Probably. I don't remember Bush promising any such thing. Then again, I pretty much tune out what he does promise because whenever I see his lips move I know he's lying.
Funny you should mention finding Coke only in plastic bottles. In his book, What Einstein told his Cook, Robert Wolke answers the question as to why soda goes flat in plastic bottles.
The reason is that the plastic is slightly permeable to gasses and since it's the C02 which gives soda its fizz, over time the gas leaks out, thus turning soda flat. That is why there is a sell-by date on soda.
I personally find that I taste the flavor of the plastic bottle, no matter how fresh the product is. Though, older product is more stongly plastic flavored. The same goes for bottled water, too. I can check this by drinking a bottle of bottled water, refilling it with water that generally tastes good to me, and by morning it too tastes like plastic. A glass left out with the same water tastes a little flat, but doesn't have the same flavor.
I don't notice aluminum flavors, though, so whenever both single serving plastic bottles and cans are available I buy the cans. I don't notice quite as much trouble with the 2 liter bottles, possibly because of the reduced surface area to volume ratio.
There's substantial anecdotal (at minimum, I won't pretend I have real evidence) of Hearst (paper products) and DuPont (plastic products) pushed for criminalisation of hemp. I only know of one piece of anecdotal evidence involving the tobacco industry, and that's where one of the tobacco companies did research and started preparations for the release of a product called "Roman Red" about 20-30 years ago, when it looked like hemp laws were weakening.
I'm afraid I'd never heard of "reefer madness" so I can't comment on that. Unfortunately, the vast majority of links found on google are from pro-hemp sites, and I would heartily agree are necessarily suspect in their data. There are a few that seem to look legitimate, and appear on their face to discuss things in the factual record. Sites such as
Hemp Sisters appear legitimate.
Unfortunately, at this time (I'm at work) I can't conduct an exhaustive online search for unbiased data, especially due to the aforementioned excess of chaff in the search. There are, however, a few points which I think are reasonably established for which data shouldn't be as hard to come by:
Hearst's newspapers (intentionally or not) cast marjiuana in a very negative light
Hearst's newspapers never linked the words marjiuana and hemp (actually, I think they used the spelling marihuana)
Hearst's newspapers recast other stories that had been linked to other drugs to refer to marjiuana instead
Hearst had lost substantial acreage to Mexico (frequently cited as a motive)
In 1917 a machine was invented (by George Schlichten) which could produce hemp paper for half the price of conventional newsprint.
I recommend reading the timeline at the link above. It seems fairly conservative, lacking quite a number of the more tenuous claims made elsewhere.
If it was all about business, marijuana would be as legal as milk. Bringing the pot economy out of the black market and into the white market would be incredibly good for the national economy in a huge variety of ways (although such a change might make some workers less productive).
But my point is that it's not all about business. There's some insane prejudice involved also.
The laws prohibiting marijuana were lobbied for in the 20's and 30's by "yellow journalists". These were newspaper men who sold large quanitites of newspapers and had large stakes in wood pulp based newsprint. Hemp newsprint was cheaper to produce and did not suffer the yellowing that wood pulp newsprint suffered. The newspaper men (in particular, Hearst) imported the word marijuana from mexico (it sounds bad to american ears, unlike hemp) and started a smear campaign, eventually getting hemp banned in the US.
So yes, it was all about business, and a carefully crafted smear campaign that managed to poison real debate for decades.
Why the hell is this paper "politically incorrect"?
The paper presented the findings using phrases with politically overt connotations, rather than using a scholarly tone and remaining distinct from politics. The paper seems to have been written with a particular political slant in mind, rather than the impartiality one would expect from academic research.
The results of the paper are sensitive enough without adding political overtone within the paper itself. If a researcher wishes others to take his research seriously, he needs to present the data in an impartial manner and be sure that the conclusions stand on their own. You don't want the reader questioning your motives, only the methods and data.
Good point. So, doing the math, I get that a 100 lb rod travelling at 7200 mph at impact is the equivalent of about 2 tons (not even kilotons) of explosives. Not particularly impressive.
A megaton bomb releases 4.185 x 10^15 joules
I'm not sure why they would use the comparison of a nuclear weapon for this unless they're using a really big rod. When one compares a weapon to a nuclear bomb, most people think of a substantial weapon, at least a kiloton yield.
For comparison, a 20 lb rod travelling at 7200 mph delivers about the explosive force of a substantial carbomb.
Another Air Force space program, nicknamed Rods From God, aims to hurl cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium from the edge of space to destroy targets on the ground, striking at speeds of about 7,200 miles an hour with the force of a small nuclear weapon.
Now, it might not be nuclear, but "force of a small nuclear weapon" sounds to me like it qualifies for the full intent and meaning of a WMD.
Rather than getting ID from each person buying ammunition, I'd rather get an auto-recorded snippet of security camera with each box scan. That way, the cops have a photo of whoever purchased it, but can't just track everyone buying ammo, and it would make issuing a warrant to all local stores to find out of Foo Garply bought ammo recently impossible.
As for the people casting from lead, it'll reduce the data set down by eliminating retail bullets from the mix.
I'd actually suggest a chemical tag on the lead itself. This is already done for many types of explosives, so that the residue can be tested for identifying markers. You might not be able to test down to the shell level, or even box level, but you should be able to mark each case of boxes and narrow the list of purchasers down to a couple dozen people.
Evolution may be a theory with a few small holes, but you can't really compare it with Intelligent Design. Evolution is a theory with observable states that just happens to have a few kinks left in it. On the other side, Intelligent Design cannot be tested or observed, and thus is a hypothesis, not a theory. Once it can be moved into the realm of a theory, I'll consider how many holes it has.
Nope, the one complaining gets one take-down request, the one being complained against gets one put-back request. After that, the courts have to issue a ruling of some sort to force a change in status. Unless someone folds, of course.
Kind of like the way the backups at a company I worked at once went... they could back up as much as we wanted. The problems appeared when they tried to restore them.
(And no, I wasn't in that department.)
Thank you for your recent inquiry to Grants.gov concerning the Pure Edge viewer.
Grants.gov has been working with Pure Edge to offer a viewer that is compatible with as many operating systems as possible. We feel that we are not too far from achieving that goal, and when we do, be sure that information will be posted on our website. In the meantime, we apologize if the viewer options we offer for your operating system are not acceptable. Our goal is to ensure the widest possible acceptance of Grants.gov and certainly not to exclude anyone from the electronic grants submission process. To that end, as a first step, we ensured that the Pure Edge viewer will work with a Windows emulator program, as described on our website.
Grants.gov employs the PureEdge Viewer 6.0 for viewing and completing application forms. The PureEdge viewer's 508 compliance is described at http://www.pureedge.com/products/products/PureEdge AccessibilityGuide.pdf. Grants.gov sponsored testing of the PureEdge viewer demonstrated the viewer's compatibility with the widely used Jaws screen reader. An enhanced version of the PureEdge Viewer that will include compatibility with a broader range of screen reader products through support for industry standard interfaces for accessibility is in the process of being tested and upon successful completion of testing will be posted to the site.
Feel free to contact us should you have further inquiries.
Your case number is...... Please reference this number when contacting us in the future for further assistance.
Thank you,
Charity
Grants.gov Customer Support
www.grants.gov
On April 19, 2005 at 10:44 PM, Ioldanach <...@.....com> wrote:
>How can I apply for a grant from my linux system or OS X system? I
>don't have a windows machine available
I received a reply today, the contents follow:
Dear Mr......,
Thank you for your recent inquiry to Grants.gov concerning the Pure Edge viewer.
Grants.gov has been working with Pure Edge to offer a viewer that is compatible with as many operating systems as possible. We feel that we are not too far from achieving that goal, and when we do, be sure that information will be posted on our website. In the meantime, we apologize if the viewer options we offer for your operating system are not acceptable. Our goal is to ensure the widest possible acceptance of Grants.gov and certainly not to exclude anyone from the electronic grants submission process. To that end, as a first step, we ensured that the Pure Edge viewer will work with a Windows emulator program, as described on our website.
Grants.gov employs the PureEdge Viewer 6.0 for viewing and completing application forms. The PureEdge viewer's 508 compliance is described at http://www.pureedge.com/products/products/PureEdge AccessibilityGuide.pdf. Grants.gov sponsored testing of the PureEdge viewer demonstrated the viewer's compatibility with the widely used Jaws screen reader. An enhanced version of the PureEdge Viewer that will include compatibility with a broader range of screen reader products through support for industry standard interfaces for accessibility is in the process of being tested and upon successful completion of testing will be posted to the site.
Feel free to contact us should you have further inquiries.
Your case number is...... Please reference this number when contacting us in the future for further assistance.
Thank you,
Charity
Grants.gov Customer Support
www.grants.gov
On April 19, 2005 at 10:44 PM, Ioldanach wrote:
>How can I apply for a grant from my linux system or OS X system? I
>don't have a windows machine available
In this context "may not" indicates "shall not". The phrase "may" typically implies the possibility is acknowledged but not required. The phrase "may not", however, is almost always synonymous with "shall not".
I'm not implying he isn't legally liable and responsible for the missing items. In fact, I'll be interested to see what evidence comes out under trial. It is fairly common practice, regardless of how dumb it is, to sign papers like that without actually verifying whether they're actually in posession.
Note, first, that he hasn't been convicted. To date he's acted responsibly and this seems out of character. There are two possibilities here. The first is that he's a dishonest member of the top level of an organisation, and it was a good act, and he almost got away with stealing nearly $200k in artifacts. Alternatively, he's an honest member of the top level of an organisation, and thus responsibility falls to him for the lapses in security and missing peices.
If the place was in the business of selling off relics it no longer wanted to display, it could be a bookkeeping error. A big one, granted, but with a collection that size someone may have overlooked that these dozen or so items weren't owned by them and sold some off.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably. I don't remember Bush promising any such thing. Then again, I pretty much tune out what he does promise because whenever I see his lips move I know he's lying.
Nope, just too subtle for the likes of you. Slashdot articles are posted as text, ad blockers tend to work against popups and images.
I'm afraid the firefox ad blocker can only block images and pop-up ads. In-line text ads are unaffected.
What does it say that my wife quotes Jabberwocky better than I ever will?
I personally find that I taste the flavor of the plastic bottle, no matter how fresh the product is. Though, older product is more stongly plastic flavored. The same goes for bottled water, too. I can check this by drinking a bottle of bottled water, refilling it with water that generally tastes good to me, and by morning it too tastes like plastic. A glass left out with the same water tastes a little flat, but doesn't have the same flavor. I don't notice aluminum flavors, though, so whenever both single serving plastic bottles and cans are available I buy the cans. I don't notice quite as much trouble with the 2 liter bottles, possibly because of the reduced surface area to volume ratio.
There's substantial anecdotal (at minimum, I won't pretend I have real evidence) of Hearst (paper products) and DuPont (plastic products) pushed for criminalisation of hemp. I only know of one piece of anecdotal evidence involving the tobacco industry, and that's where one of the tobacco companies did research and started preparations for the release of a product called "Roman Red" about 20-30 years ago, when it looked like hemp laws were weakening.
Unfortunately, at this time (I'm at work) I can't conduct an exhaustive online search for unbiased data, especially due to the aforementioned excess of chaff in the search. There are, however, a few points which I think are reasonably established for which data shouldn't be as hard to come by:
I recommend reading the timeline at the link above. It seems fairly conservative, lacking quite a number of the more tenuous claims made elsewhere.
The laws prohibiting marijuana were lobbied for in the 20's and 30's by "yellow journalists". These were newspaper men who sold large quanitites of newspapers and had large stakes in wood pulp based newsprint. Hemp newsprint was cheaper to produce and did not suffer the yellowing that wood pulp newsprint suffered. The newspaper men (in particular, Hearst) imported the word marijuana from mexico (it sounds bad to american ears, unlike hemp) and started a smear campaign, eventually getting hemp banned in the US.
So yes, it was all about business, and a carefully crafted smear campaign that managed to poison real debate for decades.
You forgot Syria. The US Government has been itching for an excuse for them since we officially won in Iraq.
Or you might just not know popular culture. Its a quote from Dark Helmet in Spaceballs: The Movie. Who, incidentally, loses.
The paper presented the findings using phrases with politically overt connotations, rather than using a scholarly tone and remaining distinct from politics. The paper seems to have been written with a particular political slant in mind, rather than the impartiality one would expect from academic research.
The results of the paper are sensitive enough without adding political overtone within the paper itself. If a researcher wishes others to take his research seriously, he needs to present the data in an impartial manner and be sure that the conclusions stand on their own. You don't want the reader questioning your motives, only the methods and data.
That's ((7200*5280/3600)^2 * 100 / 2) ft lbs * 1.356 joules/ft lb = 7560622080 joules
A megaton bomb releases 4.185 x 10^15 joules I'm not sure why they would use the comparison of a nuclear weapon for this unless they're using a really big rod. When one compares a weapon to a nuclear bomb, most people think of a substantial weapon, at least a kiloton yield. For comparison, a 20 lb rod travelling at 7200 mph delivers about the explosive force of a substantial carbomb.
Now, it might not be nuclear, but "force of a small nuclear weapon" sounds to me like it qualifies for the full intent and meaning of a WMD.
Why don't you just make ten colder and make ten be the top... number... and make that a little colder?
As for the people casting from lead, it'll reduce the data set down by eliminating retail bullets from the mix.
I'd actually suggest a chemical tag on the lead itself. This is already done for many types of explosives, so that the residue can be tested for identifying markers. You might not be able to test down to the shell level, or even box level, but you should be able to mark each case of boxes and narrow the list of purchasers down to a couple dozen people.
Evolution may be a theory with a few small holes, but you can't really compare it with Intelligent Design. Evolution is a theory with observable states that just happens to have a few kinks left in it. On the other side, Intelligent Design cannot be tested or observed, and thus is a hypothesis, not a theory. Once it can be moved into the realm of a theory, I'll consider how many holes it has.
Nope, the one complaining gets one take-down request, the one being complained against gets one put-back request. After that, the courts have to issue a ruling of some sort to force a change in status. Unless someone folds, of course.
Kind of like the way the backups at a company I worked at once went... they could back up as much as we wanted. The problems appeared when they tried to restore them. (And no, I wasn't in that department.)
Dear Mr. ......,
Thank you for your recent inquiry to Grants.gov concerning the Pure Edge viewer.
Grants.gov has been working with Pure Edge to offer a viewer that is compatible with as many operating systems as possible. We feel that we are not too far from achieving that goal, and when we do, be sure that information will be posted on our website. In the meantime, we apologize if the viewer options we offer for your operating system are not acceptable. Our goal is to ensure the widest possible acceptance of Grants.gov and certainly not to exclude anyone from the electronic grants submission process. To that end, as a first step, we ensured that the Pure Edge viewer will work with a Windows emulator program, as described on our website.
Grants.gov employs the PureEdge Viewer 6.0 for viewing and completing application forms. The PureEdge viewer's 508 compliance is described at http://www.pureedge.com/products/products/PureEdge AccessibilityGuide.pdf. Grants.gov sponsored testing of the PureEdge viewer demonstrated the viewer's compatibility with the widely used Jaws screen reader. An enhanced version of the PureEdge Viewer that will include compatibility with a broader range of screen reader products through support for industry standard interfaces for accessibility is in the process of being tested and upon successful completion of testing will be posted to the site.
Feel free to contact us should you have further inquiries.
Your case number is ...... Please reference this number when contacting us in the future for further assistance.
Thank you,
Charity
Grants.gov Customer Support
www.grants.gov
On April 19, 2005 at 10:44 PM, Ioldanach
<...@.....com> wrote:
>How can I apply for a grant from my linux system or OS X system? I
>don't have a windows machine available
I received a reply today, the contents follow: Dear Mr. .....,
Thank you for your recent inquiry to Grants.gov concerning the Pure Edge viewer.
Grants.gov has been working with Pure Edge to offer a viewer that is compatible with as many operating systems as possible. We feel that we are not too far from achieving that goal, and when we do, be sure that information will be posted on our website. In the meantime, we apologize if the viewer options we offer for your operating system are not acceptable. Our goal is to ensure the widest possible acceptance of Grants.gov and certainly not to exclude anyone from the electronic grants submission process. To that end, as a first step, we ensured that the Pure Edge viewer will work with a Windows emulator program, as described on our website.
Grants.gov employs the PureEdge Viewer 6.0 for viewing and completing application forms. The PureEdge viewer's 508 compliance is described at http://www.pureedge.com/products/products/PureEdge AccessibilityGuide.pdf. Grants.gov sponsored testing of the PureEdge viewer demonstrated the viewer's compatibility with the widely used Jaws screen reader. An enhanced version of the PureEdge Viewer that will include compatibility with a broader range of screen reader products through support for industry standard interfaces for accessibility is in the process of being tested and upon successful completion of testing will be posted to the site.
Feel free to contact us should you have further inquiries.
Your case number is ...... Please reference this number when contacting us in the future for further assistance.
Thank you,
Charity
Grants.gov Customer Support
www.grants.gov
On April 19, 2005 at 10:44 PM, Ioldanach wrote:
>How can I apply for a grant from my linux system or OS X system? I
>don't have a windows machine available
In this context "may not" indicates "shall not". The phrase "may" typically implies the possibility is acknowledged but not required. The phrase "may not", however, is almost always synonymous with "shall not".
There's a spot down near St Mark's Place in NYC that you can see 3 Starbucks from. And they all do a big business.
I'm not implying he isn't legally liable and responsible for the missing items. In fact, I'll be interested to see what evidence comes out under trial. It is fairly common practice, regardless of how dumb it is, to sign papers like that without actually verifying whether they're actually in posession. Note, first, that he hasn't been convicted. To date he's acted responsibly and this seems out of character. There are two possibilities here. The first is that he's a dishonest member of the top level of an organisation, and it was a good act, and he almost got away with stealing nearly $200k in artifacts. Alternatively, he's an honest member of the top level of an organisation, and thus responsibility falls to him for the lapses in security and missing peices.
If the place was in the business of selling off relics it no longer wanted to display, it could be a bookkeeping error. A big one, granted, but with a collection that size someone may have overlooked that these dozen or so items weren't owned by them and sold some off.