What's really funny is that they sell Demolition Man. So, you can get a censored and sanitized version of a movie that rips on a censored and sanitized society.
How about the Office ads with a requiem for a soundtrack?
What's even funnier is that the translation of that bit of Mozart's Requiem is "When the accursed have been confounded
and given over to the bitter flames,...", playing as the ad asks you "Where Do You Want to Go Today?"
Apparently, using Microsoft products will send you to Hell. Go fig.
The audience member asked a question regarding Apple's track record with servers and how it would affect interest in the Xserve. It wasn't a slam and Steve didn't seem to take it that way. The gesture was a quick adjustment to his glasses (which he had just knocked aside while rubbing his eye).
The review left out the subtitle--"An irreverant, off-the-wall, PC-slammin', totally biased look at what it's like to be a Macintosh user in a Windows-dominated world." This book never claims to be a fact-based investigation of the life of a Mac user. People are taking this book waaaay too seriously.
That "definitive platform test" is a joke. I mean, come on! If you score 20-40 (militant PC user), his advice is to "...put your hands on your head, walk out the front door of your home directly toward the officers, and listen carefully to their instructions. Keep your hands clearly in sight and don't make any sudden moves." Yup! That sounds like a serious platform quiz to me!
Kelby's humor takes a little getting used to and his over-exaggeration of Mac and PC user stereotypes wears a little thin, especially in the era of OS X. There is some useful info in here--covering the obstacles you're probably going to run into and what to do about them (if you want lots of games, buy a Playstation), but for the most part the book is meant to be fun (usually at the expense of Wintel users). In the last chapter, he reveals the true origins of the Cult of Macintosh (and a lesson in media manipulation). General Burkhalter? Go fig!;-)
Buying advice--if you prefer MacAddict over Macworld, you'll probably enjoy this book.
A theory is a "unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws that are based on them" (Chemistry, 3rd ed., by Chang)--evolution, atoms, gravity, etc. all have theories describing them, made up of observed (directly or indirectly) facts. I think you are confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". Most basic chemistry or physics textbooks will give you a good rundown of theory, hypothesis and law.
Why are the most arrogant asses like skeptical inquirer usually the scrub scientists, who never really discover anything new and/or significant.
Why do the arrogant asses who get ticked when science doesn't prove (or disproves) their personal worldview feel the need to push their unproven beliefs on everyone else, usually with the claim that their "science" is being supressed by arrogant asses? And they always seem to think that the Scientific Method doesn't apply to them and any attempt to question their claims are taken as personal attacks on their "revolutionary" ideas by "scrub scientists".
If someone mounting a wilderness expedition can't be trusted to pack batteries and spares for their equipment, then they need to stay home and watch National Geographic Explorer on television.
Maybe that should read 'Someone mounting a wilderness expedition should know not to rely on fragile equipment when you're a whole heckuva long ways from anywhere'. My handy, dandy little compass may not need a pound of batteries and have pretty little flashing lights, but it will survive an all-day rainstorm, take a dunking in a river and handle being dropped onto rocks from pretty high up. My USGS map will do the same. And since the light-and-compact map and compass work so well, why the heck would you want to burden yourself with all that extra equipment?
An important rule of wilderness backpacking is if an essential piece of equipment can't be fixed with duct tape, it doesn't belong in the backcountry.
What's the difference between teaching computer repair & electronics and teaching wood/metal/auto shop or building trades? Sorry to break it to you, but there are lots of kids out there who will not benefit from chemistry and physics (why are they teaching that anyway?--it's a high school for God's sake, not MIT!). High schools are already teaching skilled trades. Not everyone wants to keep going to school after HS, they're just going to go directly into the workforce. If a HS can teach students to rebuild engines or build houses, why can't they teach them computer repair?
I don't know where your school was sending the money, but unpaid musical groups at schools/universities do not pay royalties on performances. Schools only pay royalties if a paid musician is performing or if the admission fee for the concert is intended for non-educational (for profit) purposes.
Under the same Act, listening to a radio in a public place doesn't violate any laws. Establishments do have to pay royalties if they are charging customers to listen, are transmitting beyond the establishment, or are over 2000 square feet (3750 for resaurants/bars) *and* have more than six speakers. "Mom and Pop" are not going to be charged royalties for listening to the radio.
Anyone want to take bets on how long before all your spam starts showing up from a.au address?
"This is not spam. Forwarding the copyrighted material in this e-mail to the originating ISP violates Australian law and will result in a fine of $60,000."
As someone who grew up on welfare, I must say that *you* are living in a fantasy world! Do you really believe that throwing money at people betters their lives? As a previous post pointed out, welfare has been around for a long time and nothing has changed. The welfare program has plenty of money. But, it is a mismanaged and terribly designed system that only manages to create more generations of welfare recipients. The only way to help people via government handouts is to completely redo the whole welfare system. More money will do absolutely nothing. I was able to escape from the system because my parents knew how valuable it was for my sisters and me to be educated. And it was the space program that was my inspiration to go into the sciences! Until people appreciate education, they will remain on welfare, no matter how much "assistance" you give them. Other countries have better test scores than the US not because they pump lots of money into schools, but because education is highly respected. Don't blame NASA for the welfare system's problems! Cutting the space station and turning that money over to the Welfare program will just give them more money to waste! On the other hand, expanding NASA's programs will create jobs all over. The space station and planetary probes, and eventually bases on the Moon and Mars and mining the asteroids, will *create* jobs, not just for scientists, engineers and programmers, but also in support areas, everything from med techs to receptionists to truck drivers. The space program not only affects the major contractors like Rockwell, but also the subcontractors, suppliers and support companies. Cutting space programs just puts even more people out of work. The way to get people out of poverty is to give them opportunities, not cash. You know the old saying--"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, give a man a fishing pole and he eats for the rest of his life" (or something like that). Food stamps will get someone through the month, but McDonnel-Douglas building a new assembly plant, or companies being created to handle the mining of asteroids, will give someone a future. People like *you* really annoy me because you treat people in poverty like objects--pet projects to dole out contributions on as you see fit and to shed crocodile tears over to feel good about yourself. You self-righteously make proclamations about what is "best" for the poor without even bothering to find out if it actually works. It is not stupid to say that poor kids are better off today--they are. There are so many opportunities to get out of poverty (education grants, low-interest loans, etc., that require the recipient to accomplish something), but you have to have a goal for yourself to use them. Throwing money at people may make you feel better, but it does nothing to encourage people to better themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Sara
That's the other Terry, Terry Jones. He also did the voice of the Parrot.
Sara
What's even funnier is that the translation of that bit of Mozart's Requiem is "When the accursed have been confounded and given over to the bitter flames,...", playing as the ad asks you "Where Do You Want to Go Today?"
Apparently, using Microsoft products will send you to Hell. Go fig.
Sara
The audience member asked a question regarding Apple's track record with servers and how it would affect interest in the Xserve. It wasn't a slam and Steve didn't seem to take it that way. The gesture was a quick adjustment to his glasses (which he had just knocked aside while rubbing his eye).
That "definitive platform test" is a joke. I mean, come on! If you score 20-40 (militant PC user), his advice is to "...put your hands on your head, walk out the front door of your home directly toward the officers, and listen carefully to their instructions. Keep your hands clearly in sight and don't make any sudden moves." Yup! That sounds like a serious platform quiz to me!
Kelby's humor takes a little getting used to and his over-exaggeration of Mac and PC user stereotypes wears a little thin, especially in the era of OS X. There is some useful info in here--covering the obstacles you're probably going to run into and what to do about them (if you want lots of games, buy a Playstation), but for the most part the book is meant to be fun (usually at the expense of Wintel users). In the last chapter, he reveals the true origins of the Cult of Macintosh (and a lesson in media manipulation). General Burkhalter? Go fig! ;-)
Buying advice--if you prefer MacAddict over Macworld, you'll probably enjoy this book.
Sara
Sorry, no.
A theory is a "unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws that are based on them" (Chemistry, 3rd ed., by Chang)--evolution, atoms, gravity, etc. all have theories describing them, made up of observed (directly or indirectly) facts. I think you are confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". Most basic chemistry or physics textbooks will give you a good rundown of theory, hypothesis and law.
Why are the most arrogant asses like skeptical inquirer usually the scrub scientists, who never really discover anything new and/or significant.
Why do the arrogant asses who get ticked when science doesn't prove (or disproves) their personal worldview feel the need to push their unproven beliefs on everyone else, usually with the claim that their "science" is being supressed by arrogant asses? And they always seem to think that the Scientific Method doesn't apply to them and any attempt to question their claims are taken as personal attacks on their "revolutionary" ideas by "scrub scientists".
Maybe that should read 'Someone mounting a wilderness expedition should know not to rely on fragile equipment when you're a whole heckuva long ways from anywhere'. My handy, dandy little compass may not need a pound of batteries and have pretty little flashing lights, but it will survive an all-day rainstorm, take a dunking in a river and handle being dropped onto rocks from pretty high up. My USGS map will do the same. And since the light-and-compact map and compass work so well, why the heck would you want to burden yourself with all that extra equipment?
An important rule of wilderness backpacking is if an essential piece of equipment can't be fixed with duct tape, it doesn't belong in the backcountry.
What's the difference between teaching computer repair & electronics and teaching wood/metal/auto shop or building trades? Sorry to break it to you, but there are lots of kids out there who will not benefit from chemistry and physics (why are they teaching that anyway?--it's a high school for God's sake, not MIT!). High schools are already teaching skilled trades. Not everyone wants to keep going to school after HS, they're just going to go directly into the workforce. If a HS can teach students to rebuild engines or build houses, why can't they teach them computer repair?
I found an article on Pravda's site, dated August 1:
4 87 .html
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/2001/08/01/11
Oops! A typo in the Copyright Law URL. It's supposed to be http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
Under the same Act, listening to a radio in a public place doesn't violate any laws. Establishments do have to pay royalties if they are charging customers to listen, are transmitting beyond the establishment, or are over 2000 square feet (3750 for resaurants/bars) *and* have more than six speakers. "Mom and Pop" are not going to be charged royalties for listening to the radio.
See Chapter 1, Section 110 of the Copyright Law.
Anyone want to take bets on how long before all your spam starts showing up from a .au address?
"This is not spam. Forwarding the copyrighted material in this e-mail to the originating ISP violates Australian law and will result in a fine of $60,000."
As someone who grew up on welfare, I must say that *you* are living in a fantasy world! Do you really believe that throwing money at people betters their lives? As a previous post pointed out, welfare has been around for a long time and nothing has changed. The welfare program has plenty of money. But, it is a mismanaged and terribly designed system that only manages to create more generations of welfare recipients. The only way to help people via government handouts is to completely redo the whole welfare system. More money will do absolutely nothing. I was able to escape from the system because my parents knew how valuable it was for my sisters and me to be educated. And it was the space program that was my inspiration to go into the sciences! Until people appreciate education, they will remain on welfare, no matter how much "assistance" you give them. Other countries have better test scores than the US not because they pump lots of money into schools, but because education is highly respected. Don't blame NASA for the welfare system's problems! Cutting the space station and turning that money over to the Welfare program will just give them more money to waste! On the other hand, expanding NASA's programs will create jobs all over. The space station and planetary probes, and eventually bases on the Moon and Mars and mining the asteroids, will *create* jobs, not just for scientists, engineers and programmers, but also in support areas, everything from med techs to receptionists to truck drivers. The space program not only affects the major contractors like Rockwell, but also the subcontractors, suppliers and support companies. Cutting space programs just puts even more people out of work. The way to get people out of poverty is to give them opportunities, not cash. You know the old saying--"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, give a man a fishing pole and he eats for the rest of his life" (or something like that). Food stamps will get someone through the month, but McDonnel-Douglas building a new assembly plant, or companies being created to handle the mining of asteroids, will give someone a future. People like *you* really annoy me because you treat people in poverty like objects--pet projects to dole out contributions on as you see fit and to shed crocodile tears over to feel good about yourself. You self-righteously make proclamations about what is "best" for the poor without even bothering to find out if it actually works. It is not stupid to say that poor kids are better off today--they are. There are so many opportunities to get out of poverty (education grants, low-interest loans, etc., that require the recipient to accomplish something), but you have to have a goal for yourself to use them. Throwing money at people may make you feel better, but it does nothing to encourage people to better themselves.