But both of your finds willing to support PostgreSQL live in their mother's basement. One of them is a social outcast, but a technical whiz about what he does know, the only problem is, he doesn't know anything other than his brilliant Klingon grammar AI. The other is a Slashdot fanboy who uses PostgreSQL instead of MySQL on his "personal home page" because he wants to feel 3leet! and couldn't tell the difference between a query and a stored procedure. He doesn't vacuum his room or his DB. Neither one will be able to help you out. Ironically, there was a PG expert who hated his day job administering Oracle and MySQL who could help you, if he hadn't given up on the rigors of work gone back to grad school to study database theory.
Not to mention the additional amount we'd need for the department of education for the USL (Urdu as Second Language) program without any defense spending.
You must live in an extremely small state. I'm from North Dakota/Rhode Island, and while the costs of bureaucracy are way down, both states (admitted large) seem to have the critical mass to reap any practical economy of scale benefits.
Are you kidding? Ron Paul doesn't have that kind of an organization, and it seems to me that he's the type of guy who relishes giving his "own" answers. Besides, he doesn't get much email. I'm sure he's glad to have an audience this big. Especially with so many stoner atheist libertarian losers.
No one starts a bus company because it isn't as economical as everyone driving their own car. That's why the only buses you see are government subsidized.
I think one of the other main problems of the global warming debate is that too many people think they know so much more than everyone else and think that learning a few rote "facts" makes them experts that can refute anyone who disagrees with them or their spiritual leaders, who, by the way, ordinary people dance rings around, intellectually. Al Gore talking about the environment appears to the average hick farmer like a pope arguing astronomy with a bunch of physicists -- uninformed and self-important.
Whether or not Al Gore practices what he preaches is directly relevant to determining whether he believes what he preaches. And since he obviously does not, it severely damages his credibility. And while Al Gore is dumb enough to be a likely candidate to be 100% wrong all the time, it is still astronomically unlikely enough that he can be dismissed entirely.
Your ad hominem attacks don't make up for the fact that he's right and you're wrong, despite who has "distanced themselves intellectually" which, by the way is more likely a symptom of not knowing what you're talking about.
The thing is, nobody in their right mind believes that the level of carbon dioxide in the air causes earthquakes. So when someone says we should buy a stupid little car that costs more than an SUV, and only gets 20% better gas mileage, because they believe that the planet is sentient and will be "happier" (and somehow control sunspots) or "appeased" if we wear hemp and donate to their favorite political party... well, it just strikes some people as primitive superstition and a belief system that is empirically inferior.
They could eat corn. How many more people use oil to produce food than live off of caribou meat? (The answer is more than "several".) The Gwich'in tribe would have died off a long time ago if it weren't for modern medicines and welfare from those corn growers. But if they're so much better than everyone else, they could move to Alaska and kill more caribou than they've ever dreamed of, because they congregate around those pipelines and overpopulate.
Jesus said, approximately, "judge a belief system by the empirical results of the actions of it's imperfect adherents." Now, he probably said that knowing that such a standard would make Christianity seem to be, at the least, a much shinier turd in comparison to most other belief systems, so it might be that, given credit for omniscience, that his methodology was meant to stack the deck in his favor.
But, due at least partially to Christianity's darwinistic success over the last couple thousand years, our judgment system seems (at least in the short term) irrevocably tied to such a philosophy (sometimes less prejudicially called "the scientific method"), and as a result, communism, socialism, et al, get a bad rap just because it seems to fail all the time, and the closer to success it gets, the worse the results seem to be for it's "adherents."
Now, due to the dishonesty and inconsistency of Marxist/Leninist/Hegelist proponents' western adherents, another judgemental maxim also tends to taint our views of their belief system, namely that quip by that demigod of liberal enlightenment Benjamin Franklin, who said "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" which may be unfairly coloring our opinion of your belief system, despite it's merits, purely because of that vain desire of not wanting to appear foolish.
I haven't found a macro that allows me to mark and sort multiple emails at once with mutt. In that respect, at least, Outlook Express is better. I'd switch, if only it ran over SSH.
Why do charities need money? Not to buy clothes or food or medicine apparently. That's because charities are in business to pay their employees, and particularly their boards of directors. Their charity status is a way to do it without paying taxes or producing products (which have pesky "costs" associated with them.) If a charity could make more money drilling for oil or selling baby seal pelts, they would.
Where's all the "public" money to fund research going to come from? Not from drug companies, if you put them out of business. Or oil companies, or Walmart, or Costco, or Whole Foods, if you shut those corporations down, either. Maybe from hemp artisans who donate above and beyond what is required of them by taxes?
How come all those people in Africa are dying of Malaria then?
And how come all those people in Asia dying of Malaria never developed sickle cells? Not one of evolution's shining moments, I'd say.
...have taught us anything, it's that corporations will do anything in the name of their bottom line...
Yes, including finding a cure for disease. Shockingly, no one else seems interested in such boring and thankless tasks. From Edward Jenner to Jonas Salk, it's been the same story, the personal profit motive.
Except that the play is about a guy that lies about his identity (says his name is "Earnest", know what I mean?) to try to get laid. The moral of the story is, if he'd just been honest, he'd've got the girl
The police officer, and all the lawyers are wrong. It's really very simple. It's assault when you take a swing at someone with the intent to harm them. The only tricky part is proving the intent. It's battery if you connect, and actually cause physical harm. A slap isn't battery. Now, the veracity of the US justice system is another matter. But they're having trouble telling the difference between marriage and homosexual relationships.
Slashdot Mirror
But both of your finds willing to support PostgreSQL live in their mother's basement. One of them is a social outcast, but a technical whiz about what he does know, the only problem is, he doesn't know anything other than his brilliant Klingon grammar AI. The other is a Slashdot fanboy who uses PostgreSQL instead of MySQL on his "personal home page" because he wants to feel 3leet! and couldn't tell the difference between a query and a stored procedure. He doesn't vacuum his room or his DB. Neither one will be able to help you out. Ironically, there was a PG expert who hated his day job administering Oracle and MySQL who could help you, if he hadn't given up on the rigors of work gone back to grad school to study database theory.
Not to mention the additional amount we'd need for the department of education for the USL (Urdu as Second Language) program without any defense spending.
You must live in an extremely small state. I'm from North Dakota/Rhode Island, and while the costs of bureaucracy are way down, both states (admitted large) seem to have the critical mass to reap any practical economy of scale benefits.
Maybe out of your pockets, but not mine or Bill Gates'. I'm too poor and he's too rich to have to pay taxes.
But with your plan, our "true national interests" will be learning German and supporting the Volkliebensraum.
Sounds good, except Texas ends up having to pay out federally to clean up the California nightmare.
Are you kidding? Ron Paul doesn't have that kind of an organization, and it seems to me that he's the type of guy who relishes giving his "own" answers. Besides, he doesn't get much email. I'm sure he's glad to have an audience this big. Especially with so many stoner atheist libertarian losers.
No one starts a bus company because it isn't as economical as everyone driving their own car. That's why the only buses you see are government subsidized.
I think one of the other main problems of the global warming debate is that too many people think they know so much more than everyone else and think that learning a few rote "facts" makes them experts that can refute anyone who disagrees with them or their spiritual leaders, who, by the way, ordinary people dance rings around, intellectually. Al Gore talking about the environment appears to the average hick farmer like a pope arguing astronomy with a bunch of physicists -- uninformed and self-important.
Whether or not Al Gore practices what he preaches is directly relevant to determining whether he believes what he preaches. And since he obviously does not, it severely damages his credibility. And while Al Gore is dumb enough to be a likely candidate to be 100% wrong all the time, it is still astronomically unlikely enough that he can be dismissed entirely.
Your ad hominem attacks don't make up for the fact that he's right and you're wrong, despite who has "distanced themselves intellectually" which, by the way is more likely a symptom of not knowing what you're talking about.
The thing is, nobody in their right mind believes that the level of carbon dioxide in the air causes earthquakes. So when someone says we should buy a stupid little car that costs more than an SUV, and only gets 20% better gas mileage, because they believe that the planet is sentient and will be "happier" (and somehow control sunspots) or "appeased" if we wear hemp and donate to their favorite political party... well, it just strikes some people as primitive superstition and a belief system that is empirically inferior.
They could eat corn. How many more people use oil to produce food than live off of caribou meat? (The answer is more than "several".) The Gwich'in tribe would have died off a long time ago if it weren't for modern medicines and welfare from those corn growers. But if they're so much better than everyone else, they could move to Alaska and kill more caribou than they've ever dreamed of, because they congregate around those pipelines and overpopulate.
That's right. We need a kinder system than "use the money someone gave me to perform a specific task for something else."
Jesus said, approximately, "judge a belief system by the empirical results of the actions of it's imperfect adherents." Now, he probably said that knowing that such a standard would make Christianity seem to be, at the least, a much shinier turd in comparison to most other belief systems, so it might be that, given credit for omniscience, that his methodology was meant to stack the deck in his favor.
But, due at least partially to Christianity's darwinistic success over the last couple thousand years, our judgment system seems (at least in the short term) irrevocably tied to such a philosophy (sometimes less prejudicially called "the scientific method"), and as a result, communism, socialism, et al, get a bad rap just because it seems to fail all the time, and the closer to success it gets, the worse the results seem to be for it's "adherents."
Now, due to the dishonesty and inconsistency of Marxist/Leninist/Hegelist proponents' western adherents, another judgemental maxim also tends to taint our views of their belief system, namely that quip by that demigod of liberal enlightenment Benjamin Franklin, who said "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" which may be unfairly coloring our opinion of your belief system, despite it's merits, purely because of that vain desire of not wanting to appear foolish.
Truly, that is an irrefutable argument.
Great post.
I haven't found a macro that allows me to mark and sort multiple emails at once with mutt. In that respect, at least, Outlook Express is better. I'd switch, if only it ran over SSH.
Why do charities need money? Not to buy clothes or food or medicine apparently. That's because charities are in business to pay their employees, and particularly their boards of directors. Their charity status is a way to do it without paying taxes or producing products (which have pesky "costs" associated with them.) If a charity could make more money drilling for oil or selling baby seal pelts, they would.
Where's all the "public" money to fund research going to come from? Not from drug companies, if you put them out of business. Or oil companies, or Walmart, or Costco, or Whole Foods, if you shut those corporations down, either. Maybe from hemp artisans who donate above and beyond what is required of them by taxes?
How come all those people in Africa are dying of Malaria then? And how come all those people in Asia dying of Malaria never developed sickle cells? Not one of evolution's shining moments, I'd say.
...have taught us anything, it's that corporations will do anything in the name of their bottom line... Yes, including finding a cure for disease. Shockingly, no one else seems interested in such boring and thankless tasks. From Edward Jenner to Jonas Salk, it's been the same story, the personal profit motive.
Except that the play is about a guy that lies about his identity (says his name is "Earnest", know what I mean?) to try to get laid. The moral of the story is, if he'd just been honest, he'd've got the girl
What do you mean? Of course they could teleport. I saw captain Kirk do it lots of times.
The police officer, and all the lawyers are wrong. It's really very simple. It's assault when you take a swing at someone with the intent to harm them. The only tricky part is proving the intent. It's battery if you connect, and actually cause physical harm. A slap isn't battery. Now, the veracity of the US justice system is another matter. But they're having trouble telling the difference between marriage and homosexual relationships.