Typically an adult male of your size would need at least 2500 calories/day to maintain their weight. Your genes help determine your basal metabolic rate, so it's possible that your needs are lower. Your metabolism is also affected by other factors, like caloric intake and activity levels. If you consume much lower than your needed calories/day, your metabolism slows down to conserve energy. Combined with a sedentary lifestyle that could account for you not losing weight (I'm assuming that's what you are implying in your statement).
Too be honest, I can see why doctors might worry about you. I don't know anything about your situation but 1000 calories/day seems a bit dangerous, but perhaps you are simply far out of the norm with respect to basal metabolic rate. For most people I think 1000 per day is close to starvation and you would probably see negative side effects like muscle loss, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, etc. Anyway, I don't think the conventional "wisdom" of calorie burning is wrong, but there are always a few oddballs like you to throw medical practitioners through a loop;)
That's the part about this that pisses me off the most. Okay, sure, the Lite-Brights are out of the ordinary (at least for being hung up about the city). I can even see how such a device could be seen as a threat to some self important official with a stick up his ass, and would not entirely blame them for doing something about it. The fact that they went completely over the top with this and started trying to prosecute people is not understandable. Why is it so hard for them to admit they were wrong? If they had just said "Oops, yeah, these things are pretty harmless. We apologize for the scare." there would be no problems and no media circus.
I don't quite remember where they were all placed but even if they were placed around an airport, I still personally think it's an overreaction simply on technical grounds. Given the size of the devices, they would have to be attached to a plane or be within several dozen feet to cause any noteworthy damage, even if they were pure C4. Since none of them were placed on airport grounds, they posed absolutely no threat to aircraft.
Vaccines do not work the same way antibiotics do. Vaccines work by "teaching" your immune system, not by working independently of it.
Very simple overview of the adaptive immune system:
Your body has immune cells circulating throughout it. When they encounter a foreign cell, which they recognize as non-self by the surface antigens, one of the responses may be to "take" the antigen and then present it to other immune system cells. The other cells can "remember" that antigen and the next time they see it, they signal for the heavy artillery. With that signal, the body produces enormous numbers of antibodies against that antigen, greatly aiding in the eradication of the infection.
A vaccine is typically a weakened form of the pathogen, so receiving a vaccine is essentially being infected in a very controlled manner. Once your immune system recognizes the infection, it goes to work eliminating it and remembering it for next time it is encountered.
This is quite different from antibiotics which work by inhibiting the growth of bacteria, giving your immune system time to catch up. Given the extremely short reproduction spans of bacteria, they can quickly adapt to resist the effect of a particular antibiotic. Worse, they can pass on this trait by coming into contact with other bacteria. This is the main concern with antibiotics; if misused, antibiotics may breed resistance and then an infected individual may pass on the resistant bacteria before it is fully wiped out by their immune system.
Anyway, in short, vaccines actually boost the strength of your immune system by teaching it and keeping it active, hence the term "booster dose/shot" for certain vaccination regimens.
You might want to rephrase that, since making counterfeit money is illegal, no matter what you do with it.
As other posters have already pointed out, I fully understand that it is illegal, I'm saying that I believe it shouldn't be so.
I don't agree. There must be a balance between the importance of any legitimate use for the thing and the state's interest in preventing counterfeiting. I think we can agree it's important to prevent counterfeiting, so any legitimate use would also have to be important to be permitted. IMO there is no legitimate use for counterfeit money accurate enough to pass off as real. If you want to do your money fetish thing, you should be allowed to make generally real-looking bills that have some obvious factor about them that makes them useless to try to pass off. Mickey Mouse instead of a dead president, 7 1/2 dollar bill, whatever.
I'm a little tired and don't feel like arguing this point much except to say that I believe that I should be able to do whatever I want up until it harms someone else in some meaningful way (yes I know that's somewhat gray; who decides what's "meaningful?"). Basically, running the largest and most sophisticated counterfeiting operation in the world in my basement is not harming anyone until I try to take the money out of my home and use it. Once I try to buy a tank (getting a little ahead of myself here...) with that money, well, then the Secret Service is welcome to have their way with me.
I'm wondering what you would think about another example. Should I be allowed to have military weapons as long as I haven't actually used them illegally? Anti-personnel mines, machine guns (not automatic rifles, machine guns), grenades, tanks, rocket launchers... I just collect them because I think they're neat. No problem?
I think I've already hinted at this but, yes, no problem. Requiring licensing and training is a reasonable compromise, but other than that, I don't think it's necessary to restrict those items. Really, what makes a soldier (training excluded since it would be required) more capable of handling such weapons? See, I'm one of those loons that thinks knowing a homeowner has a firearm acts as a very strong disincentive to violate their property. If I'm not going to enter their home knowing they might have a handgun, I'm definitely not going to fuck with them if I think I might be mowed down by a machine gun on the way to the valuables.
Equally important, having military grade weapons distributed throughout the populace is definitely beneficial should the need to use them ever arise. It discourages abuse of military power by the government and makes it much more difficult for an enemy (foreign or domestic) to destroy a large percentage of the weapons/ammunition supply with a few strategic strikes. I think that the idea that this would cause mass panic and destruction is a bit absurd; look at Switzerland for example. Estimates from 2001 put the number of assault rifles stored privately at about 420,000. Some estimates put the total number of all firearms at 3 million. Not bad for a country of only 7.25 million people. Hell, it's my understanding that it's quite common to see militiamen walking about doing their daily business with their weapons slung over their shoulders. So no, I really don't see the problem.
Okay, I admit it. I really just want to be able to point to my M1A2 Abrams Tank sitting on my front lawn and say "fuck off" the next time someone tries to show me their shiny new Hummer/SUV. Can you blame me?
I can't speak for mrchaotica, but I would say yes. If I want to make counterfeit money in my basement, it's really not the business of anyone else. Until I actually do, or attempt to do, something illegal with it, why should I be punished? As a hypothetical example, what if I had some sort of bizarre fetish involving paper bills? I should be punished for using a reasonable substitute rather than damaging real currency? A silly example, sure, but I hope it illustrates the larger problem. We simply cannot (or at least, should not) force intent on people, at least not without substantial corroborating evidence.
It's just one of those slippery slope problems. It's just stupid and wrong to ban something just because you find it immoral or because it could be used for something illegal, especially if it still has a legal use.
As a side note, yes, it is the Secret Service that deals with counterfeiting. In fact, that was the agency's original purpose and was under the Department of the Treasury before the lolwtf?!!-fest that is the DHS.
Good to know... I'd probably be attacked for laughing hysterically the entire time I was there, not that I'd be visiting anyway.
I highly recommend people read their "Get Answers" section. You'll either laugh or cry (perhaps both) at the incredible claims they make. A few choice selections;)
According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs 'ruled the Earth' for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists' story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.
For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and our articles in Answers magazine, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. However, the reason they don't believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called 'science' that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.
At first I wasn't sure if the author of both of these articles (Ken Ham) was simply ignorant of the existance of half-life dating and other dating techniques. Then I saw that he simply dismisses science as "so-called 'science'." Good to see that he's putting those logical faculties he received from God to good use.
So read on if you dare, but be careful! It's full of mind bending spin... excuse me, corrections.
I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known primarily as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT 'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.
So... you don't want to be known as a young-Earther but acknowledge that you believe the Earth is young... riiiight.
I just wanted to elaborate a bit more on the EVE skill system for those that aren't familiar with it. What you say is true, "everyone who started playing before I did is automatically better than me," but in a different way than that statement implies. Having more skill points for the most part simply opens more doors for you (more ships to fly, bigger and better weapons to use, etc.). This causes the game to tend to specialization for most players. A new player that decides to specialize in their race's primary combat frigate will, after only a few weeks time (that is, real-life time), be able to put up a very respectable fight against a much older player in a similarly classed ship. And several new players banding together can easily destroy an older player in a larger ship.
There is definitely a certain amount of grind though, as with any MMORPG. For EVE, this is really almost entirely related to ISK (the game's currency), however. If you have the ISK, you can buy more skills for your characters and better weapons and ships (read "gear";). It still does not make you invincible though; having lots of ISK really just eases your burden in your virtual life. It can give you that extra edge in combat if you have the best gear, and make it less of a problem when your uber expensive ship gets pwned because you thought you were hot stuff. So, in my opinion anyway, that shortens the gap between the power gamers and the casual gamers.
Finally, as an aside, I think skill training is 24/7. Unless I'm mistaken, training time continues even during downtime (hence CCP always suggesting setting a long skill to train when there will be an extended DT for hardware upgrades or patches - so your skill doesn't finish in the middle of DT and then you lose the rest of DT for training).
Anyway, I also highly recommend EVE Online. It can be a lot of fun and there are so many things to do that it will likely please most people.
The total amount of money the government has to play with is greater than the amount "needed" to deal with the issues you suggest are more important than research. Dumping near-unlimited funds into a cause will not make it a success. Quite the opposite, it will likely hinder the cause with an unecessary influx of corruption and greed.
More to the point, why is it that every time this or a similar subject arises, so many people seem to forget that it is scientific research that gave birth to the technologies and understanding they wish to use to combat their perceived great evil/injustice of the world?
No kidding. When I worked as the tech for my university's primary computer lab, I got paid less than my first job - a retail job. To add insult to injury, the students that worked at the front desk made the same as I and most of the time they didn't even do their one job: make sure people coming into the lab signed in.
Oh well, at least I got more out of the experience than they did... right?;)
US Code requires that doctors provide sufficient treatment to stabilize patients in medical emergencies.
US Code Title 42, Chapter 7, 1395dd (emphasis added):
(h) No delay in examination or treatment
A participating hospital may not delay provision of an appropriate medical screening examination required under subsection (a) of this section or further medical examination and treatment required under subsection (b) of this section in order to inquire about the individual's method of payment or insurance status.
As liberal as I am I'd be behind a mandatory 6 months in service, make people do it right oour of high school, give them a semester of credit at ANY college and make sure every single person over the age of 18 knows how to safely handle and maintain a gun, once you finish your x weeks of basic you get to choose to spend the rest of your 6 month term in one of many services, from peace corps type stuff right through actual mil training, how much responsability and respect would we learn then?
Might also cut down a bit on our growing obesity problem as well;)
I'm not entirely sure I agree with it as I am strongly in favor of an entirely volunteer military except in the most extreme of circumstances, but it's definitely an interesting idea.
This is a good point. The "5 shot dead by crazed gunman" gets the bigger headline than the "Woman chases home invader away with gun" story which is very unfortunate (although not surprising given our obsession with violence and death).
The threat of force is sometimes all that is necessary to deter crime. For some reason most strong gun control advocates seem to have never heard about the countless situations were a homeowner causes a criminal to flee without so much as a drop of blood spilled or a bruise on either party (I always like the little old ladies with a shotgun stories myself;) ).
While it's true that guns possess a great amount of force and can kill fairly easily, it's common knowledge that this is the case so who in their right mind would want to fight against that if they don't have to? The psychological urge to avoid personal injury and death is usually stronger than whatever urge that would cause a person to commmit a crime.
Obviously you haven't thought out the position of people who want gun ownership as another level of protection against a corrupt government. First off, you're absolutely right that a bunch of people standing in the streets attacking a well organized force of armored vehicles is going to lose. Hard. Even against an organized force of trained infantry using effective methods of crowd control the mob is going to be very limited in effectiveness. However, that's not at all how it would play out.
In the Revolutionary War, did we line up into neat little rows to be shot to hell by British forces? Not really. Our primary tactic was guerilla warfare which can and will work. An armed citizenry would make it a living hell for a government to control by force. Hunters especially would excel in this type of warfare. They know the land, are used to moving around stealthily, and are practiced with a firearm. One only needs to look to Iraq to get an idea of how effective this kind of warfare can be. Sure, our forces absolutely decimated their armed forces. But then we had to hold it, which of course has proved considerably more difficult and expensive, both monetarily and in loss of life.
Also consider that there are only 1.4 million active duty members of the military. Of those, over half are enlisted in the Navy and Air Force. The major assets of those branches (war machines) would be limited in effectiveness in the kind of war we're talking about. Certainly the soldiers in those branches could be used in a land war but they have less training in that kind of warfare than the Army or Marines. Then consider that those 1.4 million soldiers would be fighting a force of possibly 300 million over an area the size of the United States - not a simple task.
Here's the most important part though: do you really think the entire military would unquestioningly turn against the people they've sworn to protect? Their families, friends, and hometowns? Doubtful. Certainly there are plenty of blockheads who would do whatever their CO told them to do, but most of the people in the military that I've met are extremely strong of character. I'd put my money on most of the members of the military siding with their families over what a bunch of old guys in the government told them to do. Combine that with a bunch of angry citizens with guns and you make it extremely difficult for a government to defend against.
I'm sure there's a lot I've left out because there is a lot to this issue. The main point is that people often seem to underestimate the power of guns in the hand of honest citizens. Which is of course odd because in one breath they'll speak all the evils that are clearly the fault of a hunk of metal and not a deranged person, and then in the next breath describe how completely useless that same hunk of metal is. That's the problem with emotional responses, there's rarely any logic involved. Somehow the weapon is at fault by making it possible to kill the victim. However, that ignores the fact that any object can be used as a weapon and no weapon apart from the attacker's own body is necessary to kill a victim.
Obviously you share the misconception mrchaotica was referring to. As human beings we possess all rights. Just as you have the right to produce something, I have the right to take that work and do whatever I want with it. Obviously, that concept has serious implications and is hard to stomach for most people. Thus, we have society, the rules of which are intended to improve life for all who participate in it. We temporarily forfeit our right to the work of others in the hope that it will encourage them to produce more, further enhancing society. The relevant section of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
The key word there is "securing." We've given the government the power to secure the work of authors and inventors from ourselves. The second important phrase is "limited times" which is where most of us "entitlement", free-software-loving, driving-poor-ol'-Rowling-into-poverty evil "pirates" have our problem. The "limited time" is rapidly becoming not-so-limited. It's currently at some ridiculous number of years after the person who is supposed to be benefiting from the protection has already died. That seems to me to be fairly contradictory to the original goal of the clause: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." Beyond that, there is also the DMCA which eliminates many of the rights we have specifically protected from copyright law (see Sections 107-122 of Title 17 of the United States Code).
I agree with and support the original idea codified in the Constitution; that we should give authors a limited period were they can exclusively benefit from their work because I believe it does encourage them to produce more. I also try to pay for free software as often as possible because I appreciate the author's hard work and want to encourage them to continue. I'm not asking to get free stuff. All I'm demanding is to retain my rights as a human being and United States citizen.
Indeed, I fear for CCP and Tranquility if the game ever exploded in popularity. I imagine they'd have to upgrade the cluster so much that it would make the current Tranquility look like a child's toy!
*DISCLAIMER* I'm not trying to mock you and I don't think you have to agree with me about EVE, I'm just trying to show how similar the two are (actually most MMORPGs are very similar).
Well, in EVE, you had many long and short term goals. Short term you had a ridiculous amount of agent missions and complexes you could do, all of which gave the game a short-term focus. I would talk with my co-workers about what missions or complexes we would be facing that night in our adventures. Long-term you have maxing out your skills, getting better gear, etc. all of which tied into the short-term goals (finish this mission so I can get more ISK/loyalty points to get the better gear/rewards, etc.). Even if EVE didn't have a goal, it disguised it very well in having other, more achievable goals to focus on.
It's been a while since I looked into WoW, but from what I recall there's not much aside from building up your bank. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, I think the two are more similar than you might think. In Wow there's a drive to get to level 60 and get all those purty purple items (sorry, I forget what the best stuff is called - been too long since I've played). In EVE there's a drive to get your skills to high levels and buy/build all those purty big ships and powerful equipment. I know getting a Carrier or a Dreadnought is still a twinkle in my eye:)
Only a handful of genres on PCs? Admittedly, I'm having trouble thinking of genres and how they're representing on each platform but as far as I can tell, the PC has more genres available (or at least well represented) than the console.
As far as expense goes, yes you probably end up spending more on hardware with a PC than on a console. But honestly, the gap is closing all the time. I spent about $1400 about 18 months ago on a new gaming machine and it's still running strong, only having a small bit of trouble playing the most recent games at maximum visual settings. How much is the PS3 going to cost again? And that money I spent was for entirely new parts, in the future it will be simple and easy to just replace certain parts (a couple hundred on a new video card in 6-12 months and maybe a couple hundred more on a new processor some time after that). I'll also be able to recoup some of my costs by selling my old hardware. Also keep in mind that consoles are being sold as loss-leaders nowadays so they can get it into your house and then 'force' you to buy their games.
Which brings me to my next point: I have to wonder about the difference in the amount of money spent on games between console and PC gamers. With the exception of some of the longer RPG games, most console games seem to run about 10-20 hours. The same is probably true for PC games as well but they have a number of things in the favor there. It could just be me but the games that tend to dominate the PC market seem to have better replay value. I might play my console games again every year or so but I still regularly play Warcraft 3 for RTS satisfaction, Battlefield 2 for FPS, and EVE-Online for RPG. With the exception of BF2, those games are at least 3 years old. They are also able to receive content updates and have convenient access to world-wide multiplayer through the Internet.
And time intensive? Come on. After the initial install period (which can be a little annoying in that there are usually multiple CDs that require changing - Okay game publishers can we pleeeeease have DVDs now? I'd had a drive for a very long time now), it's the same as a console game; put in the CD and play. While this is highly game specific, some PC games have shorter load times thanks to things like caching as compared to their console version.
However don't get me wrong, there are some console games that I love. And while multiplayer gaming over the Internet provides a consistent level of entertainment, can you really beat sitting down in front of a TV with a couple buddies and beating the crap out of each other in a game like Super Smash Brothers? Overall, I just don't think there is that much of a difference in cost between PC and console gaming and the PC is much more convenient as far as I'm concerned.
While it's true that having a static hardware configuration can help eliminate some bugs, it's rarely an issue. I've never had a game crash because of my hardware. If a crash is related to hardware at all, it's usually that the application was trying to use the hardware inappropriately and then it's all "Hey, you can't do that!" and "Fine, I'll just push the red button on my bomb belt then!" Crash. In that case, it's a problem with the application's code, not the hardware or the hardware's drivers (they might be at fault too but the application is supposed to at least attempt to handle errors and not just die...). And other programs really shouldn't be a problem, especially since modern operating systems tend to get a little pissy if you start playing around outside your memory segment.
I think the cause of the difference is a mix of publishers and the static nature of games on consoles. We all know that publishers try to push out the games as quickly as possible so they get their money. On the PC they can try to force this even sooner because users can just download patches to fix horribly buggy code. Publishers get their money and leave the developers to clean up the mess. On the console platforms however, there is no way for users to patch their games. If a game has a play-breaking bug, a lot of people are going to be pissed and want their money back. Thus it's in the interests of both the publishing and development companies to get it right the first time.
Here's the (well, a actually) problem: There's no consistency and all the cards are in the hands of the publishing companies so they can make as much money as possible and damn the consumer. There are are huge number of problems with the current copyright system, but since we're focusing on one, they can't have it both ways.
If I am purchasing the product as a physical entity, then I have the right to use it as I see fit within the privacy and confines of my home. Knives, toasters, children's toys, etc. do not come with EULAs that tell me how and I can and cannot use the product; the thought of having a license agreement for such products is beyond ridiculous. Why should it be any different for an ethereal product?
On the other hand, if I'm purchasing a license to access the content, why is it then tied to a specific instance of the product? I should be able to listen/view the media in any form and copy its representation any number of times as well as view "another person's copy."
Notice I'm not advocating wholesale infringement by allowing unrestricted copying without payment, I'm simply asking for some fairness. If I purchase your product, you cannot tell me how to use it privately. If I purchase your license, you cannot tell me I can only apply that license to a single bit pattern on a single hard drive that is indistinguishable in its raw form from any other copy.
Since the context of this argument (as is often the case with anything copyright related) has been lost, I'd like to bring it back. We all start with having all rights (some so important that we name them 'inalienable' rights) meaning anyone can do whatever they want. Of course, that's anarchy so we've come together to form a society and contract with a government to maintain some order. In the United States, that contract is presented in the form of the Constitution. And then there's those pesky 9th and 10th amendments that say together that just because we've listed some of the most important rights does not mean those are the only rights we have and that if we haven't explicitly given them in trust to the government, they still belong to the people.
We've given Congress the power to control copyright to give authors a limited period of time where their work is entirely owned by themselves, after which it goes back to the public domain. If there was not that clause in Section 8 of Article 1, all works produced by anyone would be public domain immediately.
To be clear, I agree with having copyright/patents for a limited time as specified in the Constitution. It's entirely logical to suggest that a short period of exclusive rights over work encourage people to produce new works. But how does the ever increasing length of time that exclusive right promote continued progress in the arts and sciences? It first takes away, or at least diminishes, an existing creator's incentive to create new works by the fact that they can milk their one original idea forever. And extending that right past the end of the creator's life!? Seriously, what the fuck? Secondly, it inhibits new authors because they cannot take existing works to build off of. Where would we be today if things like books on the Calculus were indefinitely under copyright and the owners decided not to distribute?
Anyway, just wanted to reiterate that we do have the right to do whatever we want with someone else's property (in the sense of works in arts and sciences, anyway). We gave up our immediate right to them for a short period of time to promote the creation of ever more works but our right to eventually get them back is continually being eroded and it's incredibly short sighted to allow it to happen in front us simply because we also agree with allowing people to protect their creations.
Well, he was talking about a fleet of ships... but really I would take the numbers he said down by a power of ten. Last I heard, ISK goes for about $160USD per billion ISK. I could see losing about $1,000USD in dreadnoughts and battleships if you were attacking well-defending starbases and the defenders were organized. Of course the defenders stand to lose well over a billion ISK just in the starbase and structures alone, not even counting the defense fleet.
I agree with the GP though, EVE takes the cake on time required and risk.
> And every time i've used windows, i've faced viruses, nagging, spyware, intrusive spying, and massive inefficiency.
Those are not strictly OS related problem and are mostly due to the stupidity of the user and a lack of properly programmed firewall. Obviously you don't know how to use Windows just as I don't claim to be an expert on Linux.
Right, because since you supposedly haven't experienced any problems with Windows means that everyone that has is a lying Linux fanboi just as whatever problem you had with Linux must be true for everyone as well. Just to give you one example of a retarded Windows problem that happened to me (unless you're calling me a liar as well): A little background first. Before I first used Linux, I was a major Windows fan and I've had several jobs working as an administrator for Windows machines and networks so I know how to properly configure and run a Windows machine. I have a hardware firewall between the Internet and my internal network and I have XP's shiny software firewall enabled as well. Four days ago, my Windows workstation (which I run as a standard user) inexplicably started having massive performance issues. It can take upwards of 30 seconds before the operating system responds to my request to start a program and they run sluggishly when they finally do start. Malware and virus scanners have found nothing, disk is not full nor is the page file fragmented. CPU usage is currently at 1%, and 1.66GB out of 2GB memory are free. No physical disk problems have been found and placing the hard drive into another machine of nearly identical hardware displays the same problem. But I guess I'm just a stupid user:/
What part of not being able to run OSX on non Apple hardware is a myth !?!
It's already been pointed out by some of my sibling posters that this is not what vendor lock-in is referring to so I won't comment further on that.
And why would I want to use some crappy unix/linux apps instead of Apple's - Apple's GUI is the whole point of OSX!
First of all, pull your head out of your ass for a moment and accept the fact that not all Unix/Linux apps are crappy - just as not all Windows ones are either. I note from your first post that you're running Apache and SSL neither of which are originally Windows applications. And isn't there a rivaling product for Apache in the form of IIS? Wait, doesn't that mean you've admitted to preferring an open source "unix/linux app" over The Holy Microsoft Product? Oh noes!
Secondly, unlike most Windows developers, Unix/Linux programmers understand and accept that there are multiple computing platforms and therefor plan and develop cross-platform to begin with. And with modern GUI toolkits and cross-platform libraries like Qt or wxWidgets, the application adopts the style of the GUI system of the operating system it was compiled for. So when you compile for OSX, it will use Cocoa for the GUI handling meaning it will look and feel exactly like any native Apple application. No wai!
Every time I've tried Linux (Debian, Ubuntu and currently Suse) I've faced hardware problems as well as stupid things you need to hack some Make file or the kerner to get it to work.
*yawn* Standard FUD. Yes, just so we're clear, I am calling you a liar here - although I admit I could be wrong so feel free to correct me if I am. First of all, just what sort of bizarre hardware are you running on that you've had problems with? I've run Linux on everything from hardware over a decade old to a modern gaming PC. Even some of the bleeding-edge hardware has support (experimental if not stable) in the standard kernel!
Also, it sounds like you're mostly running standard stuff on your Windows machine so what 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 lol-alPha VeRsIoN software are you trying to run that requires you to "hack some Make file" or the "kerner" (?) t
Why is it that when people here the words "nuclear" or "radioactive" they change from rational human beings into mindless idiots running and screaming in terror? Here's an experiment: Place one gram of Uraninite (or other harmless but omfgradioactive material) into a lead box with the radioactive symbol on the outside and then set the box somewhere downtown in a large city, making sure that he police and press get wind of it. Chances are we'll be in full police-state mode by tomorrow.
Seriously man, kill you and your whole family with a small piece? According to your own link, you would have to hold an entire kilogram of Uraninite for an entire hour to exceed your average yearly exposure to radiation. Yes that's right, you're being irradiated right now. Yes, I'll wait while you run to the nearest hazmat station. Hell, also according to that link, the maximum yearly exposure is 50,000 mRem which means you could stupidly hold that kilogram of Uraninite for over a day and still be under that exposure limit.
Next time you hear the words nuclear or radiation, take a deep breath and try to remember that despite what you make think or have been told, not everything "nucular" is bad. Also try to keep in mind that nuclear power plants dump less radioactivity into the environment than your current hydrocarbon-burning shit heap you're running off of now next time someone wants to build one in your area.
Your comparison to World of Warcraft is ridiculous.
Of course it is. It was just an extreme example meant to show that just because two peices of software targeted at two different platforms perform the same function that does not make one an emulator of the other.
World of Warcraft runs natively on the macintosh, without using any sort of windows emulation, or wine, or any such thing.
Indeed, and WINE is compiled as a native library for whatever platform it's running on. So when I play a game or use a program through WINE, it's running "natively." All they've done is form a compatibility layer so that when a Windows program calls CreateThread or whatever, it uses the code the WINE developers have written instead of the code Windows uses. As long as we're quoting wikipedia, from the article about WINE: "Rather than acting as a full emulator, Wine implements a compatibility layer, providing alternative implementations of the DLLs that Windows programs call."
Call it a pretendulator if you want, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't native.
Right, because making up condescending words in an attempt to show your disdain for a company has any bearing on reality or WINE. Transgaming/Cedega are only related to WINE in the sense that they are both compatibility layers (with Cedega focusing on DirectX) and that Cedega got it's start from the WINE project. I'm sure we could have quite the debate about whether or not Transgaming's work and practices are beneficial to the Linux gaming community or are ethical but it really doesn't have any place in a discussion about what WINE is or is not.
If you must call WINE something to support an all-or-nothing attitude, call it a simulator. That's what it does - simulates Windows behavior so that programs written for Windows will work on another operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
Typically an adult male of your size would need at least 2500 calories/day to maintain their weight. Your genes help determine your basal metabolic rate, so it's possible that your needs are lower. Your metabolism is also affected by other factors, like caloric intake and activity levels. If you consume much lower than your needed calories/day, your metabolism slows down to conserve energy. Combined with a sedentary lifestyle that could account for you not losing weight (I'm assuming that's what you are implying in your statement).
;)
Too be honest, I can see why doctors might worry about you. I don't know anything about your situation but 1000 calories/day seems a bit dangerous, but perhaps you are simply far out of the norm with respect to basal metabolic rate. For most people I think 1000 per day is close to starvation and you would probably see negative side effects like muscle loss, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, etc. Anyway, I don't think the conventional "wisdom" of calorie burning is wrong, but there are always a few oddballs like you to throw medical practitioners through a loop
That's the part about this that pisses me off the most. Okay, sure, the Lite-Brights are out of the ordinary (at least for being hung up about the city). I can even see how such a device could be seen as a threat to some self important official with a stick up his ass, and would not entirely blame them for doing something about it. The fact that they went completely over the top with this and started trying to prosecute people is not understandable. Why is it so hard for them to admit they were wrong? If they had just said "Oops, yeah, these things are pretty harmless. We apologize for the scare." there would be no problems and no media circus.
I don't quite remember where they were all placed but even if they were placed around an airport, I still personally think it's an overreaction simply on technical grounds. Given the size of the devices, they would have to be attached to a plane or be within several dozen feet to cause any noteworthy damage, even if they were pure C4. Since none of them were placed on airport grounds, they posed absolutely no threat to aircraft.
Vaccines do not work the same way antibiotics do. Vaccines work by "teaching" your immune system, not by working independently of it.
Very simple overview of the adaptive immune system:
Your body has immune cells circulating throughout it. When they encounter a foreign cell, which they recognize as non-self by the surface antigens, one of the responses may be to "take" the antigen and then present it to other immune system cells. The other cells can "remember" that antigen and the next time they see it, they signal for the heavy artillery. With that signal, the body produces enormous numbers of antibodies against that antigen, greatly aiding in the eradication of the infection.
A vaccine is typically a weakened form of the pathogen, so receiving a vaccine is essentially being infected in a very controlled manner. Once your immune system recognizes the infection, it goes to work eliminating it and remembering it for next time it is encountered.
This is quite different from antibiotics which work by inhibiting the growth of bacteria, giving your immune system time to catch up. Given the extremely short reproduction spans of bacteria, they can quickly adapt to resist the effect of a particular antibiotic. Worse, they can pass on this trait by coming into contact with other bacteria. This is the main concern with antibiotics; if misused, antibiotics may breed resistance and then an infected individual may pass on the resistant bacteria before it is fully wiped out by their immune system.
Anyway, in short, vaccines actually boost the strength of your immune system by teaching it and keeping it active, hence the term "booster dose/shot" for certain vaccination regimens.
Equally important, having military grade weapons distributed throughout the populace is definitely beneficial should the need to use them ever arise. It discourages abuse of military power by the government and makes it much more difficult for an enemy (foreign or domestic) to destroy a large percentage of the weapons/ammunition supply with a few strategic strikes. I think that the idea that this would cause mass panic and destruction is a bit absurd; look at Switzerland for example. Estimates from 2001 put the number of assault rifles stored privately at about 420,000. Some estimates put the total number of all firearms at 3 million. Not bad for a country of only 7.25 million people. Hell, it's my understanding that it's quite common to see militiamen walking about doing their daily business with their weapons slung over their shoulders. So no, I really don't see the problem.
Okay, I admit it. I really just want to be able to point to my M1A2 Abrams Tank sitting on my front lawn and say "fuck off" the next time someone tries to show me their shiny new Hummer/SUV. Can you blame me?
I can't speak for mrchaotica, but I would say yes. If I want to make counterfeit money in my basement, it's really not the business of anyone else. Until I actually do, or attempt to do, something illegal with it, why should I be punished? As a hypothetical example, what if I had some sort of bizarre fetish involving paper bills? I should be punished for using a reasonable substitute rather than damaging real currency? A silly example, sure, but I hope it illustrates the larger problem. We simply cannot (or at least, should not) force intent on people, at least not without substantial corroborating evidence.
It's just one of those slippery slope problems. It's just stupid and wrong to ban something just because you find it immoral or because it could be used for something illegal, especially if it still has a legal use.
As a side note, yes, it is the Secret Service that deals with counterfeiting. In fact, that was the agency's original purpose and was under the Department of the Treasury before the lolwtf?!!-fest that is the DHS.
I highly recommend people read their "Get Answers" section. You'll either laugh or cry (perhaps both) at the incredible claims they make. A few choice selections
On Dinosaurs:
On "Young Earth":
At first I wasn't sure if the author of both of these articles (Ken Ham) was simply ignorant of the existance of half-life dating and other dating techniques. Then I saw that he simply dismisses science as "so-called 'science'." Good to see that he's putting those logical faculties he received from God to good use.
So read on if you dare, but be careful! It's full of mind bending spin... excuse me, corrections.
So... you don't want to be known as a young-Earther but acknowledge that you believe the Earth is young... riiiight.
I just wanted to elaborate a bit more on the EVE skill system for those that aren't familiar with it. What you say is true, "everyone who started playing before I did is automatically better than me," but in a different way than that statement implies. Having more skill points for the most part simply opens more doors for you (more ships to fly, bigger and better weapons to use, etc.). This causes the game to tend to specialization for most players. A new player that decides to specialize in their race's primary combat frigate will, after only a few weeks time (that is, real-life time), be able to put up a very respectable fight against a much older player in a similarly classed ship. And several new players banding together can easily destroy an older player in a larger ship.
;). It still does not make you invincible though; having lots of ISK really just eases your burden in your virtual life. It can give you that extra edge in combat if you have the best gear, and make it less of a problem when your uber expensive ship gets pwned because you thought you were hot stuff. So, in my opinion anyway, that shortens the gap between the power gamers and the casual gamers.
There is definitely a certain amount of grind though, as with any MMORPG. For EVE, this is really almost entirely related to ISK (the game's currency), however. If you have the ISK, you can buy more skills for your characters and better weapons and ships (read "gear"
Finally, as an aside, I think skill training is 24/7. Unless I'm mistaken, training time continues even during downtime (hence CCP always suggesting setting a long skill to train when there will be an extended DT for hardware upgrades or patches - so your skill doesn't finish in the middle of DT and then you lose the rest of DT for training).
Anyway, I also highly recommend EVE Online. It can be a lot of fun and there are so many things to do that it will likely please most people.
The total amount of money the government has to play with is greater than the amount "needed" to deal with the issues you suggest are more important than research. Dumping near-unlimited funds into a cause will not make it a success. Quite the opposite, it will likely hinder the cause with an unecessary influx of corruption and greed.
More to the point, why is it that every time this or a similar subject arises, so many people seem to forget that it is scientific research that gave birth to the technologies and understanding they wish to use to combat their perceived great evil/injustice of the world?
No kidding. When I worked as the tech for my university's primary computer lab, I got paid less than my first job - a retail job. To add insult to injury, the students that worked at the front desk made the same as I and most of the time they didn't even do their one job: make sure people coming into the lab signed in.
;)
Oh well, at least I got more out of the experience than they did... right?
US Code Title 42, Chapter 7, 1395dd (emphasis added):
I'm not entirely sure I agree with it as I am strongly in favor of an entirely volunteer military except in the most extreme of circumstances, but it's definitely an interesting idea.
This is a good point. The "5 shot dead by crazed gunman" gets the bigger headline than the "Woman chases home invader away with gun" story which is very unfortunate (although not surprising given our obsession with violence and death).
;) ).
The threat of force is sometimes all that is necessary to deter crime. For some reason most strong gun control advocates seem to have never heard about the countless situations were a homeowner causes a criminal to flee without so much as a drop of blood spilled or a bruise on either party (I always like the little old ladies with a shotgun stories myself
While it's true that guns possess a great amount of force and can kill fairly easily, it's common knowledge that this is the case so who in their right mind would want to fight against that if they don't have to? The psychological urge to avoid personal injury and death is usually stronger than whatever urge that would cause a person to commmit a crime.
Obviously you haven't thought out the position of people who want gun ownership as another level of protection against a corrupt government. First off, you're absolutely right that a bunch of people standing in the streets attacking a well organized force of armored vehicles is going to lose. Hard. Even against an organized force of trained infantry using effective methods of crowd control the mob is going to be very limited in effectiveness. However, that's not at all how it would play out.
In the Revolutionary War, did we line up into neat little rows to be shot to hell by British forces? Not really. Our primary tactic was guerilla warfare which can and will work. An armed citizenry would make it a living hell for a government to control by force. Hunters especially would excel in this type of warfare. They know the land, are used to moving around stealthily, and are practiced with a firearm. One only needs to look to Iraq to get an idea of how effective this kind of warfare can be. Sure, our forces absolutely decimated their armed forces. But then we had to hold it, which of course has proved considerably more difficult and expensive, both monetarily and in loss of life.
Also consider that there are only 1.4 million active duty members of the military. Of those, over half are enlisted in the Navy and Air Force. The major assets of those branches (war machines) would be limited in effectiveness in the kind of war we're talking about. Certainly the soldiers in those branches could be used in a land war but they have less training in that kind of warfare than the Army or Marines. Then consider that those 1.4 million soldiers would be fighting a force of possibly 300 million over an area the size of the United States - not a simple task.
Here's the most important part though: do you really think the entire military would unquestioningly turn against the people they've sworn to protect? Their families, friends, and hometowns? Doubtful. Certainly there are plenty of blockheads who would do whatever their CO told them to do, but most of the people in the military that I've met are extremely strong of character. I'd put my money on most of the members of the military siding with their families over what a bunch of old guys in the government told them to do. Combine that with a bunch of angry citizens with guns and you make it extremely difficult for a government to defend against.
I'm sure there's a lot I've left out because there is a lot to this issue. The main point is that people often seem to underestimate the power of guns in the hand of honest citizens. Which is of course odd because in one breath they'll speak all the evils that are clearly the fault of a hunk of metal and not a deranged person, and then in the next breath describe how completely useless that same hunk of metal is. That's the problem with emotional responses, there's rarely any logic involved. Somehow the weapon is at fault by making it possible to kill the victim. However, that ignores the fact that any object can be used as a weapon and no weapon apart from the attacker's own body is necessary to kill a victim.
Diagram
;)
Now, where's my nickel?
I agree with and support the original idea codified in the Constitution; that we should give authors a limited period were they can exclusively benefit from their work because I believe it does encourage them to produce more. I also try to pay for free software as often as possible because I appreciate the author's hard work and want to encourage them to continue. I'm not asking to get free stuff. All I'm demanding is to retain my rights as a human being and United States citizen.
Indeed, I fear for CCP and Tranquility if the game ever exploded in popularity. I imagine they'd have to upgrade the cluster so much that it would make the current Tranquility look like a child's toy!
:)
Oh, and I love your comics
*DISCLAIMER* I'm not trying to mock you and I don't think you have to agree with me about EVE, I'm just trying to show how similar the two are (actually most MMORPGs are very similar).
:)
Well, in EVE, you had many long and short term goals. Short term you had a ridiculous amount of agent missions and complexes you could do, all of which gave the game a short-term focus. I would talk with my co-workers about what missions or complexes we would be facing that night in our adventures. Long-term you have maxing out your skills, getting better gear, etc. all of which tied into the short-term goals (finish this mission so I can get more ISK/loyalty points to get the better gear/rewards, etc.). Even if EVE didn't have a goal, it disguised it very well in having other, more achievable goals to focus on.
It's been a while since I looked into WoW, but from what I recall there's not much aside from building up your bank. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, I think the two are more similar than you might think. In Wow there's a drive to get to level 60 and get all those purty purple items (sorry, I forget what the best stuff is called - been too long since I've played). In EVE there's a drive to get your skills to high levels and buy/build all those purty big ships and powerful equipment. I know getting a Carrier or a Dreadnought is still a twinkle in my eye
Only a handful of genres on PCs? Admittedly, I'm having trouble thinking of genres and how they're representing on each platform but as far as I can tell, the PC has more genres available (or at least well represented) than the console.
As far as expense goes, yes you probably end up spending more on hardware with a PC than on a console. But honestly, the gap is closing all the time. I spent about $1400 about 18 months ago on a new gaming machine and it's still running strong, only having a small bit of trouble playing the most recent games at maximum visual settings. How much is the PS3 going to cost again? And that money I spent was for entirely new parts, in the future it will be simple and easy to just replace certain parts (a couple hundred on a new video card in 6-12 months and maybe a couple hundred more on a new processor some time after that). I'll also be able to recoup some of my costs by selling my old hardware. Also keep in mind that consoles are being sold as loss-leaders nowadays so they can get it into your house and then 'force' you to buy their games.
Which brings me to my next point: I have to wonder about the difference in the amount of money spent on games between console and PC gamers. With the exception of some of the longer RPG games, most console games seem to run about 10-20 hours. The same is probably true for PC games as well but they have a number of things in the favor there. It could just be me but the games that tend to dominate the PC market seem to have better replay value. I might play my console games again every year or so but I still regularly play Warcraft 3 for RTS satisfaction, Battlefield 2 for FPS, and EVE-Online for RPG. With the exception of BF2, those games are at least 3 years old. They are also able to receive content updates and have convenient access to world-wide multiplayer through the Internet.
And time intensive? Come on. After the initial install period (which can be a little annoying in that there are usually multiple CDs that require changing - Okay game publishers can we pleeeeease have DVDs now? I'd had a drive for a very long time now), it's the same as a console game; put in the CD and play. While this is highly game specific, some PC games have shorter load times thanks to things like caching as compared to their console version.
However don't get me wrong, there are some console games that I love. And while multiplayer gaming over the Internet provides a consistent level of entertainment, can you really beat sitting down in front of a TV with a couple buddies and beating the crap out of each other in a game like Super Smash Brothers? Overall, I just don't think there is that much of a difference in cost between PC and console gaming and the PC is much more convenient as far as I'm concerned.
While it's true that having a static hardware configuration can help eliminate some bugs, it's rarely an issue. I've never had a game crash because of my hardware. If a crash is related to hardware at all, it's usually that the application was trying to use the hardware inappropriately and then it's all "Hey, you can't do that!" and "Fine, I'll just push the red button on my bomb belt then!" Crash. In that case, it's a problem with the application's code, not the hardware or the hardware's drivers (they might be at fault too but the application is supposed to at least attempt to handle errors and not just die...). And other programs really shouldn't be a problem, especially since modern operating systems tend to get a little pissy if you start playing around outside your memory segment.
I think the cause of the difference is a mix of publishers and the static nature of games on consoles. We all know that publishers try to push out the games as quickly as possible so they get their money. On the PC they can try to force this even sooner because users can just download patches to fix horribly buggy code. Publishers get their money and leave the developers to clean up the mess. On the console platforms however, there is no way for users to patch their games. If a game has a play-breaking bug, a lot of people are going to be pissed and want their money back. Thus it's in the interests of both the publishing and development companies to get it right the first time.
Here's the (well, a actually) problem: There's no consistency and all the cards are in the hands of the publishing companies so they can make as much money as possible and damn the consumer. There are are huge number of problems with the current copyright system, but since we're focusing on one, they can't have it both ways.
If I am purchasing the product as a physical entity, then I have the right to use it as I see fit within the privacy and confines of my home. Knives, toasters, children's toys, etc. do not come with EULAs that tell me how and I can and cannot use the product; the thought of having a license agreement for such products is beyond ridiculous. Why should it be any different for an ethereal product?
On the other hand, if I'm purchasing a license to access the content, why is it then tied to a specific instance of the product? I should be able to listen/view the media in any form and copy its representation any number of times as well as view "another person's copy."
Notice I'm not advocating wholesale infringement by allowing unrestricted copying without payment, I'm simply asking for some fairness. If I purchase your product, you cannot tell me how to use it privately. If I purchase your license, you cannot tell me I can only apply that license to a single bit pattern on a single hard drive that is indistinguishable in its raw form from any other copy.
Since the context of this argument (as is often the case with anything copyright related) has been lost, I'd like to bring it back. We all start with having all rights (some so important that we name them 'inalienable' rights) meaning anyone can do whatever they want. Of course, that's anarchy so we've come together to form a society and contract with a government to maintain some order. In the United States, that contract is presented in the form of the Constitution. And then there's those pesky 9th and 10th amendments that say together that just because we've listed some of the most important rights does not mean those are the only rights we have and that if we haven't explicitly given them in trust to the government, they still belong to the people.
We've given Congress the power to control copyright to give authors a limited period of time where their work is entirely owned by themselves, after which it goes back to the public domain. If there was not that clause in Section 8 of Article 1, all works produced by anyone would be public domain immediately.
To be clear, I agree with having copyright/patents for a limited time as specified in the Constitution. It's entirely logical to suggest that a short period of exclusive rights over work encourage people to produce new works. But how does the ever increasing length of time that exclusive right promote continued progress in the arts and sciences? It first takes away, or at least diminishes, an existing creator's incentive to create new works by the fact that they can milk their one original idea forever. And extending that right past the end of the creator's life!? Seriously, what the fuck? Secondly, it inhibits new authors because they cannot take existing works to build off of. Where would we be today if things like books on the Calculus were indefinitely under copyright and the owners decided not to distribute?
Anyway, just wanted to reiterate that we do have the right to do whatever we want with someone else's property (in the sense of works in arts and sciences, anyway). We gave up our immediate right to them for a short period of time to promote the creation of ever more works but our right to eventually get them back is continually being eroded and it's incredibly short sighted to allow it to happen in front us simply because we also agree with allowing people to protect their creations.
African or European?
Well, he was talking about a fleet of ships... but really I would take the numbers he said down by a power of ten. Last I heard, ISK goes for about $160USD per billion ISK. I could see losing about $1,000USD in dreadnoughts and battleships if you were attacking well-defending starbases and the defenders were organized. Of course the defenders stand to lose well over a billion ISK just in the starbase and structures alone, not even counting the defense fleet.
I agree with the GP though, EVE takes the cake on time required and risk.
Right, because since you supposedly haven't experienced any problems with Windows means that everyone that has is a lying Linux fanboi just as whatever problem you had with Linux must be true for everyone as well. Just to give you one example of a retarded Windows problem that happened to me (unless you're calling me a liar as well): A little background first. Before I first used Linux, I was a major Windows fan and I've had several jobs working as an administrator for Windows machines and networks so I know how to properly configure and run a Windows machine. I have a hardware firewall between the Internet and my internal network and I have XP's shiny software firewall enabled as well. Four days ago, my Windows workstation (which I run as a standard user) inexplicably started having massive performance issues. It can take upwards of 30 seconds before the operating system responds to my request to start a program and they run sluggishly when they finally do start. Malware and virus scanners have found nothing, disk is not full nor is the page file fragmented. CPU usage is currently at 1%, and 1.66GB out of 2GB memory are free. No physical disk problems have been found and placing the hard drive into another machine of nearly identical hardware displays the same problem. But I guess I'm just a stupid user :/
It's already been pointed out by some of my sibling posters that this is not what vendor lock-in is referring to so I won't comment further on that.
First of all, pull your head out of your ass for a moment and accept the fact that not all Unix/Linux apps are crappy - just as not all Windows ones are either. I note from your first post that you're running Apache and SSL neither of which are originally Windows applications. And isn't there a rivaling product for Apache in the form of IIS? Wait, doesn't that mean you've admitted to preferring an open source "unix/linux app" over The Holy Microsoft Product? Oh noes!
Secondly, unlike most Windows developers, Unix/Linux programmers understand and accept that there are multiple computing platforms and therefor plan and develop cross-platform to begin with. And with modern GUI toolkits and cross-platform libraries like Qt or wxWidgets, the application adopts the style of the GUI system of the operating system it was compiled for. So when you compile for OSX, it will use Cocoa for the GUI handling meaning it will look and feel exactly like any native Apple application. No wai!
*yawn* Standard FUD. Yes, just so we're clear, I am calling you a liar here - although I admit I could be wrong so feel free to correct me if I am. First of all, just what sort of bizarre hardware are you running on that you've had problems with? I've run Linux on everything from hardware over a decade old to a modern gaming PC. Even some of the bleeding-edge hardware has support (experimental if not stable) in the standard kernel!
Also, it sounds like you're mostly running standard stuff on your Windows machine so what 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 lol-alPha VeRsIoN software are you trying to run that requires you to "hack some Make file" or the "kerner" (?) t
Why is it that when people here the words "nuclear" or "radioactive" they change from rational human beings into mindless idiots running and screaming in terror? Here's an experiment: Place one gram of Uraninite (or other harmless but omfgradioactive material) into a lead box with the radioactive symbol on the outside and then set the box somewhere downtown in a large city, making sure that he police and press get wind of it. Chances are we'll be in full police-state mode by tomorrow.
Seriously man, kill you and your whole family with a small piece? According to your own link, you would have to hold an entire kilogram of Uraninite for an entire hour to exceed your average yearly exposure to radiation. Yes that's right, you're being irradiated right now. Yes, I'll wait while you run to the nearest hazmat station. Hell, also according to that link, the maximum yearly exposure is 50,000 mRem which means you could stupidly hold that kilogram of Uraninite for over a day and still be under that exposure limit.
Next time you hear the words nuclear or radiation, take a deep breath and try to remember that despite what you make think or have been told, not everything "nucular" is bad. Also try to keep in mind that nuclear power plants dump less radioactivity into the environment than your current hydrocarbon-burning shit heap you're running off of now next time someone wants to build one in your area.
Indeed, and WINE is compiled as a native library for whatever platform it's running on. So when I play a game or use a program through WINE, it's running "natively." All they've done is form a compatibility layer so that when a Windows program calls CreateThread or whatever, it uses the code the WINE developers have written instead of the code Windows uses. As long as we're quoting wikipedia, from the article about WINE: "Rather than acting as a full emulator, Wine implements a compatibility layer, providing alternative implementations of the DLLs that Windows programs call."
Right, because making up condescending words in an attempt to show your disdain for a company has any bearing on reality or WINE. Transgaming/Cedega are only related to WINE in the sense that they are both compatibility layers (with Cedega focusing on DirectX) and that Cedega got it's start from the WINE project. I'm sure we could have quite the debate about whether or not Transgaming's work and practices are beneficial to the Linux gaming community or are ethical but it really doesn't have any place in a discussion about what WINE is or is not.
If you must call WINE something to support an all-or-nothing attitude, call it a simulator. That's what it does - simulates Windows behavior so that programs written for Windows will work on another operating system.