So among silly people who answer badly-worded questionaires, there's a high percentage who give an ambiguous answer which can be misinterpreted to mean whatever the hell you want. I applaud reservedly. Congratulations.
Uh, you reversed the fellow's arguments, i think. His point was that a process of change occurs as a logical result of the three factors listed, or,to put it in a different way, that the three statements together are logically equivalent to a statement of a form of evolution. So he has asserted that A implies B, and you response was "No, B doesn't imlpy A".
My point here is that, while you're likely mostly correct, your post isn't really relevant to its parent.
I thin his point is the opposite: that there ISNT a good reason to separate micro and macro evolution. I agree. The distinction is nitpicking by people who have no idea what they're talking about. Amen.
Although, technically, "The Theory if Evolution" is a theory, and not a fact, which I assume is what they meant, as a lot of people use "Evolution" to colloquially indicate the longer phrase. Evolution in itself is an observed fact, and the theory of evolution is an explanation of the what and why of evolution, just as gravity is a fact and the theory of gravity is the what and why of gravity.
Article: It's a cheap, crippled PC. /. : Buy a Mac Mini(TM)!
Is/. owned by apple computers now?
Plus, there's already a service that presents the internet in a more understandable way to old/clueless people. They call it AOL. Why buy into the new evil attempt to separate people from their money using their ignorance when the old one's already so well established?
So if you spend your life attempting to get inside the head of a machine with roughly 1/(10^9) the power of the average human brain (in commands per time), that is physically incapable of doing other than it is told, then the left is for you!
I think the parent's line of thought is that to call something "animated" kind of implies that it wasn't animate to start with, and was made so. Since the starting material here is already animate, parent holds that it's not 'animated' in the sense that a movie constructed from a bunch of paper and some crayons (or a bunch of initially unrelated draw functions on a computer) is animated.
If we're going to arbitrarily divide all two-dimensional entertainment into groups, it seems as good a place to put the line as any.
Actually, the Livejournal Blogs are usually intended to communicate with a group of people you already know, rather than the entire world. I use mine for two things: telling my friends things all at once so i don't have to zarking repeat it 20 times, and informing them what general area of the country I'm in if they need me.
My main beef with livejournal was that it seemed to somehow encourage people to abandon proper punctuation and syntax. However, experience with such allowed me to decode the parent post, so I guess it's not all that bad.
Uh... I dunno what you define as an energy source, but the conversion of hydrogen and oygen to water yields 62000 btu/lb H. I don't think that's really debatable. It's not really a convenient energy source, seeing as we generally have to put more energy into its production than we get out, but energy source this reaciton is.
Dunno. There was a process listed for methane ->hydrogen in the Duncan & Reimer Chemical engineering text, but i don't think it gave specifics, and I don't have the book on me anyhow.
Getting hydrogen from electrolysis requires more energy in electricity than the reverse reaction of the products will generate.
Getting hydrogen from methane, at least by the method i'm familiar with, produces co2 and co. Likewise, elecricity for hydrolysis in america comes from american power plants... which produce a lot of co2 and h2so4.
Hydrogen power will be practical and will reduce pollution when we switch completely to nuclear power. Even then, it won't be the hydrogen that's cleaner so much as the nuclear power plants.
"Don't confuse the actions of a monopoly with the actions of a non-monopoly."
because if Bill Gates kills seven children with a battleaxe, it's obviously much worse than if Steve Jobs does it. After all, he represents a monopoply.
Your parents were never suposed to be experts. They're supposed to be generally familiar with a bunch of stuff in a way that's generally close to being kind of accurate. I.E. They're supposed to give you an awareness of what knowledge is out there-- a jumping-off point. Likewise with Grammar school/high school teachers. Likewise, as you noted yourself, with Wikipedia.
I dunno what was wrong with your college profs, though. They're supposed to train you for a specific job, which generally involves specific, useful, correct information.
Most of the "War of Northern Agression" stuff actually isn't revisionism, or, rather, no less revisionistic than the original version. It's just people taking things entirely to personally, and holding one hell of a grudge. Kind of like both sides tend to do in, you know, a war.
WTF is this "neo"-con business? I mean, isn't the whole point of being conservative an attempt to (a) maintain the status quo or (b) revert something to a previous form? I don't get the "neo" prefix.
I can only think of two explanations: either the conservatives themselves are new, or this is a ridiculous attempt to divide half of the political thought in the world (conservation) into two arbitrary groups, probably for purposes of dehumanization. One of these close enough?
(whining)On a side note, when did everything the democratic, green, and socialist american parties support become liberal? If liberal is desiring social change, then favoring abortion rights is a conservative perspective, what with them being an established part of the legal system and all. If liberalism is favoring personal freedom, then the republican tendency to remove pollution restrictions is the most liberal policy in the country. While I agree with the line of argument, that Fox news favors the REPUBLICAN PARTY line, while NYT favors the DEMOCRATIIC PARTY line, I think you're making implied faulty characterizations of american politics in the language of your argument. (/whining)
(B) You're not even good at being a sociopath, and as a result have to confine your assholery to the equivalent of a chat room with dice.
(C) You have enough time to kill that you managed to find a multistep exploit for killing low-level players. (A huge quantity of boredom)
Normally I'd advise obtaining some sort of sex life as a cure for (c), or a set of balls to fix (a) and (b), but you seem to take pride in the extremnity of your insufficiency as a human being, so I guess I'll refrain from any further commentary.
What does firefox actually mean? Is it a reference to illusory lights like the ones obtained from reflections off of marsh gas (foxfire)? Or did one of the designers have an accident involving gasoline and a furry pet running into telephone wires?
It's a pretty cool name, just wondering where it came from.
(1) Digital signatures are inherently trustworthy and unfakeable. Some versions of the firefox install can be obtained without such signatures.
(2) If you're an idiot that just presses enter repeatedly to get through dialogue boxes, then you will end up with a bunch of unwanted nastiness on your computer.
While I lack the expertise to judge claim 1, it seems to me that claim 2 is a valid point... as firefox becomes more popular, the fraction of users who are careless or just plain mentally inferior is going to increase, so measures are going to be required to more effectively idiot-proof it. Of course, the system will never be quite as idiot-proof as windows because windows if based around the idea that you want the user to be unable to easily access any of the workings of the system, while firefox runs in the opposite direction.
Then again, peer-review/open-source seems to in some degree safeguard against idiot designers just as it slightly increases the impact of user idiocy. A worthwhile trade, in my admittedly unprofessional opinion.
My point is that they were intending to inflict damage, and just because it didn't surpass a certain intended damage threshold doesn't mean that the offenders don't need to be corrected.
Slashdot Mirror
So among silly people who answer badly-worded questionaires, there's a high percentage who give an ambiguous answer which can be misinterpreted to mean whatever the hell you want. I applaud reservedly. Congratulations.
Uh, you reversed the fellow's arguments, i think. His point was that a process of change occurs as a logical result of the three factors listed, or,to put it in a different way, that the three statements together are logically equivalent to a statement of a form of evolution. So he has asserted that A implies B, and you response was "No, B doesn't imlpy A".
My point here is that, while you're likely mostly correct, your post isn't really relevant to its parent.
No. No, it isn't... really can't say any more than that.
I thin his point is the opposite: that there ISNT a good reason to separate micro and macro evolution. I agree. The distinction is nitpicking by people who have no idea what they're talking about. Amen.
why are about half of all murder cases unsolved?
I will now be flippant and reply "lack of physical evidence".
I mean, shouldn't it be in the book?
Although, technically, "The Theory if Evolution" is a theory, and not a fact, which I assume is what they meant, as a lot of people use "Evolution" to colloquially indicate the longer phrase. Evolution in itself is an observed fact, and the theory of evolution is an explanation of the what and why of evolution, just as gravity is a fact and the theory of gravity is the what and why of gravity.
Just my 2 cents on the semantics of it.
Article: It's a cheap, crippled PC.
/. : Buy a Mac Mini(TM)!
/. owned by apple computers now?
Is
Plus, there's already a service that presents the internet in a more understandable way to old/clueless people. They call it AOL. Why buy into the new evil attempt to separate people from their money using their ignorance when the old one's already so well established?
So if you spend your life attempting to get inside the head of a machine with roughly 1/(10^9) the power of the average human brain (in commands per time), that is physically incapable of doing other than it is told, then the left is for you!
"...it's a shame that society regards Dick primarly as a scifi writer, when he was one of the most astute social commentators of our time...."
Same thing, man.
I think the parent's line of thought is that to call something "animated" kind of implies that it wasn't animate to start with, and was made so. Since the starting material here is already animate, parent holds that it's not 'animated' in the sense that a movie constructed from a bunch of paper and some crayons (or a bunch of initially unrelated draw functions on a computer) is animated.
If we're going to arbitrarily divide all two-dimensional entertainment into groups, it seems as good a place to put the line as any.
Actually, the Livejournal Blogs are usually intended to communicate with a group of people you already know, rather than the entire world. I use mine for two things: telling my friends things all at once so i don't have to zarking repeat it 20 times, and informing them what general area of the country I'm in if they need me.
My main beef with livejournal was that it seemed to somehow encourage people to abandon proper punctuation and syntax. However, experience with such allowed me to decode the parent post, so I guess it's not all that bad.
Uh... I dunno what you define as an energy source, but the conversion of hydrogen and oygen to water yields 62000 btu/lb H. I don't think that's really debatable. It's not really a convenient energy source, seeing as we generally have to put more energy into its production than we get out, but energy source this reaciton is.
Dunno. There was a process listed for methane ->hydrogen in the Duncan & Reimer Chemical engineering text, but i don't think it gave specifics, and I don't have the book on me anyhow.
Getting hydrogen from electrolysis requires more energy in electricity than the reverse reaction of the products will generate.
Getting hydrogen from methane, at least by the method i'm familiar with, produces co2 and co. Likewise, elecricity for hydrolysis in america comes from american power plants... which produce a lot of co2 and h2so4.
Hydrogen power will be practical and will reduce pollution when we switch completely to nuclear power. Even then, it won't be the hydrogen that's cleaner so much as the nuclear power plants.
"Don't confuse the actions of a monopoly with the actions of a non-monopoly."
because if Bill Gates kills seven children with a battleaxe, it's obviously much worse than if Steve Jobs does it. After all, he represents a monopoply.
Your parents were never suposed to be experts. They're supposed to be generally familiar with a bunch of stuff in a way that's generally close to being kind of accurate. I.E. They're supposed to give you an awareness of what knowledge is out there-- a jumping-off point. Likewise with Grammar school/high school teachers. Likewise, as you noted yourself, with Wikipedia.
I dunno what was wrong with your college profs, though. They're supposed to train you for a specific job, which generally involves specific, useful, correct information.
Most of the "War of Northern Agression" stuff actually isn't revisionism, or, rather, no less revisionistic than the original version. It's just people taking things entirely to personally, and holding one hell of a grudge. Kind of like both sides tend to do in, you know, a war.
WTF is this "neo"-con business? I mean, isn't the whole point of being conservative an attempt to (a) maintain the status quo or (b) revert something to a previous form? I don't get the "neo" prefix.
I can only think of two explanations: either the conservatives themselves are new, or this is a ridiculous attempt to divide half of the political thought in the world (conservation) into two arbitrary groups, probably for purposes of dehumanization. One of these close enough?
(whining)On a side note, when did everything the democratic, green, and socialist american parties support become liberal? If liberal is desiring social change, then favoring abortion rights is a conservative perspective, what with them being an established part of the legal system and all. If liberalism is favoring personal freedom, then the republican tendency to remove pollution restrictions is the most liberal policy in the country. While I agree with the line of argument, that Fox news favors the REPUBLICAN PARTY line, while NYT favors the DEMOCRATIIC PARTY line, I think you're making implied faulty characterizations of american politics in the language of your argument. (/whining)
Thanks for the semi rant. I feel a lot better about being generally pro-business, pro-Bush, and pro-war now.
Dark Age of Camelot has basically 0 griefers, unless you just consider anyone that one-ups you in combat to be a griefer.
So, uh, lemme see if I've got this straight...
(A) You're a sociopath.
(B) You're not even good at being a sociopath, and as a result have to confine your assholery to the equivalent of a chat room with dice.
(C) You have enough time to kill that you managed to find a multistep exploit for killing low-level players. (A huge quantity of boredom)
Normally I'd advise obtaining some sort of sex life as a cure for (c), or a set of balls to fix (a) and (b), but you seem to take pride in the extremnity of your insufficiency as a human being, so I guess I'll refrain from any further commentary.
What does firefox actually mean? Is it a reference to illusory lights like the ones obtained from reflections off of marsh gas (foxfire)? Or did one of the designers have an accident involving gasoline and a furry pet running into telephone wires?
It's a pretty cool name, just wondering where it came from.
(1) Digital signatures are inherently trustworthy and unfakeable. Some versions of the firefox install can be obtained without such signatures.
(2) If you're an idiot that just presses enter repeatedly to get through dialogue boxes, then you will end up with a bunch of unwanted nastiness on your computer.
While I lack the expertise to judge claim 1, it seems to me that claim 2 is a valid point... as firefox becomes more popular, the fraction of users who are careless or just plain mentally inferior is going to increase, so measures are going to be required to more effectively idiot-proof it. Of course, the system will never be quite as idiot-proof as windows because windows if based around the idea that you want the user to be unable to easily access any of the workings of the system, while firefox runs in the opposite direction.
Then again, peer-review/open-source seems to in some degree safeguard against idiot designers just as it slightly increases the impact of user idiocy. A worthwhile trade, in my admittedly unprofessional opinion.
Just my 2 cents, eh.
My point is that they were intending to inflict damage, and just because it didn't surpass a certain intended damage threshold doesn't mean that the offenders don't need to be corrected.
True, I'm guilty of expanding the bible-belt tendencies of my hometown to all of religion. My bad, apologies.