The problem started when we started calling Olbermann, Matthews, and Hannity reporters. They're not. They're commentators.
I know that politicization of the media is nothing new (see: the Washington Globe under Andrew Jackson), but the dearth of good straight reporting is the clearest sign of the declining relevance of the old-school media. The other problem is that the few institutions that still do good investigative reporting are widely disparaged as the "liberal media."
this is actually on topic because the expression "have their cake and eat it too" was intended to mean "eat your cake and still have it" so the question here is really whether the defendant ate his cake or whether he still has it.
I can agree to waive my right to sue, I can agree to waive my right to speak (NDAs), I can agree to waive my right to a trial by jury.
What you can't do is enter into a contract that is explicitly illegal, so I can't sell myself into slavery, or waive my right to a safe workplace, neither can I sell my vote or agree to perform contract chemistry for a meth dealer.
according to the MIT review article the continuous flow artificial harts are in fact turbomachines. If you have any details on the particular device used here, I'd be interested to read about it.
Are you sure we're talking about the same George Lucas? The guy who's last original thought was, "hey I bet I can make some money through licensing..." Aren't we also talking about the guy who decided he could write better dialog than a proper screenwriter...
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is really good and mostly readable (you might want to skip over the 20 page Miltonian sermon in the middle). I tried to read Ulysses and gave up about a third of the way through. I occasionally come across a copy of Finnegan's Wake flip through it and read a few random passages - bizarre is the only word I can use to describe it.
You don't have to be a collector to know that the value in a piece of incunabula is dependent on factors other than the number of characters that can be accurately transcribed.
my experience with used textbooks is that if the previous owner was a highlighter, they'd mark entire paragraphs, and sometimes entire sections. Maybe that works for some people (I kind of doubt it though) but I find it distracting.
When I purchased used books I took care to buy the book with the least amount of markings. If the only copies available were covered in highlighter yellow, I'd suck it up and pay the premium for the new book.
There have been 3 major Arab-Israeli wars, the 1948 war, the six day war, and the yom kippur war.
Two of the three conflicts started with an Arab invasion (50-50 if you include the 2006 Lebanese war). It would be more accurate to say that shit's been simmering in the region for CENTURIES and Israel hasn't been overrun because of US military support.
Whether we should be supporting Israel so unconditionally is a matter of legitimate debate, and I wouldn't begin to argue that Israel as any claim to the moral high ground. There have been hawks on all sides.
During the cold war there were two world economies, the soviet economy and it's puppet states and the US/European economies. There was no integration whatsoever.
As far as Iran goes, integrating them into the global economy will reduce their likelihood of waging a war of aggression, this will in turn reduce their likelihood of being invaded.
Finally, there's no evidence that the US supplied Israel with nukes, it appears more likely that they either developed them independently or with the aid of France. It's also not clear that Iran wouldn't want nukes if Israel didn't have any, since Israel still would have far and away the largest military in the region, so the deterrent motivation would still hold.
As for your final absurd (and mildly anti-semetic) suggestion, no large population has ever moved off what it considers it's own land in exchange for money - that and there's no place to put 5 million Jews.
In an all out nuclear war, civilian casualties are going to be astronomical. The real question is what damage can you do to military assets and strategic reserves, which hopefully aren't all clustered around population centers (or alternatively can you reign enough destruction so your opponents military no longer wants to engage). It's not about absolute number of nukes, it's about nukes to land area. China launching 200 or so nukes could make France a whole lot more barren than France lobbing 200 nukes into China.
The worst case scenario is obviously still US vs. Russia, but in all other situations, one country is going to be a whole lot better off than the other - China could conceivably take out all the cities in the US (and even then China has a limited number of missiles capable of getting past Michigan), but there's still a large amount of land that they wouldn't be able to strike, the same isn't true of the reverse.
As the famous quote goes, the only way to win is not to play, but France and the UK could both nuke China or Russia and still get invaded.
Distracting your critics from a suspect election by letting the world know you have a secret uranium enrichment plant is a little like arguing that you couldn't have burgled that house because you were busy strangling a hooker at the time.
With the US and Russia holding about 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons, MAD only really exists between those two countries. Everyone else gets to a lot of damage to a small area and then wait for total destruction from somewhere else
(a) It's not active - we've known about the facility for some time, if it were active it either would have already been bombed or we'd never have heard about it (and probably both). (b) A boy scout with a physics textbook has the technical expertise to turn weapons grade uranium into an atomic bomb. (c) Posturing - and probably not - it's a lot easier to make an atomic bomb that will fit on a B2 than one that will fit on a missile. (d) Nope, Iran has a plant to enrich uranium, they claim it's for a peaceful civilian nuclear power program, we think that the size of the facility isn't consistent with that claim. They promise to let IAEA inspectors into the plant now that they know that we know about it (we'll have to see if that happens.) At any rate, it would appear that Iran isn't interested in building a nuke today, but is very interested in developing the capability so as to keep it's options open.
Iran was always a bigger threat to the US than Iraq. N Korea was always the state most likely to develop nuclear weapons. The reason Iraq was invaded and not another member of the "axis of evil" is because, first, we thought we'd be able to win in Iraq relatively easily, and, second, a misguided sense of paternal loyalty.
Even George W Bush knew that Iran would be a cluster fuck, and the cost/benefit of invading Iran didn't make sense.
The ability to launch a satellite != the ability to launch a nuclear ICBM. The technology required to shrink a warhead to a size that will fit on a rocket is non-trivial, and requires testing.
In a nuclear war, America is the only state capable of defeating China or Russia.
In a conventional war the US would require allies.
In a trade war, China can ruin the US economy - but they'd severely hurt themselves in the process. In a trade war, Russia influence is limited to cutting off gas supplies to Eastern Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem started when we started calling Olbermann, Matthews, and Hannity reporters. They're not. They're commentators.
I know that politicization of the media is nothing new (see: the Washington Globe under Andrew Jackson), but the dearth of good straight reporting is the clearest sign of the declining relevance of the old-school media. The other problem is that the few institutions that still do good investigative reporting are widely disparaged as the "liberal media."
I don't know if you noticed, but brain matter doesn't fossilize particularly well.
There's a correlation-is-not-causation problem with the Japanese/African IQ observation, the conclusion you're drawing is moderately racist.
Finally, the field that looks at brain structures and tells us why or how we evolved them is about 90% speculation.
thanks for the info.
there's a lot you can do to make a turbine less damaging to the fluid, but it would be inaccurate to call that design bladeless.
this is actually on topic because the expression "have their cake and eat it too" was intended to mean "eat your cake and still have it" so the question here is really whether the defendant ate his cake or whether he still has it.
that's not true at all
I can agree to waive my right to sue, I can agree to waive my right to speak (NDAs), I can agree to waive my right to a trial by jury.
What you can't do is enter into a contract that is explicitly illegal, so I can't sell myself into slavery, or waive my right to a safe workplace, neither can I sell my vote or agree to perform contract chemistry for a meth dealer.
according to the MIT review article the continuous flow artificial harts are in fact turbomachines. If you have any details on the particular device used here, I'd be interested to read about it.
the technical term for those wondering (this is/. afterall) is paristaltic pump
Are you sure we're talking about the same George Lucas? The guy who's last original thought was, "hey I bet I can make some money through licensing..." Aren't we also talking about the guy who decided he could write better dialog than a proper screenwriter...
on the flip side, if Lucas wasn't still making money from the original trilogy, what other horrors do you think he'd have bestowed upon us?
aside:
At the bottom of wikipedia's Portrait page is this link...
The reader's list makes me want to bash my skull against a wall.
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is really good and mostly readable (you might want to skip over the 20 page Miltonian sermon in the middle). I tried to read Ulysses and gave up about a third of the way through. I occasionally come across a copy of Finnegan's Wake flip through it and read a few random passages - bizarre is the only word I can use to describe it.
You don't have to be a collector to know that the value in a piece of incunabula is dependent on factors other than the number of characters that can be accurately transcribed.
has the page yellowed, the ink faded? Are there any tears, stains, or holes? As anything been added to the page?
If so your media has changed.
I shared the same experience with the same math classes.
After being taught Fourier transforms for the third time, I finally understood them in a dynamic systems course.
in high school?
If you so disdain the learning process perhaps you should pursue a trade instead?
Besides, sometimes you can get enough money from a $100 text to buy a case of natie light.
my experience with used textbooks is that if the previous owner was a highlighter, they'd mark entire paragraphs, and sometimes entire sections. Maybe that works for some people (I kind of doubt it though) but I find it distracting.
When I purchased used books I took care to buy the book with the least amount of markings. If the only copies available were covered in highlighter yellow, I'd suck it up and pay the premium for the new book.
There have been 3 major Arab-Israeli wars, the 1948 war, the six day war, and the yom kippur war.
Two of the three conflicts started with an Arab invasion (50-50 if you include the 2006 Lebanese war). It would be more accurate to say that shit's been simmering in the region for CENTURIES and Israel hasn't been overrun because of US military support.
Whether we should be supporting Israel so unconditionally is a matter of legitimate debate, and I wouldn't begin to argue that Israel as any claim to the moral high ground. There have been hawks on all sides.
During the cold war there were two world economies, the soviet economy and it's puppet states and the US/European economies. There was no integration whatsoever.
As far as Iran goes, integrating them into the global economy will reduce their likelihood of waging a war of aggression, this will in turn reduce their likelihood of being invaded.
Finally, there's no evidence that the US supplied Israel with nukes, it appears more likely that they either developed them independently or with the aid of France. It's also not clear that Iran wouldn't want nukes if Israel didn't have any, since Israel still would have far and away the largest military in the region, so the deterrent motivation would still hold.
As for your final absurd (and mildly anti-semetic) suggestion, no large population has ever moved off what it considers it's own land in exchange for money - that and there's no place to put 5 million Jews.
In an all out nuclear war, civilian casualties are going to be astronomical. The real question is what damage can you do to military assets and strategic reserves, which hopefully aren't all clustered around population centers (or alternatively can you reign enough destruction so your opponents military no longer wants to engage). It's not about absolute number of nukes, it's about nukes to land area. China launching 200 or so nukes could make France a whole lot more barren than France lobbing 200 nukes into China.
The worst case scenario is obviously still US vs. Russia, but in all other situations, one country is going to be a whole lot better off than the other - China could conceivably take out all the cities in the US (and even then China has a limited number of missiles capable of getting past Michigan), but there's still a large amount of land that they wouldn't be able to strike, the same isn't true of the reverse.
As the famous quote goes, the only way to win is not to play, but France and the UK could both nuke China or Russia and still get invaded.
Distracting your critics from a suspect election by letting the world know you have a secret uranium enrichment plant is a little like arguing that you couldn't have burgled that house because you were busy strangling a hooker at the time.
With the US and Russia holding about 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons, MAD only really exists between those two countries. Everyone else gets to a lot of damage to a small area and then wait for total destruction from somewhere else
(a) It's not active - we've known about the facility for some time, if it were active it either would have already been bombed or we'd never have heard about it (and probably both).
(b) A boy scout with a physics textbook has the technical expertise to turn weapons grade uranium into an atomic bomb.
(c) Posturing - and probably not - it's a lot easier to make an atomic bomb that will fit on a B2 than one that will fit on a missile.
(d) Nope, Iran has a plant to enrich uranium, they claim it's for a peaceful civilian nuclear power program, we think that the size of the facility isn't consistent with that claim. They promise to let IAEA inspectors into the plant now that they know that we know about it (we'll have to see if that happens.) At any rate, it would appear that Iran isn't interested in building a nuke today, but is very interested in developing the capability so as to keep it's options open.
Iran was always a bigger threat to the US than Iraq. N Korea was always the state most likely to develop nuclear weapons. The reason Iraq was invaded and not another member of the "axis of evil" is because, first, we thought we'd be able to win in Iraq relatively easily, and, second, a misguided sense of paternal loyalty.
Even George W Bush knew that Iran would be a cluster fuck, and the cost/benefit of invading Iran didn't make sense.
The ability to launch a satellite != the ability to launch a nuclear ICBM. The technology required to shrink a warhead to a size that will fit on a rocket is non-trivial, and requires testing.
In a nuclear war, America is the only state capable of defeating China or Russia.
In a conventional war the US would require allies.
In a trade war, China can ruin the US economy - but they'd severely hurt themselves in the process. In a trade war, Russia influence is limited to cutting off gas supplies to Eastern Europe.