You should have gotten a Hershey's Symphony bar. The "Symphony" bars are made with a flavor profile closer to European milk chocolates. The regular Hershey's milk chocolate bar is "Americanized". Typically, they are the same price. I am thoroughly American, but I greatly prefer the Symphony bars.
I did a quick search and found some more anecdotal evidence of this:
I wish this were (old school) D&D, and I had some extra gold. Just honeypot some copper lying out with a fast acting contact poison. Unless monks were stealing your stuff, they'd really regret it.
"The rest of us" only have what we have because the same democracy you mention allowed us the opportunity to get it.
If what the GP says is true, that the default rate is only slightly higher than average, the the "poor schome" isn't the one causing the problem. And I bet none of the money that's being taken from you is going to help said poor schome either.
I don't know about enjoying each others' company, but by and large, humans DO go to the same places. Usually at the same time. In my opinion, it's pretty stupid. It leads to the "rush hour" phenomenon.
It really pisses me off when I'm stuck in traffic, knowing that in six hours, the highway I'm at a standstill on is going to be almost empty.
It also pisses me off to think that, here I am stuck with thousands of other people, all heading the same direction, but all in their own inefficient vehicle. Why can't I just be on a train? At least then I could read a book or check my e-mail during my transit.
There isn't an energy shortage. There's a fossil fuel shortage. There is more potential renewable energy available to us than we could currently even imagine using.
In the case of stargazing, "increased detail" might very well be defined as detecting dim objects.
I know I've been really freaked once by a little sticker someone had put on my ceiling. It was a glow in the dark sticker in the shape of a star. I guess it was really weak, because the glow was extremely faint. For a while I thought I was going crazy until I realized I could ONLY see it in the dark if I DIDN'T look directly at it. xD
Sure, it would be corrosive to skin, most flooring (especially stone), and glassware. But the image you give is pouring the stuff into a glass, having it melt through the glass, your hand, and the floor, and whatever is below you. xD
But you are right about chemical reactions of relatively innocuous chemicals causing serious hazards. The most common example I can think of is bleach + ammonia.
You'd probably hear an intonational change in speech.
That's what I take the question mark to mean. The intonation of the sentence. The same for the exclamation point! I'm probably wrong, but I feel like you can use it pretty arbitrarily! Anywhere you want!
As a woman who regularly reads science mags (and slashdot), I can tell you that when science talk makes me yawn, it's the guy, not the subject
I love the way you TOTALLY proved the stereotype with your reply. All science talk comes from guys. Or are you saying science talk from a girl wouldn't make you yawn? What exactly are you trying to say?
I knew that too, and I'm *not* gay. I have my third baby on the way to prove it. I *am* taken though, obviously.:)
Not to troll here (seriously), but:
1) Gay women can get pregnant and have babies, too.
2) It is possible to be pregnant, but not be "taken". Being pregnant is not obvious evidence of being partnered with someone.
Not trying to make you out to be some kind of bad person, just offering some food for thought. A lot of people have had a certain kind of thinking ingrained for so long, they they don't even realize they're doing it.
So you're saying my argument that the aspect ratio of a film doesn't have to have anything to do with how much information it contains?
My friends used to argue for wide-screen formats because with a 4:3 aspect ratio, you lost visual information to either side of the visible area. Pan and scan technique, basically.
But I always argued that wasn't an inherent quality of the aspect ratio. One could easily look at it in the sense that with a widescreen format, the top and bottom had been cut off of the image. All that really mattered was the resolution.
And NOW you come along and tell me that, yes, they DO cut off the top and bottom of the image to fit a particular aspect ratio. Hot damn!
I've noticed that for normal desktop use, the overall performance of the system isn't nearly as reliant on the processor as it has been in the past. My system at home has a Core2 Duo at 1.86 Ghz, and mine at work has a Core2 Duo at 3.16 Ghz (overclock to 3.8 Ghz).
Honestly, I can't really tell much of a different between opening Word and surfing the web.
At this point, I think "joe user" performance improvements are going to come from places beyond the CPU: the chipset, RAM speed (since quantity is a non-issue at today's prices), and storage speed.
I recently replaced a failed original hard drive in a Dell 4600c. It has a 2 Ghz Northwood P4 in it. I was really surprised just how much replacing the original 40GB hard drive with a new Seagate 7200.10 improved the performance of the machine.
I think it's the little things like that which will make the computers seem faster for most users. Unless you're crunching big numbers (gaming, video, scientific, audio, etc.) I think any run-of-the-mill dual core processor is going to be as good at a top-of-the-line model.
The difference between Science and anything else you mention in your post is that science is specifically falsifiable. Meaning that if there isn't a specific way to prove it wrong, then it cannot be considered science.
This leads to science often being proven wrong -- BUT NOT discard completely. Usually after some premise of science is proven wrong, there is immediately a better premise to replace it.
Science is not a religion. It is merely our current best model of the reality around us. This model changes the more we learn.
You claim that, perhaps, we ought to err on the side of caution as far as science -- certainly an incomplete thing -- is concerned. And with that, I do not necessarily disagree. You may wish to cling to whatever other models of reality suit you. But I ask you this, with regard to the accuracy of science versus other models of reality: Do you not trust the direct product of science, technology, on a daily basis? You even trust it completely with your life.
Surely you locomote through technologically derived means. Surely you travel at speeds so high that, could the technology not reduce your speed, you would surely die upon collision. Surely you have receive some medical care, where you trusted the science of medicine, and its technologies to diagnose and treat your ailments. Even now, you read this message through a true marvel of technology.
And what of other models? What have the mystics and priests provided? Do the powers of magic or god teleport you from place to place? Can they, with a word, heal your wounds and disease? What pleas to the divine are heard and answered? You may believe that some are -- but I ask this: even those of which you do believe, how does the availability, efficacy, and immediacy of these divine interventions compare to what science has to offer?
Criticize science as you will. Science, unlike others, will not be offended. The truth is that you trust science implicitly. You trust it when you get into your car or onto a train each day. You trust it when you take a pill to remedy pain or sickness. You trust it when you visit your doctor. You trust it everytime you power on your computer. You trust it when watching the television, or listening to the radio. You trust it anytime you plug something into a wall socket and fully expect electricity to flow forth. Can you honestly tell me that you have this much faith in any other devices? In gods, or in the philosophies of men? Surely you do not.
Criticize as you will, but the truth of your absolute, unwavering faith for science is in your actions.
What do you don't mention is whether or not they got scholarships or grants, help from family, or how much their tuition was.
It's not some mysterious Art that some people are able to accomplish through enough hard work. It's a relatively simple math problem.
School Expenses + Living Expenses < Total Income - Financial Assistance
If that doesn't evaluate to True, then you've gotta get loans. No amount of hard work or perseverance or attitude or frugality can change that. If you're going to a community college and work full time, you MIGHT break even. You can really only improve the college or work less by adding to the "Financial Assistance" variable.
I'm not just trying to make it out to be more difficult than it is. Plug some realistic numbers into that expression and see what you come up with. Be sure to include EVERYTHING in your model: books, a reasonable budget for things like haircuts and replacing worn clothes, health care expenses, transportation, food, personal necessities (toothbrush, soap, etc), and so forth.
Actually, just "getting by" with a high school education at an entry-level job is pretty freaking hard. Throw in all the additional expense of trying to go to college (and cut out that free time you might have been using for a second, part-time job) and it's practically impossible for a lot of people.
I commend your brother-in-law and sister for their accomplishments, and I don't mean to say they didn't struggle. But I think to say, "well, they (or whoever) did it so anyone else can, too" is probably not considering all the variables involved.
Your math is accurate, but unfortunately, time isn't "burstable" like that. If you have a MWF class, your homework is likely due the next class meeting. While you might have enough hours in the week to get it done, your chances of having time before the next class meeting are a lot slimmer.
And having 3 hours a day to jack-off is selling it a little short. If you figure in personal hygiene (you shower daily, right?), some health and fitness time (you go to the school gym and exercise, right?), and your commutes to work or school (you don't live AND work on campus, right?) -- there can easily go your 3 "free" hours a day.
Certainly it's not impossible, and a lot of determined people do it, but it's definitely hard as fuck. Harder than it needs to be, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
You should have gotten a Hershey's Symphony bar. The "Symphony" bars are made with a flavor profile closer to European milk chocolates. The regular Hershey's milk chocolate bar is "Americanized". Typically, they are the same price. I am thoroughly American, but I greatly prefer the Symphony bars.
I did a quick search and found some more anecdotal evidence of this:
http://supermarsbars.blogspot.com/2007/06/hershey-symphony.html
Check the first comment.
I agree that it's not as good as Lindt, which is readily available here, but then again, Hershey's is probably half the price.
If you can't provide them with a batch file that opens port 5900 for you, then stop trying to do remote support. Also remote desktop != vnc.
Please, tell me how I can write a batch file that will open port 5900 on a typical consumer router.
I wish this were (old school) D&D, and I had some extra gold. Just honeypot some copper lying out with a fast acting contact poison. Unless monks were stealing your stuff, they'd really regret it.
Is this like a fortune cookie? Are we supposed to add "...in bed" to the end of that?
What does this word mean? I googled it, and all that was returned were copies of this article.
"The rest of us" only have what we have because the same democracy you mention allowed us the opportunity to get it.
If what the GP says is true, that the default rate is only slightly higher than average, the the "poor schome" isn't the one causing the problem. And I bet none of the money that's being taken from you is going to help said poor schome either.
Or they could just run Windows 2003 as their desktop OS, bypassing the problem entirely.
I don't know about enjoying each others' company, but by and large, humans DO go to the same places. Usually at the same time. In my opinion, it's pretty stupid. It leads to the "rush hour" phenomenon.
It really pisses me off when I'm stuck in traffic, knowing that in six hours, the highway I'm at a standstill on is going to be almost empty.
It also pisses me off to think that, here I am stuck with thousands of other people, all heading the same direction, but all in their own inefficient vehicle. Why can't I just be on a train? At least then I could read a book or check my e-mail during my transit.
There isn't an energy shortage. There's a fossil fuel shortage. There is more potential renewable energy available to us than we could currently even imagine using.
In the case of stargazing, "increased detail" might very well be defined as detecting dim objects.
I know I've been really freaked once by a little sticker someone had put on my ceiling. It was a glow in the dark sticker in the shape of a star. I guess it was really weak, because the glow was extremely faint. For a while I thought I was going crazy until I realized I could ONLY see it in the dark if I DIDN'T look directly at it. xD
There is a great deal of racial homogeneity among zip codes. Correlation, I know, but one could reasonably make a racial argument.
The stuff does look to be very corrosive, but that might be a little exaggerated:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1233.html
Sure, it would be corrosive to skin, most flooring (especially stone), and glassware. But the image you give is pouring the stuff into a glass, having it melt through the glass, your hand, and the floor, and whatever is below you. xD
But you are right about chemical reactions of relatively innocuous chemicals causing serious hazards. The most common example I can think of is bleach + ammonia.
I think the issues with lead on spacecrafts isn't being able to move it easily in space, but being able to get it off the ground and into space.
You'd probably hear an intonational change in speech.
That's what I take the question mark to mean. The intonation of the sentence. The same for the exclamation point! I'm probably wrong, but I feel like you can use it pretty arbitrarily! Anywhere you want!
Just a guess: AC and GP are same poster.
As a woman who regularly reads science mags (and slashdot), I can tell you that when science talk makes me yawn, it's the guy, not the subject
I love the way you TOTALLY proved the stereotype with your reply. All science talk comes from guys. Or are you saying science talk from a girl wouldn't make you yawn? What exactly are you trying to say?
And thus, HR is full of a bunch of pissed off women who are responsible for hiring said computer science men.
Sounds like a bad situation.
I knew that too, and I'm *not* gay. I have my third baby on the way to prove it. I *am* taken though, obviously. :)
Not to troll here (seriously), but:
1) Gay women can get pregnant and have babies, too.
2) It is possible to be pregnant, but not be "taken". Being pregnant is not obvious evidence of being partnered with someone.
Not trying to make you out to be some kind of bad person, just offering some food for thought. A lot of people have had a certain kind of thinking ingrained for so long, they they don't even realize they're doing it.
And remember: trees are a renewable resource. Your back is not!
The page the story did have a copyright notice for Isaac Asimov, 1956. So I think you were okay.
So you're saying my argument that the aspect ratio of a film doesn't have to have anything to do with how much information it contains?
My friends used to argue for wide-screen formats because with a 4:3 aspect ratio, you lost visual information to either side of the visible area. Pan and scan technique, basically.
But I always argued that wasn't an inherent quality of the aspect ratio. One could easily look at it in the sense that with a widescreen format, the top and bottom had been cut off of the image. All that really mattered was the resolution.
And NOW you come along and tell me that, yes, they DO cut off the top and bottom of the image to fit a particular aspect ratio. Hot damn!
I've noticed that for normal desktop use, the overall performance of the system isn't nearly as reliant on the processor as it has been in the past. My system at home has a Core2 Duo at 1.86 Ghz, and mine at work has a Core2 Duo at 3.16 Ghz (overclock to 3.8 Ghz).
Honestly, I can't really tell much of a different between opening Word and surfing the web.
At this point, I think "joe user" performance improvements are going to come from places beyond the CPU: the chipset, RAM speed (since quantity is a non-issue at today's prices), and storage speed.
I recently replaced a failed original hard drive in a Dell 4600c. It has a 2 Ghz Northwood P4 in it. I was really surprised just how much replacing the original 40GB hard drive with a new Seagate 7200.10 improved the performance of the machine.
I think it's the little things like that which will make the computers seem faster for most users. Unless you're crunching big numbers (gaming, video, scientific, audio, etc.) I think any run-of-the-mill dual core processor is going to be as good at a top-of-the-line model.
The difference between Science and anything else you mention in your post is that science is specifically falsifiable. Meaning that if there isn't a specific way to prove it wrong, then it cannot be considered science.
This leads to science often being proven wrong -- BUT NOT discard completely. Usually after some premise of science is proven wrong, there is immediately a better premise to replace it.
Science is not a religion. It is merely our current best model of the reality around us. This model changes the more we learn.
You claim that, perhaps, we ought to err on the side of caution as far as science -- certainly an incomplete thing -- is concerned. And with that, I do not necessarily disagree. You may wish to cling to whatever other models of reality suit you. But I ask you this, with regard to the accuracy of science versus other models of reality: Do you not trust the direct product of science, technology, on a daily basis? You even trust it completely with your life.
Surely you locomote through technologically derived means. Surely you travel at speeds so high that, could the technology not reduce your speed, you would surely die upon collision. Surely you have receive some medical care, where you trusted the science of medicine, and its technologies to diagnose and treat your ailments. Even now, you read this message through a true marvel of technology.
And what of other models? What have the mystics and priests provided? Do the powers of magic or god teleport you from place to place? Can they, with a word, heal your wounds and disease? What pleas to the divine are heard and answered? You may believe that some are -- but I ask this: even those of which you do believe, how does the availability, efficacy, and immediacy of these divine interventions compare to what science has to offer?
Criticize science as you will. Science, unlike others, will not be offended. The truth is that you trust science implicitly. You trust it when you get into your car or onto a train each day. You trust it when you take a pill to remedy pain or sickness. You trust it when you visit your doctor. You trust it everytime you power on your computer. You trust it when watching the television, or listening to the radio. You trust it anytime you plug something into a wall socket and fully expect electricity to flow forth. Can you honestly tell me that you have this much faith in any other devices? In gods, or in the philosophies of men? Surely you do not.
Criticize as you will, but the truth of your absolute, unwavering faith for science is in your actions.
What do you don't mention is whether or not they got scholarships or grants, help from family, or how much their tuition was.
It's not some mysterious Art that some people are able to accomplish through enough hard work. It's a relatively simple math problem.
School Expenses + Living Expenses < Total Income - Financial Assistance
If that doesn't evaluate to True, then you've gotta get loans. No amount of hard work or perseverance or attitude or frugality can change that. If you're going to a community college and work full time, you MIGHT break even. You can really only improve the college or work less by adding to the "Financial Assistance" variable.
I'm not just trying to make it out to be more difficult than it is. Plug some realistic numbers into that expression and see what you come up with. Be sure to include EVERYTHING in your model: books, a reasonable budget for things like haircuts and replacing worn clothes, health care expenses, transportation, food, personal necessities (toothbrush, soap, etc), and so forth.
Actually, just "getting by" with a high school education at an entry-level job is pretty freaking hard. Throw in all the additional expense of trying to go to college (and cut out that free time you might have been using for a second, part-time job) and it's practically impossible for a lot of people.
I commend your brother-in-law and sister for their accomplishments, and I don't mean to say they didn't struggle. But I think to say, "well, they (or whoever) did it so anyone else can, too" is probably not considering all the variables involved.
Perhaps GP wasn't counting the weekend.
Your math is accurate, but unfortunately, time isn't "burstable" like that. If you have a MWF class, your homework is likely due the next class meeting. While you might have enough hours in the week to get it done, your chances of having time before the next class meeting are a lot slimmer.
And having 3 hours a day to jack-off is selling it a little short. If you figure in personal hygiene (you shower daily, right?), some health and fitness time (you go to the school gym and exercise, right?), and your commutes to work or school (you don't live AND work on campus, right?) -- there can easily go your 3 "free" hours a day.
Certainly it's not impossible, and a lot of determined people do it, but it's definitely hard as fuck. Harder than it needs to be, IMO.