I'm not an expert, but would the shearing forces this introduces have any kind of impact on blood cells?
I imagine this could be helpful as well as harmful. Helpful: considering some of the problems associated with high blood pressure some people suffer. This would effectivly reduce the maximum pressure a body would have to tolerate.
Re:lack of pulsatile flow and coronary vessles
on
Living Without a Pulse
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Perhaps you're right regarding contraceptives and tinkering with human systems, but the reproductive system is one system that can be tinkered with or even removed without too much harm to the rest of the body (re: castrations and all). Especially after puberty. I'm not sure if this is the best proof if you want to make a general argument.
Good argument except maybe for #3. It was my understanding that corporations are designed to profit. Is there any evidence that the personal crises of their managers influence the drugs they bring to market?
Maybe in a family owned business where a family member got sick, but I don't know of any family owned pharmaceutical companies offhand. If they exist, wouldn't they be pretty small.
Alternatly, if you were going to find a reliable source you'd go somewhere that didn't have their own idological agenda. The stuff about 'ripping' the foreskin, for example, is garbage. I'm circumcised and the cut is quite clean. I've never heard of anyone winding up with a jagged edge or trauma that would be caused by ripping. I persist because you're just offering propaganda and because you're an arrogant fuck.
1. An early and very beneficial agreement with IBM to use its version of DOS and pay it per liscense which greatly helped in establishing the company.
2. A wise decision on its part to work on PCs and sell its OS rather than going the way of Apple and trying to sell a package deal.
3. Bundling its software and leveraging its OS position, created partially by IBM, into other areas of software. In short, an excellent business tactic, but not a technical feat.
True, MS is at least adequate, technically. But it has grown and prospered based on excellent business and sales acumen rather than technical aptitiude. To phrase it another way, there is no mythical product which is so good or so cheap that it sells itself, though this is often how 'techs' see things and think others do too.
Men don't have cervixes, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say they do have anuses and penises. If you want to try and question me on this too, you're welcome to find some nice gay bars downtown and do some research for yourself. Tell the guys there that you're taking a survey. Bring a clip board. It'll make things more convincing if you look like you're keeping notes. If you buy them a drink first, you'll probably get more cooperation, too.
HPV is linked to anal and penile cancer in gay men. http://my.webmd.com/content/article/25/1728_58051
More than 40 separate studies have shown that uncircumsized men are more likely to contract HIV from heterosexual exposure.
Doctors have noted that despite the adult's well developed spinal clamp, "HIV will still fuck you up pretty good."
Uncircumsized boys are also about 10 times as likely to get serious kidney infections in the first year of life as are circumcised infants
Well, it's always been okay for the US to use terrorism, or whatever means they'd like in order to acomplish their goals.
I think this was established in Nicaragua when we were attacking 'soft targets' or in El Salvador when US trained Salvadoran troops literally liquidating churches full of civilians at El Mozote. Or maybe it's in the constitution somewhere.
Reporting water flowing downhill wouldn't create an emotional reaction. There isn't any need to prevent people taking photos of it happening. The war in Iraq is not water flowing downhill.
If everyone knew that war was heartless, Bush & team wouldn't have gone through all that rigamarole about how we would be treated as liberators, welcomed with open arms, etc. (which we were by the Kurds in the north, but not by anyone else. A majority of Iraqis consider us an occuping force and want us out of there as quick as possible. If democracy really matters, this wish should be respected. Instead, we're building 14 new bases over there.) When the army purchased 2000 coffins prior to the war, Bush brushed off the notion that there'd be that many casualties. Now it's looking like a pretty good estimate. The American people were given a rosy picture of what this war would look like and a lot of folks were dumb enough to believe it. If it was news enough for Bush to claim there wouldn't be 2000 American casualties, it's news enough to say when we've hit that point. Supporting the war is one thing. Diliking the coverage is another. Americans deserve to know just what Hussein has done, and just what we've done. Censorship is undemocratic. It prevents people from voting according to their interests.
We have libel laws in the U.S. (which I agree might be too weak). The biggest problem is with 'anonymous sources' where some rouge newspeople can make assertions that can't be properly fact-checked. Of course, the Democrats have been skewered as much as anyone else, and the mainstream press is extremly conservative, economically.
The Right wing has supported Right wing dictatorships just as much as the Left wing supported left wing dictatorships. The Atlacatel in El Salvador were right wing and supported by the US, even though they murdered and raped civilians and were some of the most brutal salvadoran soldiers. The Taliban was certainly right wing, and a good friend of Reagan's, as was Saddam Hussein during the first Reagan administration. I've heard right-wingers speak out in favor of August Pinochett. Bush has gotten us into a quid pro quo with Pakistan supporting that dictatorship, despite the fact that they've helped enormously in the proliferation of WMD. Batista wasn't considered too bad by the US, though Castro was. Was one really worse than the other? Batista was a dictator, too. There are plenty of dictators for both the "Right" and "Left" to adore. I think the terms "Right" and "Left" are more and more deceiving.
There are people who support the centralization of power by various means and ideologies, and people who oppose it. This is how the lines should be drawn.
Not to defend Bush, but his contention is that the Geneva convention requires that soldiers identify themselves as soldiers via an insignia, uniform, etc. Those that don't do this, he claims aren't offered the protections of the Geneva convention. Thus the phrase "enemy combatatant" you keep hearing. He's trying to create a new class of enemy so that old protections don't apply.
What do Trolls choose when they can choose freely? Most of them choose Natalie Portman, GNAA, and men exposing their sphincters in a very graphic manner. It therefore follows that any organization which has Natalie Portman and exhibitionist gay men will be a good trolling organization.
... that he didn't talk about people who like to break into and control systems. I would love to see an article entitled "Paul Grahm on great crackers"
The issue isn't gov. showing ads. so much as 'gov taking money from businesses (in a business relationship, as opposed to taxes) that the gov is supposed to regulate.'
Might businesses withdraw their ads if they don't like a particular bit of legislation?
Chambers of commerce are supposed to advocate businesses. At issue is how much money a government is allowed to collect for its advertising.
If we want to know what the sand feels like or the air tastes like, we can bring some back. The more fixated we are on overreliance on manned spaceflight when it's a redundant system, the slower we'll be to reach Mars.
Well, it's worth noting that the cost benefit analysis of space flight isn't improved by sending people up. Columbus had an economic mission. Economics is against manned space flight, for the present. It makes it more costly without returning greater benefit. It would be one thing if we were establishing a colony on mars, but if we can automate repair missions to sattelites, scientific research, etc. then we should do so.
2. People pay millions for knock-off versions of immortality. Remember the pyramids?
3. People aren't perfectly tuned. They aproximate rationality, but don't reach it. They often over-indulge impulses that would be rational if they weren't so extreme.
4. Plain old enjoyment. Why do artists paint, even if they could make more money and buy things they need if they did somthing else? Why do people play games instead of working? Because they enjoy it. Many people who win the lottery keep their jobs. They don't want to laze all day on a beach in Bermuda. Perhaps Bill Gates enjoys running Microsoft and trying to make as much as he can. He's starting to donate money to charity. Maybe he sees this as a way to do good (or at least glorify himself.)
I don't know about this guy, but I wouldn't invest in MS even if I knew their stock was going to shoot up.
Unless you're a broker, it's not good to invest based too much on short term issues like these. You invest long term and build value. If you buy and sell too much you whittle away your money in brokerage fees.
Besides, just because a company should do somthing, that doesn't mean it's going to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an expert, but would the shearing forces this introduces have any kind of impact on blood cells?
I imagine this could be helpful as well as harmful. Helpful: considering some of the problems associated with high blood pressure some people suffer. This would effectivly reduce the maximum pressure a body would have to tolerate.
Perhaps you're right regarding contraceptives and tinkering with human systems, but the reproductive system is one system that can be tinkered with or even removed without too much harm to the rest of the body (re: castrations and all). Especially after puberty. I'm not sure if this is the best proof if you want to make a general argument.
Good argument except maybe for #3.
It was my understanding that corporations are designed to profit. Is there any evidence that the personal crises of their managers influence the drugs they bring to market?
Maybe in a family owned business where a family member got sick, but I don't know of any family owned pharmaceutical companies offhand. If they exist, wouldn't they be pretty small.
Alternatly, if you were going to find a reliable source you'd go somewhere that didn't have their own idological agenda. The stuff about 'ripping' the foreskin, for example, is garbage. I'm circumcised and the cut is quite clean. I've never heard of anyone winding up with a jagged edge or trauma that would be caused by ripping.
I persist because you're just offering propaganda and because you're an arrogant fuck.
nuff time wasted on this argument.
Microsoft had several advantages.
1. An early and very beneficial agreement with IBM to use its version of DOS and pay it per liscense which greatly helped in establishing the company.
2. A wise decision on its part to work on PCs and sell its OS rather than going the way of Apple and trying to sell a package deal.
3. Bundling its software and leveraging its OS position, created partially by IBM, into other areas of software. In short, an excellent business tactic, but not a technical feat.
True, MS is at least adequate, technically. But it has grown and prospered based on excellent business and sales acumen rather than technical aptitiude. To phrase it another way, there is no mythical product which is so good or so cheap that it sells itself, though this is often how 'techs' see things and think others do too.
Men don't have cervixes, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say they do have anuses and penises. If you want to try and question me on this too, you're welcome to find some nice gay bars downtown and do some research for yourself. Tell the guys there that you're taking a survey. Bring a clip board. It'll make things more convincing if you look like you're keeping notes. If you buy them a drink first, you'll probably get more cooperation, too.
i cs .html
HPV is linked to anal and penile cancer in gay men. http://my.webmd.com/content/article/25/1728_58051
More than 40 separate studies have shown that uncircumsized men are more likely to contract HIV from heterosexual exposure.
Doctors have noted that despite the adult's well developed spinal clamp, "HIV will still fuck you up pretty good."
Uncircumsized boys are also about 10 times as likely to get serious kidney infections in the first year of life as are circumcised infants
http://www.medicirc.org/meditopics/medicirc_top
Well, it's always been okay for the US to use terrorism, or whatever means they'd like in order to acomplish their goals.
I think this was established in Nicaragua when we were attacking 'soft targets' or in El Salvador when US trained Salvadoran troops literally liquidating churches full of civilians at El Mozote. Or maybe it's in the constitution somewhere.
Well, I assume that gay people could still get Cancer.
It probably isn't as important today as it was a few hundred years ago when hygene was my worse.
Of course, conspiracy theories are probably less credible than single scientific studies.
If the stuff on TV was better, maybe I'd start caring if it were harmful or not.
Right now, it's not worth watching. If 'Who wants to be a Millionaire' was done in the buff, I couldn't care less.
Re: health and circumcision.
t ml
Circumcision protects against cervical cancer and HPV.
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3421602b.h
I know circumcision cuts down on transmission of HPV. I'm not sure what else.
Reporting water flowing downhill wouldn't create an emotional reaction. There isn't any need to prevent people taking photos of it happening. The war in Iraq is not water flowing downhill.
If everyone knew that war was heartless, Bush & team wouldn't have gone through all that rigamarole about how we would be treated as liberators, welcomed with open arms, etc. (which we were by the Kurds in the north, but not by anyone else. A majority of Iraqis consider us an occuping force and want us out of there as quick as possible. If democracy really matters, this wish should be respected. Instead, we're building 14 new bases over there.) When the army purchased 2000 coffins prior to the war, Bush brushed off the notion that there'd be that many casualties. Now it's looking like a pretty good estimate. The American people were given a rosy picture of what this war would look like and a lot of folks were dumb enough to believe it. If it was news enough for Bush to claim there wouldn't be 2000 American casualties, it's news enough to say when we've hit that point. Supporting the war is one thing. Diliking the coverage is another. Americans deserve to know just what Hussein has done, and just what we've done. Censorship is undemocratic. It prevents people from voting according to their interests.
We have libel laws in the U.S. (which I agree might be too weak). The biggest problem is with 'anonymous sources' where some rouge newspeople can make assertions that can't be properly fact-checked. Of course, the Democrats have been skewered as much as anyone else, and the mainstream press is extremly conservative, economically.
The Right wing has supported Right wing dictatorships just as much as the Left wing supported left wing dictatorships.
The Atlacatel in El Salvador were right wing and supported by the US, even though they murdered and raped civilians and were some of the most brutal salvadoran soldiers. The Taliban was certainly right wing, and a good friend of Reagan's, as was Saddam Hussein during the first Reagan administration. I've heard right-wingers speak out in favor of August Pinochett. Bush has gotten us into a quid pro quo with Pakistan supporting that dictatorship, despite the fact that they've helped enormously in the proliferation of WMD. Batista wasn't considered too bad by the US, though Castro was. Was one really worse than the other? Batista was a dictator, too. There are plenty of dictators for both the "Right" and "Left" to adore.
I think the terms "Right" and "Left" are more and more deceiving.
There are people who support the centralization of power by various means and ideologies, and people who oppose it. This is how the lines should be drawn.
Not to defend Bush, but his contention is that the Geneva convention requires that soldiers identify themselves as soldiers via an insignia, uniform, etc. Those that don't do this, he claims aren't offered the protections of the Geneva convention. Thus the phrase "enemy combatatant" you keep hearing. He's trying to create a new class of enemy so that old protections don't apply.
What do Trolls choose when they can choose freely? Most of them choose Natalie Portman, GNAA, and men exposing their sphincters in a very graphic manner. It therefore follows that any organization which has Natalie Portman and exhibitionist gay men will be a good trolling organization.
... that he didn't talk about people who like to break into and control systems. I would love to see an article entitled "Paul Grahm on great crackers"
Ba dum bum!
The issue isn't gov. showing ads. so much as 'gov taking money from businesses (in a business relationship, as opposed to taxes) that the gov is supposed to regulate.'
Might businesses withdraw their ads if they don't like a particular bit of legislation?
Chambers of commerce are supposed to advocate businesses. At issue is how much money a government is allowed to collect for its advertising.
I don't know how effective minimum IQs would be for serving on juries.
A jury is, by definition, a group of people too stupid not to be able to get out of jury duty.
You'd just be throwing in another loophole.
If we want to know what the sand feels like or the air tastes like, we can bring some back. The more fixated we are on overreliance on manned spaceflight when it's a redundant system, the slower we'll be to reach Mars.
Well, it's worth noting that the cost benefit analysis of space flight isn't improved by sending people up. Columbus had an economic mission. Economics is against manned space flight, for the present. It makes it more costly without returning greater benefit. It would be one thing if we were establishing a colony on mars, but if we can automate repair missions to sattelites, scientific research, etc. then we should do so.
That's why I said 'unless you're a broker.'
This guy isn't a trader. He isn't a broker. He isn't an insider of any kind. Obviously.
If you're going to deliberatly misinterpret my post just to act condescending, don't even post. It contributes nothing.
1. Power and Celebrity
2. People pay millions for knock-off versions of immortality. Remember the pyramids?
3. People aren't perfectly tuned. They aproximate rationality, but don't reach it. They often over-indulge impulses that would be rational if they weren't so extreme.
4. Plain old enjoyment. Why do artists paint, even if they could make more money and buy things they need if they did somthing else? Why do people play games instead of working? Because they enjoy it. Many people who win the lottery keep their jobs. They don't want to laze all day on a beach in Bermuda. Perhaps Bill Gates enjoys running Microsoft and trying to make as much as he can. He's starting to donate money to charity. Maybe he sees this as a way to do good (or at least glorify himself.)
I don't know about this guy, but I wouldn't invest in MS even if I knew their stock was going to shoot up.
Unless you're a broker, it's not good to invest based too much on short term issues like these. You invest long term and build value. If you buy and sell too much you whittle away your money in brokerage fees.
Besides, just because a company should do somthing, that doesn't mean it's going to do it.
I'm not sure whether being in Dublin is 'a technology' or simply a lack thereof.
so what you're saying is that you know some really intelligent folks who walk around on all fours?
...and I pronounce Linux lee nooks.