No fucking kidding. Either the parent is a liar, or he needs a new accountant. You don't get double-banged. I've known plenty of Americans working in places like Canada or Britain, and they even have tax treaties to make it all relatively simple.
It's not tyranny,because you have a voice in who it is that gets to tax you. The Founding Fathers weren't against taxation, they were against taxation without representation. Well you have representation, now pay your fucking taxes. If you don't like it, work to get someone elected who will lower them. And quit calling it theft. No civilization in history has functioned without taxes. It's your fucking dues, pal, what you owe this big thing called society. Don't like it, move somewhere where there isn't taxes. Of course, you'll have to pay a private army to keep what's your's yours, so you may find at the end of the day simply paying your taxes much better.
And get rid of those Libertarian notions. It only makes you look like a sociopath.
He let go years ago. For a bad actor, he's had a rather successful career post-Trek. TJ Hooker may be laughable now, but it was no worse than most cop procedurals, and no matter how hamfisted you may have thought his acting in Star Trek, the man basically reinvented his entire career with Denny Crane, and in his twilight years no less. Is he the greatest actor around? No, obviously not, but he isn't that bad, and even in the Star Trek days there were episodes where you got the sense that he did have some chops, when the material was at its best.
I actually kind of like what the guy has done. I enjoy Raw Nerve, he's a way better interviewer than most, and certainly seems willing to take things to the edge, and you know, he's done damned well for himself in a business that chews up people and spits them out.
Okay, I can see your point on Star Trek and Star Wars, but Hitchcock? Anyone who watches Rear Window or Vertigo and doesn't get a sense of the brilliance of Hitchcock has got serious issues. Yes, there were throwaways like The Birds (although the scene where the hero tries to get into that upstairs bedroom still gives me the heebeejeebies), but the great Hitchcock films, well they really are spectacles. I mean, come on, Hitchcock is the guy that managed to turn Jimmy Stewart from his various shades of nice guy into one of the great psychologically damaged anti-heroes in the history of film. Wake me up when someone can do the same for, say, Tom Hanks.
Shatner wins hands down. No one else has ever so effectively announced themselves as Denny Crane. "Denny Crane!"
Besides, as much as Harrison Ford really has become something of a cultural icon through Solo and Indiana Jones, let's face it, the Shat was Captain Kirk. I mean, really, think about it, he was Captain Fucking Kirk. Maybe for the newer generation that don't mean much, but for a kid who watched Star Trek reruns every Sunday afternoon with his brother and his old man, and pretty much every other male member of the family who happened to be around, well, Captain Kirk loomed large on the horizon.
Well, at the end of the day, yes. Whether it's one guy sitting in his apartment with an easel or a piano, or a team of hundreds, at the end of the day art's intention is to be consumed by, well, the talentless consumer (if you wish to take that extreme a position).
A similar thing happened in the late 1980s when Frank Zappa went to remix a lot of the old Mothers of Invention records, and due to deterioration in the original masters, he re-recorded those takes, and the differences were sufficient that a lot of fans were angered. Did they have a right to be? I guess from Zappa's point of view, since he was the artist, they didn't, but from they're point of view, and whether this is rational or not, they viewed it as tampering with music that held a great deal of emotional impact.
Honestly I'm of two minds. Some changes in the Star Wars films seem to be for the better. Cleaning up the Hoth sequences in The Empire Strikes Back definitely was an improvement, fixing technical limitations of the time. The whole Han-shooting-Greedo sequence was not, mainly because it seemed an extremely post-hoc change.
At some point Lucas is going to die. At that point he's going to lose control anyways. You can be sure his heirs will carve things up, make new sequels, do as they please, so his strange idea that he can maintain perpetual control on his creations is ultimately as pointless as Canute's holding back the tide.
I've heard iPads described in a lot of ways... but "toys" isn't one of them. They seem to be gaining a good deal of acceptance in the business world. I think you'll find Apple is in a far better position than Microsoft would like.
The tablet market is immature, but since I think tablets and smartphones are linked, I think the huge lead Apple currently has will likely be maintained. I don't think this is the 1978 of tablets, I think it's the 1983, lots of competition, but a clear leader is still there. I think Apple has the edge, and unless it stumbles badly, will continue to be the market leader.
The problem always is that you have a goal of a mail system where anyone can theoretically send email to anyone, and there are huge advantages to such a system (which is why it has become of the prevalent modes of long-distance communications on the planet). A new protocol is going to have to deal with the same problem and ultimately the solutions will simply be variants on the current solutions, and what's more will have an enormous hill to climb to replace SMTP.
It's quite true. I can't blame users for shitty fucking plugins like Flash. They want to view online content, so are essentially forced to become part of an insecure ecosystem.
And yet the constitution still forbids excessive fines. If you got caught going 20 miles over the speed limit and were levied a $10,000 speeding ticket, you would call that a reasonable fine? Wouldn't you, as a citizen of the United States of America, a country where the constitutional protections trump any law Congress may choose to pass, think maybe "This is an excessive fine, I have a constitutional protection against that fine"?
That has not been an adequate species concept for decades. No one defines species based solely on infertility. That two distinct populations can interbreed does not automatically make them the same species, any more, in fact, that distaff members of related populations being unable to interbreed makes them different species. For instance Great Danes and Chihuahas are both members of C. lupis, despite the fact that they cannot interbreed, because intermediaries can. This is a classic example of a ring species.
The species concept is a rather complex one, and doesn't lend itself to concrete definitions. Any general statement you make about what constitutes a species cannot apply to every situation. Of course, we can never know for sure that all of genus Homo is one species or several. We're going largely off of morphological data, which is dangerous, because, again, it can paint a false picture. Some alien taxonomist might look at the skeleton of a great dane and a miniature poodle and assume the two were different species.
But since there is value to classifying extinct hominids, to show trends in morphological and physiological changes, as much as anything it's convenience to group them into different species and even genuses, even though we're only able to measure some of the characteristics, and not get a fuller picture (ie. genetic data). Even the divide between the Australopithecines and genus Homo is somewhat arbitrary, but still useful because of the clearly more human traits found with H. habilis.
Not to state whether or not it did happen, but let's try to remember here that the species concept is not an insurmountable wall. Some species within the same genus can cross breed and create viable fertile young, some can't. There's no hard fast rule as to how distant is too distant for successful interbreeding (and by that I mean not just viability of the offspring, but fertility of both offspring and all descendants of the offspring).
Now that we're pretty damned sure that H. sapiens and H. neandertalis did in fact interbreed, and we know several hundred thousand years must certainly have divided the Eurasian H. neandertals and African H. sapiens, that tells me that interfertility may stretch a helluva long ways back; somewhere around 600-700kyears ago at least. If that's the case, then I'll wager we could successfully interbreed with H. erectus and maybe even further back.
Indeed. We're talking about Win8 running on devices where extra cycles mean shorter battery charge life. Throwing in an emulation layer means a whole lot of extra cycles.
The problem with a gas giant being that the whole thing is just transitional phases all the way down. There's no real point that one can declare the divide between lithosphere and atmosphere. It's turtles all the way down...
Well, that's probably not true. The sub-giants like Neptune probably do have a surface of some sort, but I still don't buy that anything Saturn sized does.
I can't be sure at this point if your just being sarcastic, or your just plain ignorant. You seem to be well in accord with most Creationists I've encountered, easy to belittle what you don't understand, either out of pride or just sheer terror.
The world works as it works, and your interpretation of Genesis matters not one little bit. Life evolved, it continues to evolve, it will continue to evolve until one of several different circumstances snuffs it out.
Entropy: order to disorder... so yes, the nature of any duplication system is going to be towards errors, which can be mitigated by throwing more energy at it (which is rather how packet resends work in digital systems works), with the unfortunate side-effect that using more energy ultimately increases entropy.
But are you now disabused of the notion that there is such a thing as a perfect replicator and understand that transcription errors are pretty much inevitable?
Slashdot Mirror
No fucking kidding. Either the parent is a liar, or he needs a new accountant. You don't get double-banged. I've known plenty of Americans working in places like Canada or Britain, and they even have tax treaties to make it all relatively simple.
The money is their property AFTER taxes. Get over it. You owe society more than society owes you.
It's not tyranny,because you have a voice in who it is that gets to tax you. The Founding Fathers weren't against taxation, they were against taxation without representation. Well you have representation, now pay your fucking taxes. If you don't like it, work to get someone elected who will lower them. And quit calling it theft. No civilization in history has functioned without taxes. It's your fucking dues, pal, what you owe this big thing called society. Don't like it, move somewhere where there isn't taxes. Of course, you'll have to pay a private army to keep what's your's yours, so you may find at the end of the day simply paying your taxes much better.
And get rid of those Libertarian notions. It only makes you look like a sociopath.
He let go years ago. For a bad actor, he's had a rather successful career post-Trek. TJ Hooker may be laughable now, but it was no worse than most cop procedurals, and no matter how hamfisted you may have thought his acting in Star Trek, the man basically reinvented his entire career with Denny Crane, and in his twilight years no less. Is he the greatest actor around? No, obviously not, but he isn't that bad, and even in the Star Trek days there were episodes where you got the sense that he did have some chops, when the material was at its best.
I actually kind of like what the guy has done. I enjoy Raw Nerve, he's a way better interviewer than most, and certainly seems willing to take things to the edge, and you know, he's done damned well for himself in a business that chews up people and spits them out.
Okay, I can see your point on Star Trek and Star Wars, but Hitchcock? Anyone who watches Rear Window or Vertigo and doesn't get a sense of the brilliance of Hitchcock has got serious issues. Yes, there were throwaways like The Birds (although the scene where the hero tries to get into that upstairs bedroom still gives me the heebeejeebies), but the great Hitchcock films, well they really are spectacles. I mean, come on, Hitchcock is the guy that managed to turn Jimmy Stewart from his various shades of nice guy into one of the great psychologically damaged anti-heroes in the history of film. Wake me up when someone can do the same for, say, Tom Hanks.
Shatner wins hands down. No one else has ever so effectively announced themselves as Denny Crane. "Denny Crane!"
Besides, as much as Harrison Ford really has become something of a cultural icon through Solo and Indiana Jones, let's face it, the Shat was Captain Kirk. I mean, really, think about it, he was Captain Fucking Kirk. Maybe for the newer generation that don't mean much, but for a kid who watched Star Trek reruns every Sunday afternoon with his brother and his old man, and pretty much every other male member of the family who happened to be around, well, Captain Kirk loomed large on the horizon.
Choose whatever metaphor you like. It isn't art if it's locked up in an ivory tower so that no one can partake/consume/enjoy/whatever of it.
Well, at the end of the day, yes. Whether it's one guy sitting in his apartment with an easel or a piano, or a team of hundreds, at the end of the day art's intention is to be consumed by, well, the talentless consumer (if you wish to take that extreme a position).
A similar thing happened in the late 1980s when Frank Zappa went to remix a lot of the old Mothers of Invention records, and due to deterioration in the original masters, he re-recorded those takes, and the differences were sufficient that a lot of fans were angered. Did they have a right to be? I guess from Zappa's point of view, since he was the artist, they didn't, but from they're point of view, and whether this is rational or not, they viewed it as tampering with music that held a great deal of emotional impact.
Honestly I'm of two minds. Some changes in the Star Wars films seem to be for the better. Cleaning up the Hoth sequences in The Empire Strikes Back definitely was an improvement, fixing technical limitations of the time. The whole Han-shooting-Greedo sequence was not, mainly because it seemed an extremely post-hoc change.
At some point Lucas is going to die. At that point he's going to lose control anyways. You can be sure his heirs will carve things up, make new sequels, do as they please, so his strange idea that he can maintain perpetual control on his creations is ultimately as pointless as Canute's holding back the tide.
I've heard iPads described in a lot of ways... but "toys" isn't one of them. They seem to be gaining a good deal of acceptance in the business world. I think you'll find Apple is in a far better position than Microsoft would like.
Microsoft's share of the server market is probably around a third. While that's a big chunk, it's still not even half, and certainly not a majority.
The tablet market is immature, but since I think tablets and smartphones are linked, I think the huge lead Apple currently has will likely be maintained. I don't think this is the 1978 of tablets, I think it's the 1983, lots of competition, but a clear leader is still there. I think Apple has the edge, and unless it stumbles badly, will continue to be the market leader.
And your answer was discredited 70 years ago.
The problem always is that you have a goal of a mail system where anyone can theoretically send email to anyone, and there are huge advantages to such a system (which is why it has become of the prevalent modes of long-distance communications on the planet). A new protocol is going to have to deal with the same problem and ultimately the solutions will simply be variants on the current solutions, and what's more will have an enormous hill to climb to replace SMTP.
It's quite true. I can't blame users for shitty fucking plugins like Flash. They want to view online content, so are essentially forced to become part of an insecure ecosystem.
And yet the constitution still forbids excessive fines. If you got caught going 20 miles over the speed limit and were levied a $10,000 speeding ticket, you would call that a reasonable fine? Wouldn't you, as a citizen of the United States of America, a country where the constitutional protections trump any law Congress may choose to pass, think maybe "This is an excessive fine, I have a constitutional protection against that fine"?
The law in this case ought to be irrelevant:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "
- 8th Amendment
I hope they take this to the Supreme Court.
In almost all cases where the sire is a Dane, you'll kill the female.
That has not been an adequate species concept for decades. No one defines species based solely on infertility. That two distinct populations can interbreed does not automatically make them the same species, any more, in fact, that distaff members of related populations being unable to interbreed makes them different species. For instance Great Danes and Chihuahas are both members of C. lupis, despite the fact that they cannot interbreed, because intermediaries can. This is a classic example of a ring species.
The species concept is a rather complex one, and doesn't lend itself to concrete definitions. Any general statement you make about what constitutes a species cannot apply to every situation. Of course, we can never know for sure that all of genus Homo is one species or several. We're going largely off of morphological data, which is dangerous, because, again, it can paint a false picture. Some alien taxonomist might look at the skeleton of a great dane and a miniature poodle and assume the two were different species.
But since there is value to classifying extinct hominids, to show trends in morphological and physiological changes, as much as anything it's convenience to group them into different species and even genuses, even though we're only able to measure some of the characteristics, and not get a fuller picture (ie. genetic data). Even the divide between the Australopithecines and genus Homo is somewhat arbitrary, but still useful because of the clearly more human traits found with H. habilis.
Not to state whether or not it did happen, but let's try to remember here that the species concept is not an insurmountable wall. Some species within the same genus can cross breed and create viable fertile young, some can't. There's no hard fast rule as to how distant is too distant for successful interbreeding (and by that I mean not just viability of the offspring, but fertility of both offspring and all descendants of the offspring).
Now that we're pretty damned sure that H. sapiens and H. neandertalis did in fact interbreed, and we know several hundred thousand years must certainly have divided the Eurasian H. neandertals and African H. sapiens, that tells me that interfertility may stretch a helluva long ways back; somewhere around 600-700kyears ago at least. If that's the case, then I'll wager we could successfully interbreed with H. erectus and maybe even further back.
Indeed. We're talking about Win8 running on devices where extra cycles mean shorter battery charge life. Throwing in an emulation layer means a whole lot of extra cycles.
If I may be permitted, I'd just like to say
FUCKING AWESOME!!!!
Very good news indeed. Thank goodness Congress has gone completely mental and there are still a few people with vision and curiosity.
The problem with a gas giant being that the whole thing is just transitional phases all the way down. There's no real point that one can declare the divide between lithosphere and atmosphere. It's turtles all the way down...
Well, that's probably not true. The sub-giants like Neptune probably do have a surface of some sort, but I still don't buy that anything Saturn sized does.
I gotcha. You're just a kook.
I can't be sure at this point if your just being sarcastic, or your just plain ignorant. You seem to be well in accord with most Creationists I've encountered, easy to belittle what you don't understand, either out of pride or just sheer terror.
The world works as it works, and your interpretation of Genesis matters not one little bit. Life evolved, it continues to evolve, it will continue to evolve until one of several different circumstances snuffs it out.
Entropy: order to disorder... so yes, the nature of any duplication system is going to be towards errors, which can be mitigated by throwing more energy at it (which is rather how packet resends work in digital systems works), with the unfortunate side-effect that using more energy ultimately increases entropy.
But are you now disabused of the notion that there is such a thing as a perfect replicator and understand that transcription errors are pretty much inevitable?