The price drop is just a retraction of the price surge caused by the MS buyout offer- when MS said yahoo was worth $33 a share, the market moved to make it a reality, since nothing attracts speculators like the smell of free money. Now that the offer is gone the price is returning back to where it was. Though if you notice, it still is up from the beginning of the year.
It's pretty simple if you follow the link. Human brains have a capability to automatically identify the quantities 1, 2,3,4 wheras any quantity 5 and above we need to count. So the first number "discovered" was five, way back in prehistory.
Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.
on
eBay Sues Craigslist
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it's interesting. I completely agreed with you, and then I read your comment. As I read it, I started thinking, just how many of these cross-pollinated industries are really efficient? Isn't this kind of thinking part of the problem, where profits depend not on the success of a single company, but on the entire sector? So who cares if a single pharma company is uselessly bloated, the others are too, with enough co ownership to make sure that everyone gets a piece of the money coming in- a de facto monopoly. I'm not saying we should make regulations concerning individual ownership of stock, but I'm wondering if there should be a long hard look at corporate holdings, specifically where direct competitors are involved.
Why, you might have hit on something there. I'm sure this man, trained as an ASTRONAUT, would have no experience with compressed air, and thus would be completely unfamiliar with its odor.
The problem with distance is that it takes so long to travel it. Cars are a bandaid on the distance problem. We've been fighting that problem for a lot longer than 35 years. It's time we regrouped and found a better way to attack it. The problem with your car analogy, if I'm correct in that your were trying to use it against what the previous poster said, is that it is actually true. We have used automobiles as a band-aid solution to our habit of putting things wherever is cheapest, without looking at the actual logistics that entails. For many locations, that method is reaching a breaking point, and planners are forced to look for a new solution, rather than add a few extra lanes to the interstate. So if your analogy is true for cars, it may be true for security as well.
Would you call a blind fanatic somebody disbelieving unicorn existence ? If they persecuted and killed people for believing in unicorns, then yes, I would call them blind fanatics.
I don't have mod points today, but someone who does should step in here. This post is obviously not flamebait, and needs to be modded to a nonzero integer. It's getting kind of annoying seeing people modded down for bucking the prevailing opinion, regardless of how correct that opinion may or may not be.
Just to be entirely fair, though, I suppose the opposite should also be true. A man portrayed by a woman should probably also be more believable to other women, than the real thing.
I've actually had the mis-fortune of seeing a few romance movies, and the guys were portrayed as far from the real thing as you can get without adding tentacles and bug eyes. Whether it was Mr Perfect wooing the heroine or the henchman or whatever, those just fell somewhere in _my_ uncanny valley. They acted disturbingly not quite like real men. The actors may have been biologically male, but the role wasn't. But apparently the core demographic for that kind of thing doesn't have their suspension of disbelief tripped.
If you're looking for some more examples of this, might I suggest The Lifetime Network? Where every man is either a impossibly kind and sensitive father figure, or a malicious, abusive rapist? (Possesing, in either case, perfectly styled hair)
What orginal poster/troll? You replied to a guy talking about Wonder Woman in a pantsuit with a rant about militant feminists. Did you mean to reply to some other post?
No. The law does very little (less and less these days) to protect your property. You can easily be compelled to hand over your PC even if it's full of incriminating files, or to be more accurate you cannot attempt to stop the police when they come to seize it. However, you cannot be forced to tell the prosecution where to find, or how to view, these files if doing so would incriminate you in any way. It's important to note that you can't lie about it- especially in court, but you can refuse to answer. In essence, you are not allowed to hinder the police/prosecution in any way, but they cannot force you to help them either.
On a somewhat related note, this is why they have these long bartering processes with serial killers where they essentially try to bribe them into telling where they've put the bodies- that's incriminating evidence, and they can't be punished for withholding it.
Maybe it's a false memory on my part, but hasn't a laser weapon already been used in Afghanistan? I seem to recall an article earlier this year where a chemical laser in a modified spectre gunship was used against a high value personnel target. It seems vivid in my mind, because I can remember thinking, "Holy crap, we killed guy with a laser!" Of course now, I can find no references to it. Which would normally make me think that it didn't happen, but considering the times... anyway, anyone else remember this?
The cans he's talking about are buried at the edges of the excavation as it's being filled in, in order to define the limits of the previous trench. Then when you come back the next year you can quickly remove your fill dirt. The idea is to use something unmistakably modern (i.e. not a rock). You wouldn't pick them up unless you were digging at the site. If you're digging for litter, well, I admire your dedication, but you're being overzealous.
Actually, on a second reading I see you're right; The parent poster doesn't seem to have any regard for kids, and may well be an ass. That aside, his point about kids being taken for adults is still valid.
You're misunderstanding the parent, and trying to equate their post with bashing kids. That's not the case- what they're trying to point out the problem is adults interacting with kids without knowing that they are kids. An insightful 12 year old is going to seem like an idiot when you don't take their age into account. Imagine talking to a kid like that about the government: Perhaps they might have a big picture view with interesting perspectives on what the government should mean to the governed, but they will be woefully (for the most part) uninformed about the actual government. That's ok, I don't expect them to - unless I think they're 30, in which case they seem stupid. I can't talk "at their level", as you put it, when I don't know what that level is.
In a seperate issue why did you put older in quotes in the phrase older and wiser? They wiser might be up for debate, but by definition adults are older than kids.
Perhaps you don't understand. The original "article" you cite itself cites no references, nor gives any dates and times for those quotations. Thus there is no way to verify them, and thus we cannot accept them as legitimate. As they are, it's simply a list of things he might have said, perhaps. See it on the internet, then believe in without question is not how it works, nor should it be. If you
Well, the thing I thought was the strangest about the article is that apparently the roaches followed the robots 60% of the time, but "The other 40 percent of the time, the robotic roaches succumbed to peer pressure and headed for the darkest place."
So, at best, we can lead the roaches to their doom three out of five times, but the remaining 40% of our attempts will inadvertently augment their swarms with indestructible biodroids.
Slashdot Mirror
...though it seems strange to call it that.
Not nuclear, or geothermal. They're fission. Remember that in case we lose the sun.
The price drop is just a retraction of the price surge caused by the MS buyout offer- when MS said yahoo was worth $33 a share, the market moved to make it a reality, since nothing attracts speculators like the smell of free money. Now that the offer is gone the price is returning back to where it was. Though if you notice, it still is up from the beginning of the year.
I think he meant that at first he believed it wasn't true, and wanted Hans to be shown innocent. Since then he has come to believe he was guilty.
It's pretty simple if you follow the link. Human brains have a capability to automatically identify the quantities 1, 2,3,4 wheras any quantity 5 and above we need to count. So the first number "discovered" was five, way back in prehistory.
Finally, a reply that shows critical thinking.
But you will take the time to post to slashdot...
Actually, it's interesting. I completely agreed with you, and then I read your comment. As I read it, I started thinking, just how many of these cross-pollinated industries are really efficient? Isn't this kind of thinking part of the problem, where profits depend not on the success of a single company, but on the entire sector? So who cares if a single pharma company is uselessly bloated, the others are too, with enough co ownership to make sure that everyone gets a piece of the money coming in- a de facto monopoly. I'm not saying we should make regulations concerning individual ownership of stock, but I'm wondering if there should be a long hard look at corporate holdings, specifically where direct competitors are involved.
But it has a great deal to do with whether or not the western world cares.
Why, you might have hit on something there. I'm sure this man, trained as an ASTRONAUT, would have no experience with compressed air, and thus would be completely unfamiliar with its odor.
I don't have mod points today, but someone who does should step in here. This post is obviously not flamebait, and needs to be modded to a nonzero integer. It's getting kind of annoying seeing people modded down for bucking the prevailing opinion, regardless of how correct that opinion may or may not be.
If you're looking for some more examples of this, might I suggest The Lifetime Network? Where every man is either a impossibly kind and sensitive father figure, or a malicious, abusive rapist? (Possesing, in either case, perfectly styled hair)
What orginal poster/troll? You replied to a guy talking about Wonder Woman in a pantsuit with a rant about militant feminists. Did you mean to reply to some other post?
On a somewhat related note, this is why they have these long bartering processes with serial killers where they essentially try to bribe them into telling where they've put the bodies- that's incriminating evidence, and they can't be punished for withholding it.
Maybe it's a false memory on my part, but hasn't a laser weapon already been used in Afghanistan? I seem to recall an article earlier this year where a chemical laser in a modified spectre gunship was used against a high value personnel target. It seems vivid in my mind, because I can remember thinking, "Holy crap, we killed guy with a laser!" Of course now, I can find no references to it. Which would normally make me think that it didn't happen, but considering the times... anyway, anyone else remember this?
Penny Arcade? Whatever, gramps.
The cans he's talking about are buried at the edges of the excavation as it's being filled in, in order to define the limits of the previous trench. Then when you come back the next year you can quickly remove your fill dirt. The idea is to use something unmistakably modern (i.e. not a rock). You wouldn't pick them up unless you were digging at the site. If you're digging for litter, well, I admire your dedication, but you're being overzealous.
Was anyone else put off by the editorial tone of this article? I would like to think Reuters could serve this story up in a more objective fashion.
Actually, on a second reading I see you're right; The parent poster doesn't seem to have any regard for kids, and may well be an ass. That aside, his point about kids being taken for adults is still valid.
You're misunderstanding the parent, and trying to equate their post with bashing kids. That's not the case- what they're trying to point out the problem is adults interacting with kids without knowing that they are kids. An insightful 12 year old is going to seem like an idiot when you don't take their age into account. Imagine talking to a kid like that about the government: Perhaps they might have a big picture view with interesting perspectives on what the government should mean to the governed, but they will be woefully (for the most part) uninformed about the actual government. That's ok, I don't expect them to - unless I think they're 30, in which case they seem stupid. I can't talk "at their level", as you put it, when I don't know what that level is.
In a seperate issue why did you put older in quotes in the phrase older and wiser? They wiser might be up for debate, but by definition adults are older than kids.
Perhaps you don't understand. The original "article" you cite itself cites no references, nor gives any dates and times for those quotations. Thus there is no way to verify them, and thus we cannot accept them as legitimate. As they are, it's simply a list of things he might have said, perhaps. See it on the internet, then believe in without question is not how it works, nor should it be. If you
Well, the thing I thought was the strangest about the article is that apparently the roaches followed the robots 60% of the time, but "The other 40 percent of the time, the robotic roaches succumbed to peer pressure and headed for the darkest place."
So, at best, we can lead the roaches to their doom three out of five times, but the remaining 40% of our attempts will inadvertently augment their swarms with indestructible biodroids.