You really have to catch people in contradictions in a public venue with an argument that is simple to understand and you'd look like an idiot for not accepting.
And even then people frequently get really defensive and look for ways to attack rather than listen and/or accept the facts.
Both points are routinely illustrated on The Daily Show with, sadly, little effect on the country's intellectual lowest-common-denominator. For example: Recent funny (to me anyway) example was the clip of Glen Beck railing against socialism based on knowledge he learned from reading books in the public library.
The usefulness, overlooked in the summary and (brief) article, but reported in The Register (longer article), is that this vehicle used jet fuel (JP-7) instead of Hydrogen. Additionally, it apparently flamed out at Mach 5, not 6.
The hypersonic X-51A ignited, burning a mixture of ethylene and JP-7 jet fuel, and once well alight switched over to all jet fuel operation.
I upgraded one desktop system from Jaunty -> Karmic -> Lucid in a single sitting without any issues -- though I then manually uninstalled all the social-media crap than comes with Lucid. That aside, everything went well.
However, I have another system running Hardy, as my MythTV system, that I'm hesitant to upgrade as the "do-release-upgrade" program wants to install all the "recommended" software, meaning 850 more packages that I don't want or need (like GNOME), even with the "-m server" option. I've considered manually updating my apt sources and doing an apt dist-upgrade, but have read "bad things" about that approach. I'm loath to do a fresh installation. At the moment I following the mantra: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
Having lived their entire lives without seeing the ocean, two old women take a trip to the Pacific coast. Upon arriving on the beach, one looks out toward the horizon and says to the other, "That's funny, I thought it would be bigger."
The cotton swabs will come with two bar code labels. One label will be put on the DNA sample and the other is kept for the students' own records. The confidential process is being overseen...
So, let get this straight. *They* send you the bar coded labels, yet it's confidential. Unless those labels are selected and stuffed into the envelope by blindfolded monkeys, they probably know who got which labels. Confidential my ass.
Just like my company asking me to complete an "anonymous" survey, using the email-provided access code.
...locked away for the next quarter of a century behind a 3-1/2 ton door strong enough to resist nuclear attack...
Researchers reported that the combination to the door has been misplaced, possibly inside the vault itself. When asked, the grad-student replied, "Dude, I though you had it."
it should be fairly self-evident that a large portion of young men who list themselves on CougarLife are either in an experimental phase, looking for an easy lay, or - more likely - frustrated by their failure with women in their own age group and looking to boost their self-confidence through attention and affirmation from older women
As for me, I generally find older women more interesting than younger. In addition, they seem to have themselves more together, and are more grounded and reasonable - especially in their expectations for a partner and relationship. Younger women, in my experience, tend to be more unrealistic and romanticize their partner/relationship expectations.
A sweeping generalization, I know, but look at dating sites and you'll see that younger women are more prone to list what they want, including a lot of (arguably transient) physical requirements (height, hair, build), where older women tend to focus on what they don't want.
Perhaps similar things are true for older/younger men. Don't know; haven't checked.
That all said, age doesn't matter that much to me. I think I simply like healthy, smart, educated, articulate, independent women. Those women tend to be older, which kind of makes sense.
As to things said in the intermediate post, I didn't say them, just agreed. I would argue that men and women want the same variety of things for same the variety of reasons, yet society sees some of those things and reasons as more acceptable for men than women. To think otherwise is naive.
One area I think they differ is that many men are threatened by smart, educated, independent, and (especially) higher-paid women, which is too bad for them as those are the really interesting women.
...a new clue that could help unravel one of the biggest mysteries of cosmology: why the universe is composed of matter and not its evil-twin opposite, antimatter.
[pedantic mode: on]
Because we call the stuff we're made of "matter"? Seriously, it's nomenclature. If it were reversed, with the slight bias toward "anti-matter", we'd all be made of *that* and call it "matter". (And there's nothing evil about anti-matter.)
The real question is why are things we assumed to be equal and opposite, not. The answer: Because we don't know everything.
I concur with your assessment. I was going to post something directly, but yours was much clearer and succinct.
One thing I was going to add was that *I* met my wife in 1985 when I was 22 and she 41. It was just one of those things, and we were very happy and together for 20 years until she died of a brain tumor in January 2006 (just seven weeks after diagnosis). I consider myself very, very lucky to have met her and been able to spend our time together.
Long, thin wingspans taking off from shorter runways makes me think it's considerably slower.
That model "D series" (180 passenger) has the really long, thin wings and is designed to replace the 737, the "'hybrid wing body' H-series" (350 passengers), has wider, less long wings (blended into a lifting body) and is designed to replace the 777.
I think they point they are trying to make is that everyone is better off if they spend 100% of their efforts on stopping the leak rather than 75% on stopping it and 25% on discovering how much of an impact the spill is having. You can always spend effort on that AFTER the leak is contained.
Not exactly. The scientists would be spending time and effort measuring the flow, not BP, and it will be pointless to measure the spill flow *after* stopping the leak...(the flow will be different when constrained).
One of my systems has a blue LED that's like a frelling search light. The computer's down the hall in another room, but I can still see the freaking light from my bed. Putting a post-it over the light quelled it enough to keep it reasonable but still useful up close. I have several other things with these ridiculous blue LEDs on them. Tape and/or other (semi) opaque coverings work nicely.
There is a reason BP said 1000 bbl/day at the beginning of this event - that would be a typical flow rate from a well of this type.
Though, that would be a controlled flow rate, not the fire-hose w/o a nozzle shown in video. The fact is, no one actually knows how much oil is spewing from the well. I cannot imagine that attempts to accurately measure the actual flow rate would be a bad thing - except to BP, Transocean Limited, and Halliburton.
Scientists studying video of the gushing oil well have tentatively calculated that it could be flowing at a rate of 25,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil a day. The latter figure would be 3.4 million gallons a day. But the government, working from satellite images of the ocean surface, has calculated a flow rate of only 5,000 barrels a day.
The government has "top men" working on this. Who? "Top men". Besides, it's silly to think there could be oil elsewhere than the surface.
BP has resisted entreaties from scientists that they be allowed to use sophisticated instruments at the ocean floor that would give a far more accurate picture of how much oil is really gushing from the well.
"The answer is no to that," a BP spokesman, Tom Mueller, said on Saturday. "We're not going to take any extra efforts now to calculate flow there at this point. It's not relevant to the response effort, and it might even detract from the response effort."
Yes, there's no value (to us) in trying to determine exactly how badly we've screwed things... It's not like a better estimate would be useful in calculating a level of effort for the cleanup, possibly quantity of cleanup materials, or potential ocean chemistry changes.
In four of the five glioblastoma patients, there was no further brain cancer growth after initial treatment. Follow-up studies on cells taken from these patients showed that DCA killed cancer cells.
My wife died of a GBM (glioblastoma multiforme) in Jan 2006, 7 weeks after diagnosis - sigh. We were together for 20 years; I had hoped for many more.
By-the-way, the cutting-edge drug for this is Temodar at a list price of $11,000 / month (for several months), but co-pay w/insurance: BCBS: 10%, Optima: $40 - go figure.
Slashdot Mirror
Both points are routinely illustrated on The Daily Show with, sadly, little effect on the country's intellectual lowest-common-denominator. For example: Recent funny (to me anyway) example was the clip of Glen Beck railing against socialism based on knowledge he learned from reading books in the public library.
That's crazy talk. It was clearly a Llama.
The usefulness, overlooked in the summary and (brief) article, but reported in The Register (longer article), is that this vehicle used jet fuel (JP-7) instead of Hydrogen. Additionally, it apparently flamed out at Mach 5, not 6.
Actually, there's an Emacs function for that, "M-x destroy-sun-empire", but no key-binding (for safety reasons).
However, I have another system running Hardy, as my MythTV system, that I'm hesitant to upgrade as the "do-release-upgrade" program wants to install all the "recommended" software, meaning 850 more packages that I don't want or need (like GNOME), even with the "-m server" option. I've considered manually updating my apt sources and doing an apt dist-upgrade, but have read "bad things" about that approach. I'm loath to do a fresh installation. At the moment I following the mantra: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
They would clearly be more "chopsticky".
You had me at "laser chopsticks".
Having lived their entire lives without seeing the ocean, two old women take a trip to the Pacific coast. Upon arriving on the beach, one looks out toward the horizon and says to the other, "That's funny, I thought it would be bigger."
I thought the same thing about my penis.
Admittedly, I can't share MP3s with it, like Google Wave, but other collaboration is a go...
So, let get this straight. *They* send you the bar coded labels, yet it's confidential. Unless those labels are selected and stuffed into the envelope by blindfolded monkeys, they probably know who got which labels. Confidential my ass.
Just like my company asking me to complete an "anonymous" survey, using the email-provided access code.
Researchers reported that the combination to the door has been misplaced, possibly inside the vault itself. When asked, the grad-student replied, "Dude, I though you had it."
Ironically, some of the traits I also like in a woman. :-)
Surrender the data? Let me Google this.
As for me, I generally find older women more interesting than younger. In addition, they seem to have themselves more together, and are more grounded and reasonable - especially in their expectations for a partner and relationship. Younger women, in my experience, tend to be more unrealistic and romanticize their partner/relationship expectations.
A sweeping generalization, I know, but look at dating sites and you'll see that younger women are more prone to list what they want, including a lot of (arguably transient) physical requirements (height, hair, build), where older women tend to focus on what they don't want.
Perhaps similar things are true for older/younger men. Don't know; haven't checked.
That all said, age doesn't matter that much to me. I think I simply like healthy, smart, educated, articulate, independent women. Those women tend to be older, which kind of makes sense.
As to things said in the intermediate post, I didn't say them, just agreed. I would argue that men and women want the same variety of things for same the variety of reasons, yet society sees some of those things and reasons as more acceptable for men than women. To think otherwise is naive.
One area I think they differ is that many men are threatened by smart, educated, independent, and (especially) higher-paid women, which is too bad for them as those are the really interesting women.
[pedantic mode: on]
Because we call the stuff we're made of "matter"? Seriously, it's nomenclature. If it were reversed, with the slight bias toward "anti-matter", we'd all be made of *that* and call it "matter". (And there's nothing evil about anti-matter.)
The real question is why are things we assumed to be equal and opposite, not. The answer: Because we don't know everything.
One thing I was going to add was that *I* met my wife in 1985 when I was 22 and she 41. It was just one of those things, and we were very happy and together for 20 years until she died of a brain tumor in January 2006 (just seven weeks after diagnosis). I consider myself very, very lucky to have met her and been able to spend our time together.
That model "D series" (180 passenger) has the really long, thin wings and is designed to replace the 737, the "'hybrid wing body' H-series" (350 passengers), has wider, less long wings (blended into a lifting body) and is designed to replace the 777.
Not exactly. The scientists would be spending time and effort measuring the flow, not BP, and it will be pointless to measure the spill flow *after* stopping the leak...(the flow will be different when constrained).
One of my systems has a blue LED that's like a frelling search light. The computer's down the hall in another room, but I can still see the freaking light from my bed. Putting a post-it over the light quelled it enough to keep it reasonable but still useful up close. I have several other things with these ridiculous blue LEDs on them. Tape and/or other (semi) opaque coverings work nicely.
Though, that would be a controlled flow rate, not the fire-hose w/o a nozzle shown in video. The fact is, no one actually knows how much oil is spewing from the well. I cannot imagine that attempts to accurately measure the actual flow rate would be a bad thing - except to BP, Transocean Limited, and Halliburton.
The government has "top men" working on this. Who? "Top men".
Besides, it's silly to think there could be oil elsewhere than the surface.
Yes, there's no value (to us) in trying to determine exactly how badly we've screwed things... It's not like a better estimate would be useful in calculating a level of effort for the cleanup, possibly quantity of cleanup materials, or potential ocean chemistry changes.
My wife died of a GBM (glioblastoma multiforme) in Jan 2006, 7 weeks after diagnosis - sigh. We were together for 20 years; I had hoped for many more.
By-the-way, the cutting-edge drug for this is Temodar at a list price of $11,000 / month (for several months), but co-pay w/insurance: BCBS: 10%, Optima: $40 - go figure.
I'm concerned that this Eve character keeps causing trouble. First for Adam, now Alice and Bob.