As I process engineer, I'd like to smack anyone who suggests temperature/humidity chart recorders. They're a pain in the ass, you can't do anything with the data, and there are so many more elegant solutions. Check out http://www.omega.com/ , http://onsetcomp.com/ , or http://www.tiptemp.com/
Yeah, but it's not impossible to write technical information in a way that is both concise, and meaningful, and does not contain emoticons.
This, "Sorry, scripts not quite done yet, there's an elusive index out of bounds bug I've yet work out (if you're interested the error references line 334). Otherwise, it should be ready in a couple of days." is much better than either of your examples.
Wow, looks like someone's been drinking the Kool-Aid.
First the North Korean test actually demonstrated that they can't even make a gun type bomb.
Yes the Iranian and Saudi governments are theocracies. Funny though, how they seemed to be allowing more and more progressive thought, well right up to the Iraq invasion that is. Perhaps we should stop fueling their anti-western bias.
Yeah, Ahmadinejad said he wants to wipe Isreal off the map, but he is the perfect example of they way we're pushing the region. If instead, another reformer like Khatami had been elected the Iranians might be making real progress in human rights tolerance. Also you should look-up who the Semites are, before you go throwing around that anti-semite label.
Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong-Il are both massively harmful to their people. Perhaps we should stop posturing and engaging in useless rhetoric, and even more importantly stop swallowing their rhetoric. Just because N. Korea says they have a bomb doesn't make it so. Just because Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel of the map, doesn't make it a credible threat.
N. Korea is a bit of a sticky situation, as there is really no good way to bypass Kim Jong-Il. But if we'd just respect Iran, and not stage invasions in their back yard the hard liners would find it harder and harder to get elected.
One of the biggest problems with text based communication is that people simply can't write well.
It is perfectly possible to convey humor, sarcasm, or irony with text, plenty of authors did so well before the electronics age.
That said, there are two solutions, if it is an informal and won't be distributed, include the damn smiley. If it's serious or formal (even if you're making a sarcastic comment to your boss,) take the time to make sure your email conveys what you want it to convey. If you can't express what you want in type don't.
The standard cop out that something doesn't translate well to text is bull. Jonathan Swift didn't complainabout how hard it is to write effective satire, nor does Garry Trudeau for that matter.
I tell a civilized country from another, in that if there is a traffic accident people stop to help of their own accord, not because they're compelled to do so by law.
Ask for the money back? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd say something not at all clever about a bank error in my favor and hang up the phone.
But they shouldn't be able to sue you either. If they put a money dispenser disguised as an ATM on the street, that's their own damn problem.
Incidentally, very nearly the very same thing happened while I was at college. Word came into the dorm that the ATM across the street was dispensing twice the amount of money withdrawn. Unfortunately, by the time I got there it was already out of cash.
Comcast forwarded me a letter from NBC (via email no less) for sharing The Black Donnellys. I freaked out a little, but then reread the letter and it was a C&D, not a settlement offer.
So I've complied and haven't downloaded any more TV shows.
Incidentally I also never watched the Black Donnellys again (it wasn't on at a great time) and I think it's since been canceled.
Yeah I see where your coming from, but really I think it is just nostalgia. I listed the 350Z because it probably conveys approximately the same status today as a TransAm did in the 70s.
"Unless you can build your own car these days...it is very difficult to get a big, powerful fun toy to drive around" There are the new Chargers and the new GTOs. Maybe a bit more expensive, (not 80k) but if you ask the dealer how to disable the traction control (usually pull 1 fuse) I guarantee that you'll have no problem smoking the tires. Yeah, it's probably a little trickier to get under the hood and tweak the car, but there are also new possibilities. It's a lot easier to modify the engine management code than it is to redesign and machine a new carburetor.
Power isn't the problem. Sure, it's slid up the tach a bit, but modern cars have more than 3 gears, so they can stay in the power band longer. Yeah, peak torque has decreased a lot, but modern cars also weigh about 3000 lb less.
Besides, a modern car won't just smoke the '72 TransAm in a 1/4 mi, it can also do useful things like corner, it won't require you to tank up at the end of the drag strip, and it won't release enough pollution to supply London with acid rain for a week.
Are things different now than they were in '72? Sure, but they're also better. Granted, the state of automotive engineering was in a bad way from the late 70s to the mid 90s, back when the auto makers didn't know anything about fuel injectors and catalytic converters, but they've figured it out. Automotive technology is back, and in a big way.
Here's where I'm confused, the senators appear to be looking for tech to combat child porn. But the argument they're using to get there (according to TFA) is that the parents need help protecting their children.
Well which is it? Those are two separate problems with very different solutions. Even if you accomplish the one, you don't necessarily make progress on the other.
Either you enable a passive filter, and essentially tag (to use a web 2.0 term) the net to help parents with their parenting, or you actively scour the dark corners of the net trying to find predators and child pornographers. How likely do you think it is that a child pornographer is going to get caught in a passive filter? If they were that easy to find they'd be shut down already.
So which is it senator, do you want to combat child porn, or do you want to help parents parent? If it's the latter lay off the child porn red-herring. Oh wait, you won't get any support from your porn surfing colleagues if you want to filter everything? Too freaking bad, make an honest argument for god's sake.
Well for starters, they're not really focused on the Koran, they're focused on particular interpretations of things someone claimed to hear from Muhammad. They're called Hadith
Secondly the reason the radical Islamists chose the specific oppressive Hadith they do is that Arabia has been marginalized by centuries of poor colonial rule. First came the Ottomans, then the British/French. Now (post WWII) the Arabs are (not entirely unreasonably) anticipating a third period of colonialism, either by Jews under the guise of Americans, or Americans under the guise of Jews.
While we obviously can't line up all the terrorists and count them, I'd bet there is a goodly amount of non-muslim terrorists in Africa. But nobody cares about them, so nobody counts them.
To paraphrase Hotel Rwanda: "They're not even niggers. They're africans."
Everybody in the agchem industry pressures the EPA to increase residue levels every year. Why, because the current residue levels are at the limit of detection of the most sophisticated analytical chemistry instruments we have. Even then the detected residue isn't the pesticide, but some non-active third or fourth generation metabolite.
Besides glyphosate (RoundUp) has a ridiculously low halflife. (FYI the biggest reason glyphosate isn't a panacea is that it provides no residual control.) You'd be hard pressed to find a single ppb of glyphosate on a crop a week after application even if you let the plant swim in it.
Monsanto is an evil company, but not because they're selling GMOs and not because they're an agchem supplier.
Seriously, is outcrossing where you want to focus your beef with Monsanto? Oh no, I've been developing this soybean strain for generations in isolation, and it has never been contaminated with an outside strain before. Now it's glyphosate resistant, what will I do?
Look, there are all kinds of things wrong with they way Monsanto does business, how about picking one that has merit, like their licensing scheme, which makes Microsoft's EULA look tame by comparison, rather than GMO fear mongering.
I know where in trouble when people mistake a Michael Moore quote as reasonable. Because really, what the world needs more of is slanted, meaningless, divisive propaganda.
And here is the question we really should be debating:
it's not legal, it's something people are able to do because they can get away with and now draconian measures are being taken to kill off the distribution of pirated material over P2P
What is an acceptable method for the RIAA to enforce their copyrights? Back in the days of Napster the battle cry was sue the users (if you can find them) but don't go after a mere facilitator. Well now they're doing just that, they're not necessarily doing it right, what are the other, better options? Then if you do get caught with your hand in the cookie jar what is an acceptable punishment?
It seems to me these are the practical questions that get lost in all the rhetoric.
Read my link. The people (DuPont) who would be doing the disposal think that they can do it safely. The problem is that the people in Delaware (especially the newspaper who owns the website I linked to) don't have a lot of faith when it comes to DuPont and environmental impact (when you add the government it becomes a trifecta).
This may isn't a case of whether or not it can be done safely (although it might be.) This is more a case of NIMBY, which is just as big a deterrent to the disposal of the waste as potential environmental impact.
Besides, you said:
Also, "we would have destroyed our stockpile but the big mean environmentalists won't let us" is the biggest pile of shit I have ever heard.
Slashdot Mirror
As I process engineer, I'd like to smack anyone who suggests temperature/humidity chart recorders. They're a pain in the ass, you can't do anything with the data, and there are so many more elegant solutions. Check out http://www.omega.com/ , http://onsetcomp.com/ , or http://www.tiptemp.com/
Doofus, I told you last time, that if I caught you posting to slashdot again, you would no longer be welcome here at Radioshack.
I was considering letting it slide, but the inappropriateness of your sig settles the matter. I expect your desk cleaned out by the end of the day. X(
-PHB
Clearly you're right. There is no possible way to convey sarcasm in text without including an emoticon.
Yeah, but it's not impossible to write technical information in a way that is both concise, and meaningful, and does not contain emoticons.
This, "Sorry, scripts not quite done yet, there's an elusive index out of bounds bug I've yet work out (if you're interested the error references line 334). Otherwise, it should be ready in a couple of days." is much better than either of your examples.
Or maybe we should require the people who go into business be able to construct a meaningful, unambiguous sentence without resorting to :P.
They don't have to be literary scholars, they just have to be able to communicate using English, not hieroglyphics.
Wow, looks like someone's been drinking the Kool-Aid.
First the North Korean test actually demonstrated that they can't even make a gun type bomb.
Yes the Iranian and Saudi governments are theocracies. Funny though, how they seemed to be allowing more and more progressive thought, well right up to the Iraq invasion that is. Perhaps we should stop fueling their anti-western bias.
Yeah, Ahmadinejad said he wants to wipe Isreal off the map, but he is the perfect example of they way we're pushing the region. If instead, another reformer like Khatami had been elected the Iranians might be making real progress in human rights tolerance. Also you should look-up who the Semites are, before you go throwing around that anti-semite label.
Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong-Il are both massively harmful to their people. Perhaps we should stop posturing and engaging in useless rhetoric, and even more importantly stop swallowing their rhetoric. Just because N. Korea says they have a bomb doesn't make it so. Just because Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel of the map, doesn't make it a credible threat.
N. Korea is a bit of a sticky situation, as there is really no good way to bypass Kim Jong-Il. But if we'd just respect Iran, and not stage invasions in their back yard the hard liners would find it harder and harder to get elected.
One of the biggest problems with text based communication is that people simply can't write well.
It is perfectly possible to convey humor, sarcasm, or irony with text, plenty of authors did so well before the electronics age.
That said, there are two solutions, if it is an informal and won't be distributed, include the damn smiley. If it's serious or formal (even if you're making a sarcastic comment to your boss,) take the time to make sure your email conveys what you want it to convey. If you can't express what you want in type don't.
The standard cop out that something doesn't translate well to text is bull. Jonathan Swift didn't complainabout how hard it is to write effective satire, nor does Garry Trudeau for that matter.
I tell a civilized country from another, in that if there is a traffic accident people stop to help of their own accord, not because they're compelled to do so by law.
Ask for the money back? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd say something not at all clever about a bank error in my favor and hang up the phone.
But they shouldn't be able to sue you either. If they put a money dispenser disguised as an ATM on the street, that's their own damn problem.
Incidentally, very nearly the very same thing happened while I was at college. Word came into the dorm that the ATM across the street was dispensing twice the amount of money withdrawn. Unfortunately, by the time I got there it was already out of cash.
Comcast forwarded me a letter from NBC (via email no less) for sharing The Black Donnellys. I freaked out a little, but then reread the letter and it was a C&D, not a settlement offer.
So I've complied and haven't downloaded any more TV shows.
Incidentally I also never watched the Black Donnellys again (it wasn't on at a great time) and I think it's since been canceled.
Pfft, my entertainment comes entirely from the sock-puppet theater I write direct and produce.
Sorry, I've got to go clean my gun...
Nah, bloogle would only index blogs, and therefore would be the only site on the internet less useful than blackle.
Yeah I see where your coming from, but really I think it is just nostalgia. I listed the 350Z because it probably conveys approximately the same status today as a TransAm did in the 70s.
"Unless you can build your own car these days...it is very difficult to get a big, powerful fun toy to drive around" There are the new Chargers and the new GTOs. Maybe a bit more expensive, (not 80k) but if you ask the dealer how to disable the traction control (usually pull 1 fuse) I guarantee that you'll have no problem smoking the tires. Yeah, it's probably a little trickier to get under the hood and tweak the car, but there are also new possibilities. It's a lot easier to modify the engine management code than it is to redesign and machine a new carburetor.
'72 Pontiac TransAm 300hp @ 4000 rpm, 415 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm
'07 Nissan 350Z 306 hp @ 6800 rpm, 268 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
Power isn't the problem. Sure, it's slid up the tach a bit, but modern cars have more than 3 gears, so they can stay in the power band longer. Yeah, peak torque has decreased a lot, but modern cars also weigh about 3000 lb less.
Besides, a modern car won't just smoke the '72 TransAm in a 1/4 mi, it can also do useful things like corner, it won't require you to tank up at the end of the drag strip, and it won't release enough pollution to supply London with acid rain for a week.
Are things different now than they were in '72? Sure, but they're also better. Granted, the state of automotive engineering was in a bad way from the late 70s to the mid 90s, back when the auto makers didn't know anything about fuel injectors and catalytic converters, but they've figured it out. Automotive technology is back, and in a big way.
Here's where I'm confused, the senators appear to be looking for tech to combat child porn. But the argument they're using to get there (according to TFA) is that the parents need help protecting their children.
Well which is it? Those are two separate problems with very different solutions. Even if you accomplish the one, you don't necessarily make progress on the other.
Either you enable a passive filter, and essentially tag (to use a web 2.0 term) the net to help parents with their parenting, or you actively scour the dark corners of the net trying to find predators and child pornographers. How likely do you think it is that a child pornographer is going to get caught in a passive filter? If they were that easy to find they'd be shut down already.
So which is it senator, do you want to combat child porn, or do you want to help parents parent? If it's the latter lay off the child porn red-herring. Oh wait, you won't get any support from your porn surfing colleagues if you want to filter everything? Too freaking bad, make an honest argument for god's sake.
Yeah, but turning inward and isolating ourselves didn't work out so well in WWII, whats to make you think that it'll work this time?
Well for starters, they're not really focused on the Koran, they're focused on particular interpretations of things someone claimed to hear from Muhammad. They're called Hadith
Secondly the reason the radical Islamists chose the specific oppressive Hadith they do is that Arabia has been marginalized by centuries of poor colonial rule. First came the Ottomans, then the British/French. Now (post WWII) the Arabs are (not entirely unreasonably) anticipating a third period of colonialism, either by Jews under the guise of Americans, or Americans under the guise of Jews.
I don't know.
While we obviously can't line up all the terrorists and count them, I'd bet there is a goodly amount of non-muslim terrorists in Africa. But nobody cares about them, so nobody counts them.
To paraphrase Hotel Rwanda: "They're not even niggers. They're africans."
Everybody in the agchem industry pressures the EPA to increase residue levels every year. Why, because the current residue levels are at the limit of detection of the most sophisticated analytical chemistry instruments we have. Even then the detected residue isn't the pesticide, but some non-active third or fourth generation metabolite.
Besides glyphosate (RoundUp) has a ridiculously low halflife. (FYI the biggest reason glyphosate isn't a panacea is that it provides no residual control.) You'd be hard pressed to find a single ppb of glyphosate on a crop a week after application even if you let the plant swim in it.
Monsanto is an evil company, but not because they're selling GMOs and not because they're an agchem supplier.
Seriously, is outcrossing where you want to focus your beef with Monsanto? Oh no, I've been developing this soybean strain for generations in isolation, and it has never been contaminated with an outside strain before. Now it's glyphosate resistant, what will I do?
Look, there are all kinds of things wrong with they way Monsanto does business, how about picking one that has merit, like their licensing scheme, which makes Microsoft's EULA look tame by comparison, rather than GMO fear mongering.
It's slanted orthogonally to reality.
Do the republicans not cater to the wants of the religious right? Are they in the top 2%?
Do democrats cater to the wants of unions? Are they in the top 2%?
I know where in trouble when people mistake a Michael Moore quote as reasonable. Because really, what the world needs more of is slanted, meaningless, divisive propaganda.
It seems to me these are the practical questions that get lost in all the rhetoric.
I think some time around 1837
This may isn't a case of whether or not it can be done safely (although it might be.) This is more a case of NIMBY, which is just as big a deterrent to the disposal of the waste as potential environmental impact.
Besides, you said: which is demonstratively false.