Yes, even altruism is driven by "selfish" motivations, as you said. I doubt, though, that this particular brand of "selfishness" is what has placed these twits in office. It seems mostly to be a form of short-sighted narcissism that makes people run in elections.
What the hell ever happened to the government serving its people?
They still do. To the highest bidder, usually.
Can they honestly believe illegally wiretapping their own people serves the peoples best interests and freedom?
Oh, they don't believe any such thing. You said it yourself - it's all about the government's "members [using] it as a way to become personally more powerful". In spite of what is written in the Constitution, in spite of nobler ideals, never forget that the people in office are still just people, and people are selfish creatures.
"Except the changes in CO2 far exceed any measurement from the last 800,000 years" i stopped reading right there. anyone claiming to have accurate readings back to 800,000 years is a liar
For real. Don't these heretics know the Earth is only 6000 years old?
this has already been tested, moron. not only by mythbusters,
Mythbusters never tested or took a position on hands-free conversations. I question the studies that say hands-free is just as bad as holding a phone to one's head. In fact, I question that holding a phone to one's head is really that bad. I'm sure driving takes a hit while on the phone, but what I'm looking for, and not finding, is the 30+ years of accidents caused by CB radios to confirm that conversations by RF are the major hazard to life and limb they have been made out to be.
That relies on the yet unproven assumption that they would be competant enough to find their arse if allowed the use of both elbows.
There's something to the conspiracy theories here. The engineers and scientists in other countries are just as capable and clever as our own, yet no other country has managed to do stealth? It's those alien spacecraft from Roswell, I'm tellin' ya...
You jest, but that actually is the case where I work. I'm just a lowly support critter here, separate from the network group. They have our filter set up to catch anything with.EXE in the address, meaning when I'm simply trying to do my job* the filter kicks me out. I've tried explaining that they can restrict ".EXE" while still allowing ".EXE?" (I know, I'm familiar with the filter they use), but it falls on deaf ears.
Bah, whine, whine, bitch, complain. You don't know how easy you had it! Do you have any idea how hard it was to muster the energy to whoop your arse for being a pansy after carrying the school up that cliff brick by brick every morning? You don't know how good you had it.
infact; v; 1. to agressively attack with facts and/or information 2. the state of being so set upon ("I'm infacting as hard as I can, Captain!", "Help! Help! I'm being infacted!") n; any implement used in the execution of such See also "LART", "clueing"
I'm not so sure that "Independant" is an infact, but it makes my head hurt so you may be right.
My understanding is that you aren't tagging an item with metadata, rather the search engine is tagging your item with metadata on its end based on the linguistic context of the page. Meaning, based on context, it would understand that there is a difference between the word "server" on a page about restaurants vs. the word "server" on a page about office equipment, so you won't get links to Hooter's and Jimmy's Seafood Hut mixed in with your results for equipment. Ideally, any metadata tags you throw will be flat ignored. Context is king.
That's the dream, anyway. The reality is that it doesn't work yet, and may not for a long, long time. This is not an easy trick to pull off.
All film is art. Success for any work depends on how well it meets its goals. SoaP is going for entertaining, not deep, and hits its goal. I consider it an artistic success on those grounds. Just the same, 2001 does mind-bogglingly well at storyline and breathtaking visuals. Judging either of these by the goals of the other would be a failure, but of the judge, not the work.
Almost all film critics fail this test.
It's the same with literature. The literal definition of the word encompasses almost anything written and published (see for example the phrase "technical literature"), not just high-artsy, deep, moving, humanistic works. Harry Potter is written and published, and is therefore literature. It is not the same sort of literature as Shakespeare, or Homer, or Stephen King. Certainly not the type of literature I request from vendors. Success for any of these categories should be judged on how well it fills its intended role. HP does well. I have a lot of product manuals that do not. So it goes, so it goes...
just as there's a difference between an entertaining film or a film that has artistic merit. Generally, the distinction hinges upon the work's amenability to literary analysis and evaluation
Look, I don't care how many times you show that time-lapse flower blooming and withering in grainy, over-exposed B&W super16 with somebody drolling on bad prose in the background, It. Ain't. Art. It is highly stylized egocentric masturbation meant to feel "deep" without saying a damned thing, sometimes so far crossing the line as to insult the viewer for not "getting it". "The Fast and the Furious" has a deeper message than that dreck, and it's entertaining.
Snobbish distinctions between "just a book" and "<ahem>Literature" don't make you an artistic authority. Just because it has lots of pages (Dickens), horribly written, stilted dialog (Hemmingway), or insultingly artificial characters (JFCooper) does not automatically make it more worthy than something that's actually pleasant and entertaining to read, like Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes, or the Da Vinci Code.
That's fine. In fact, I'm feeling the same way. I spent some time trying to Google that article and came up with nothing but air. Well, some artificially created bacteria that eat styrofoam into a biodegradable plastic, as you said, but nothing relevant to my original post.
I can find several sources talking about 40 year old newspapers with "easily readable print"... this seems to be a common citing, probably most of these references are stemming from a single source back in the murky past. Interesting, and relevant, but again it fails to lead to the article I remember reading.
That I cannot find it, or someone's cribbed copy on a blog or some such, probably means that there wasn't merit to the article. Forgive me:-)
Plastic won't decay for the next millennium. Glass, to my knowledge, doesn't really decay either, and if it does, it just gets ground up to sand again. Paper certainly decays, but it may be less resource-intensive to plant and cut down trees than to recycle used paper...
Ahh, yes, it's time for another wonderful installment of "I Vaguely Remember..."
I remember reading an article a few years back, for which I cannot supply a source, that discussed decay rates in landfills. The gist is that paper doesn't decay nearly as fast as they expected due to lack of oxygen, and plastic decays remarkably faster than they expected because microbes apparently adapt to the foodsource available. I don't remember the article saying anything about glass.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, even altruism is driven by "selfish" motivations, as you said. I doubt, though, that this particular brand of "selfishness" is what has placed these twits in office. It seems mostly to be a form of short-sighted narcissism that makes people run in elections.
They still do. To the highest bidder, usually.
Can they honestly believe illegally wiretapping their own people serves the peoples best interests and freedom?Oh, they don't believe any such thing. You said it yourself - it's all about the government's "members [using] it as a way to become personally more powerful". In spite of what is written in the Constitution, in spite of nobler ideals, never forget that the people in office are still just people, and people are selfish creatures.
I cannot support impeachment. The phrase "President Cheney" scares me too much.
i stopped reading right there. anyone claiming to have accurate readings back to 800,000 years is a liar
For real. Don't these heretics know the Earth is only 6000 years old?
Correlation != causation, dammit! For all we know based on Al Gor^H^H^H^H^H^H the evidence, Global Warming causes George Bush.
Silly poster, fish and chicken don't count* - only the cute animals.
Already done!
Oh, wait, you meant making semis and trains smaller, didn't you? Nevermind.
Err, yeah. What do you mean when you speak of a vehicle rolling or rolling over in an accident?
Dammit, stop messing with good conspiracy theories by offering perfectly reasonable explanations! I keep tellin' ya, it's the aliens!
this has already been tested, moron. not only by mythbusters,
Mythbusters never tested or took a position on hands-free conversations. I question the studies that say hands-free is just as bad as holding a phone to one's head. In fact, I question that holding a phone to one's head is really that bad. I'm sure driving takes a hit while on the phone, but what I'm looking for, and not finding, is the 30+ years of accidents caused by CB radios to confirm that conversations by RF are the major hazard to life and limb they have been made out to be.
There's something to the conspiracy theories here. The engineers and scientists in other countries are just as capable and clever as our own, yet no other country has managed to do stealth? It's those alien spacecraft from Roswell, I'm tellin' ya...
You jest, but that actually is the case where I work. I'm just a lowly support critter here, separate from the network group. They have our filter set up to catch anything with .EXE in the address, meaning when I'm simply trying to do my job* the filter kicks me out. I've tried explaining that they can restrict ".EXE" while still allowing ".EXE?" (I know, I'm familiar with the filter they use), but it falls on deaf ears.
* - http://kb.palmone.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE?New, Kb=PalmSupportKB,ts=Palm_External2001,problem=obj( 39316) - note that the CGI is posted as an EXE. I do not consider this good form, and have told Palm so, which also seems to fall upon deaf ears.
Bah, whine, whine, bitch, complain. You don't know how easy you had it! Do you have any idea how hard it was to muster the energy to whoop your arse for being a pansy after carrying the school up that cliff brick by brick every morning? You don't know how good you had it.
Sincerely,
Your Teacher
infact; v; 1. to agressively attack with facts and/or information 2. the state of being so set upon ("I'm infacting as hard as I can, Captain!", "Help! Help! I'm being infacted!") n; any implement used in the execution of such
See also "LART", "clueing"
I'm not so sure that "Independant" is an infact, but it makes my head hurt so you may be right.
My understanding is that you aren't tagging an item with metadata, rather the search engine is tagging your item with metadata on its end based on the linguistic context of the page. Meaning, based on context, it would understand that there is a difference between the word "server" on a page about restaurants vs. the word "server" on a page about office equipment, so you won't get links to Hooter's and Jimmy's Seafood Hut mixed in with your results for equipment. Ideally, any metadata tags you throw will be flat ignored. Context is king.
That's the dream, anyway. The reality is that it doesn't work yet, and may not for a long, long time. This is not an easy trick to pull off.
All film is art. Success for any work depends on how well it meets its goals. SoaP is going for entertaining, not deep, and hits its goal. I consider it an artistic success on those grounds. Just the same, 2001 does mind-bogglingly well at storyline and breathtaking visuals. Judging either of these by the goals of the other would be a failure, but of the judge, not the work.
Almost all film critics fail this test.
It's the same with literature. The literal definition of the word encompasses almost anything written and published (see for example the phrase "technical literature"), not just high-artsy, deep, moving, humanistic works. Harry Potter is written and published, and is therefore literature. It is not the same sort of literature as Shakespeare, or Homer, or Stephen King. Certainly not the type of literature I request from vendors. Success for any of these categories should be judged on how well it fills its intended role. HP does well. I have a lot of product manuals that do not. So it goes, so it goes...
Look, I don't care how many times you show that time-lapse flower blooming and withering in grainy, over-exposed B&W super16 with somebody drolling on bad prose in the background, It. Ain't. Art. It is highly stylized egocentric masturbation meant to feel "deep" without saying a damned thing, sometimes so far crossing the line as to insult the viewer for not "getting it". "The Fast and the Furious" has a deeper message than that dreck, and it's entertaining.
Snobbish distinctions between "just a book" and "<ahem>Literature" don't make you an artistic authority. Just because it has lots of pages (Dickens), horribly written, stilted dialog (Hemmingway), or insultingly artificial characters (JFCooper) does not automatically make it more worthy than something that's actually pleasant and entertaining to read, like Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes, or the Da Vinci Code.
It wasn't on fire. Seriously, don't you people ever read the articles?
Kwyjibo - a fat, dumb, balding North American ape. With no chin.
That's fine. In fact, I'm feeling the same way. I spent some time trying to Google that article and came up with nothing but air. Well, some artificially created bacteria that eat styrofoam into a biodegradable plastic, as you said, but nothing relevant to my original post.
I can find several sources talking about 40 year old newspapers with "easily readable print"... this seems to be a common citing, probably most of these references are stemming from a single source back in the murky past. Interesting, and relevant, but again it fails to lead to the article I remember reading.
That I cannot find it, or someone's cribbed copy on a blog or some such, probably means that there wasn't merit to the article. Forgive me :-)
I see what you're saying, but wouldn't it be easier to just reverse the polarity of the main deflector to ward off the anti-gravitons?
Ahh, yes, it's time for another wonderful installment of "I Vaguely Remember..."
I remember reading an article a few years back, for which I cannot supply a source, that discussed decay rates in landfills. The gist is that paper doesn't decay nearly as fast as they expected due to lack of oxygen, and plastic decays remarkably faster than they expected because microbes apparently adapt to the foodsource available. I don't remember the article saying anything about glass.
OC48's. 3-way bridged OC48's at home.
What? Doesn't everybody have 3-way bridged at home?