole year!