I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.
LK
The key insight is that Class I Medical Devices aren't critical to life support. In order to be covered by insurance, the procedure/device must be MEDICALLY NECESSARY, and even then there's been a lot of debate about what exactly "medically necessary" means.
If there ever existed one thing that "medically necessary" is NOT, it is a firearm. So, expect a short-lived court case over denial of coverage for one of them, and the judge throwing it out because there is no way that a firearm can become "medically necessary". I'm more interested in that in Oregon and now Washington, people can be prescribed lethal doses of drugs... does this qualify for that law?
Also, not all "libruls" oppose gun rights. Just the ones too stupid to realize that guns are so infused into our culture that they're not going away. Agreed, liberals aren't perfect, and I agree that a lot of gun control is tantamount to abstinence-only education. However, saying that "liberals" don't want handguns out on the street, is like saying that conservatives didn't want alcohol in the country during the Temperance movement.
The state of the victim's susceptibility to suicide is entirely outside of the point. If a person were to say, have an eggshell skull, and you punch them, shattering their skull and killing them, you're responsible for their DEATH, not just for punching them. The extra susceptibility of the victim to your crime is not a defense against murder, or more harm being caused than originally intended.
If you accidentally give a person a peanut-containing granola bar, with no intentions of hurting that person, then you're fine, it was an accident. If however, you had put say, a drug intending to do harm to the person into the granola bar, and they instead react violently to the peanuts and die, you're responsible for their murder. You were INTENDING to do harm against the person, so you're responsible for all the harm that the person sustains.
McDonald's is not responsible for someone overeating their food, that's a misuse or abuse of their food. In the limited quantities intended to be consumed by McDonald's it is sufficiently healthy and non-harmful. It's like Tylenol, if you take it in the indicated amounts, you're fine, but if you over use it, and shut down your liver, it's like "whoops... should have followed our expectations... we even TOLD you what those were."
This woman was SEEKING intentionally to do harm to the victim. That the victim overreacted to the intended harm and killed herself is not an excuse for the behavior of the mother. I would have charged her with a form of manslaughter myself.
Yeah, totally, like when you break that enzyme that's responsible for making Vitamin-C... oh wait, unless you're getting it from your outside diet...
Dang, you know... there's just like nothing out there that can really cause a live-birth, yet can't be accounted for by provisions from outside.
30% to 50% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted due to problems like you've suggested. However, if a baby can be brought to term and born, then the chances are AWEFUL good, that something could be done to provide them whatever they're missing.
unless *.victim.com = *.slashdot.org... and btw, the attack also caries glue records that can overwrite other records, including the nameservers. So by getting you to go to aaaagjghfjgf.slashdot.com, they have made all slashdot pages bad for you, and the next time you log in ( to their false page), they have your account information.
Now imagine they know where you bank...
Right... it requires special knowledge. Surely, that isn't that hard, and as well, they could easily set up a dredging email, just getting a few here and there.
Either way, as mentioned, you need to have special knowledge about what sites the individual is visiting. Without that knowledge it's a bunch of stabbing in the dark.
But recall... this vulnerability is only available to someone who has access to the caching server in the first place...
No!
This attack is simply a flood of false answers to a dns query made by either a client or caching server. They *look* like legit answers that beat the actual answer back. Because the legit answer has to be able to get back to the server, the spoofed ones are able to get there too.
The clients are only vulnerable within their own firewalled network; but a resolving server, even behind a firewall, is vulnerable to the Internet at large.
*ponders ponders ponders* Ok... so, you don't have to force the DNS caching resolver to resolve a specific address... however, if I never visit anything at *.victim.com then I won't be bombed by something at blah.victim.com If they can poison by including an image on *.victim.com, I'm still not going to *.victim.com anyways.
So, you end up with opportunistic danger... still a ways away from arbitrary danger, and especially remote privilege escalation.
But recall... this vulnerability is only available to someone who has access to the caching server in the first place...
Intra-business, do you really fear your employees that much that they might cache poison someone else?
At some point, you have to trust those who are in your network... a tight knit business platform doesn't really need to worry about this (as long as their DNS is protected from outside requests)
This primarily impacts open DNS servers with unrestricted access, or unknown arbitrary access, say ISPs...
They do not need to understand that this is a protocol specific issue, not a code specific issue.
How long did it take Microsoft to patch the WMF hole? Again, same sort of situation... the protocol/format itself is working as intended... it just can easily be abused.
I can see a fair amount of lack of concern from Apple... this affects DNS caches... rarely are these running on a Mac OSX machine...
This isn't about beating a dead horse, or running gags as somebody else claimed.
When somebody quotes a relevant line from a film, they are making a connection between one thing and another. Depending on the circumstances, this can be funny. It's not quoting a film itself that's funny, it's making the connection between the two things.
When somebody else sees a quote and responds with the next line, they are doing something entirely different. They are recognising a quote and jumping on the bandwagon. It's like a Pavlovian response, entirely devoid of any intelligence or humour.
Sure, running gags can be funny. But recognising a quote and saying the next line isn't a running gag.
The mods have spoken however... overwealmingly they believe that it was funny. So, you're in the unfunny minority. My suggestion to you, is: "stop over-analyzing funny"
However, the point I was trying to make is that I've learned to let it go - I've stopped having arguments with the closed-minded, usually I will not take the bait anymore. However, if there's an undecided third party involved, I'll fully expound my perspective, directly at them and for their benefit only.
I heard about this one guy who was arguing with his boss about "Thunderstorms", his boss was saying that there was no lightning in them, because "then they would be called thunder and lightning storms." He continued to debate it with his boss explaining that you may not see the lightning but it has to be there. Eventually, he just shrugged and gave up on the argument. He clearly wasn't going to convince this boss of anything.
He is not defining a whitelist of humor wherein only certain jokes are permitted. He is attempting to describe a single item from what should be a universal comedic blacklist.
Clever references are funny. Continuing the reference beyond its relevant portion is a shallowly vain tactic in which one merely attempts to demonstrate that he also gets the joke and is thus deserving of being held in social esteem at least as high as the original maker of the joke.
It's not humor. It's not a joke. It's pathetic attention whoring borne of an insecure ego, and your getting so defensive at it getting the derision it deserves leads me to believe you're part of the problem.
Stop crying about comedic oppression when what you defend is completely unrelated to humor.
You have never watched Family Guy, have you?
Yes, beating a dead horse is pretty stupid. But after awhile, it becomes fairly funny as people start to wonder why this dead horse is being beaten. Perhaps an irrational fear of horses?
Either way, Family Guy is almost the epitome of beating a dead horse to death to get a laugh. They work on the principle of 3s and 7s... for three times, it's funny, then it's not funny again until you start doing it 7 or more times.
Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side. Why did the chicken cross the road? It was stapled to the lizard. Why did the chicken cross the road? To visit its family (joke gets old here) Why did the chicken cross the road? To say hello to her friend. Why did the chicken cross the road? To bring a casserole to the new neighbor. Why did the chicken cross the road? To take its eggs to their daddy for visitation. (joke gets funny here again) Why did the chicken cross the road? Because gravity was sheered inexplicably parallel to the plane of the earth. Why did the chicken cross the road? It really had nothing better to do Why did the chicken cross the road? To beat the dead horse.
Penn & Teller are good magicians, and sometime that show is spot on, but they're blind to the bias introduced by their own political leaning.
It causes them to regularly miss the obvious because they don't want to see it.
As it happens with anyone. However, as libertarians generally their bias is towards obtaining enough information to make an informed choice, rather than fall for bullshit from most people.
Their episode about second-hand smoke was dead on... at that time. Unfortunately, new information becomes available, and as they said, "Showtime doesn't like us doing revisits, or redactions." Somehow, I think that they believe that if they admitted that they had been wrong about the information at the time, that people would start to think that they were in fact bullshitting themselves. Rather, they made an informed, and rational choice at the time of that episode, and the people they were talking to might be technically right, but were being total idiots about why they're right.
Their episode on recycling was similarly biased, however accurate. Some recycling industries have managed to make a sustainable business off recycling goods other than metals (and in particular aluminum) but that doesn't prove that their method uses less power, less resources, etc. That they have to get it up to a certain economy of scale shows that the recycling is still very costly.
As well, paper? Yeah, we seriously do grow trees faster than we can cut them down. Talk to any logger... hell, just drive out to logging country. I dated a logger once, and beheld the scene that anti-logging people like to present... the barren field, full of stumps... a ruined "raped" land. Then I turned my head to the other side of the road, and saw a forest only 10 years old and they're already HUGE! Even the forests that are 4 years old are quite amazing.
If loggers didn't return the trees, then they would exhaust their resources and end up with a resource that's going to run out. Rather, let's plant CRAPLOADS of trees, each one a little CO2 to O2 converter, and watch them grow getting rid of greenhouse gases. Ask anyone who really knows about deforestation, and they're not upset about logging in the USA (we have more trees now, than when the settlers first arrived... no seriously) they're concerned about the RAINFORESTS, which are slash-and-burned by natives looking to make a meager living, but since the land is nutrient poor, they can't use it long... then they have to go cut down MORE land.
Let's give them something to do to make money besides destroy the rainforests... how about that? If we offshore all of our tech support to Brazil, we could totally help out their economy, lessen the impact of deforestation, and people all make money... oh wait, I used that evil word "offshore", I forgot... Americans are more important than all other people on the world.
You've misunderstood me in the first place. Both "fermions" and "bosons" are physical. Just "fermions" obey the exclusion principle, and "bosons" don't.
I don't want to wander off into sci-fi land, but I'm sure someone will want to relate the Star Trek fantasy warp drive here. In their pseudo-universe, they warp space, presumably through strong gravitational forces, to shorten the distance between two places, creating travel much like an inch worm does.
You don't understand the Star Trek universe. They don't "warp" space in order to shorten the distance between two places. In fact, the distance that the vehicle travels physically is never altered at all in the ST universe. Rather, they place the ship in a subspace bubble, and in this subspace the limit on speed is not the speed of light. Why use the word "warp"? Historical reasons. However, it remains that there is a "warp bubble" that moves the ship into subspace where the time-dilation effects of FTL travel don't come into effect.
Don't try to underestimate what can happen. We may hit a lull in our technological advancement, but it will continue to grow.
I'm not underestimating what can happen. I'm saying that if we found something else it wouldn't be "matter", it would be some other word, or qualifier, like "dark matter".
It's a myth that all Spanish words ending in 'a' are feminine. 'Programa' is masculine. 'Telegrama' is masculine. I've been told in an advanced Spanish class that all words ending in 'ma' are masculine, but I have some doubts.
What you've found strongly suggests that 'chupacabra' is masculine, hence 'el chupacabra' and 'los chupacabras.' Spanish, although highly regular, has its exceptions, too.
Right, I already knew that. Surprisingly not all feminine nouns use "la", since it's "el agua" but "las aquas":) So, yes, I know a fair amount about Spanish already.
The odd thing is that their article didn't just have "el chupacabra", but "el chupacabras". As if they were even treating the plural as a singular. That just seems odd to me.
The point is anyone who wants some free propaganda and have idiots trust that information can just get it into wikipedia.
That's obviously what author's reputations are there to protect. Integrity.
Wikipedia is full of crap, propaganda and even blatant lies (I'm sure you've noticed creationist crap poppping up again and again in biology sections already. Mostly some turkish ip)
And it's loads worse in the localized versions.
Will it be any better with Knol? You end up with a half-dozen crackpots rating each other's articles up in order to get creationism to come out on top, not to mention, I imagine that Google will eventually offer "premium articles" where you can pay them USD $x in exchange for a higher ranking.
Being in a peer-reviewed journal, as well as being a peer-reviewed journal itself is not enough to lend credibility anymore. Creationists have their own peer-reviewed journal, and when that journal competes with evolution on Knol, who will win?
Also, IIRC, the concern is cancer caused by ionizing radiation, not thermal damage cause by exciting harmonics in water.
Cell phone radiation isn't ionizing at all, though. (assuming yours doesn't have plutonium batteries or something like that) So, if the issue is ionizing radiation cell phones should be completely safe. TFA hints that cell phone usage stimulates the secretion of stress hormones and messes with the blood brain barrier by some as-yet-unknown mechanism.
Isn't that how all this New Agey bullcrap medicine works? "It reduces stress!"
I don't trust the market, because the market thinks that a homeopathic spray of water into their dog/cat's water bowl will get rid of aches and pains. "It's all natural, safe, and environmentally friendly!" Yes, because water is natural, safe, and environmentally friendly.
Actually, there is NO absolute proof of the so called "second hand smoking" (passive smoking). Everything said about it is based on a single, very questionable report release way back (70s ? 80s ?).
Actually, Penn & Teller dealt with this in an open-forum with some people. They admitted that there were newer studies that confirmed a risk due to second hand smoke (I have not evaluated them, nor have I seen a critical evaluation of them) but that they stand by their original episode because "the data at the time were bullshit."
We still have fewer sunny days then Seattle though.
Wow, I feel sorry for you.:( There's a going joke with motorcyclists in Seattle. "If you're a fair-weather rider, you'll only be using your motorcycle maybe a month out of the year."
New Mexico is part of the United States. Mexico is not. Illegal aliens from Mexico are not the equivalent of American citizen from New Mexico. Yet, you act as though they are. Your comment is racist, and I bet you dont' even understand why.
The rest of your post is equally flawed. You need to grow up and get out into the real world, little girl. Until you do, you may as well just shut up because you are making a fool of yourself.
Well, at least you know Geography. However, I bet you didn't know that there are a number of Mexicans working in New Mexico and doing well. Also, there are New Mexico Hispanics that do not speak English, or speak it poorly.
I invite you to explain to me how my comment is racist. As well, my ideas are backed up with sociological theory... just as yours are. I don't tell you that you're too indoctrinated to understand why you're making things worse by trying to make them better... but you are.
Primus pilus: The "first spear" (literal translation) or "first centurion" was the commanding centurion of the first cohort and the senior centurion of the entire legion. This was the highest rank that a career officer could achieve in the 25 years he served. When the primus pilus retired he would most likely gain entry into the equestrian class. He was paid 60 times the base wage.
The Primus Pilus was so called because his own century was in the first file (pilus) of the first cohort (primus). Only eight officers in a fully officered legion outranked the Primus Pilus: The legate (lgtus leginis), commanding the legion; the senior tribune (tribunus laticlavus); the Camp Prefect (praefectus castrorum); and the five junior tribunes (tribn angusticlvi).
Due to similarity between Latin words pilus (file) and pilum, this rank is often incorrectly translated as "first spear centurion".[1]
I'm not even going to get into a debate over which _I_ think is the correct translation. That's not my point. The point is that they contradict each other and can't both be true. One page say X and links to a page which says !X. It's not even the only such pair of pages contradicting each other, _by_ _far_. It's actually quite common.
It's not something funny like San Serife. It's just someone talking out of the butt, and posting incorrect information.
_That_ is my problem with Wikipedia.
But the article for Primus Pilus states 'Due to similarity between Latin words pilus (file) and pilum, this rank is often incorrectly translated as "first spear centurion"' Are we to get on Wikipedia for not snopesing everything?
I picked up an Encyclopedia that one would trust much more than Wikipedia (at least it would be a reasonable source to most people) and it says that Santa Fe is the first permanent settlement of New Mexico. Not true.
Contradictory information is because there are competing ideas arguing points, and an editor will be editing one article but not another (even though they're well related), and thus standards given for one article, are not necessarily met by a different article.
Also, a relative of mine told me that around 1969 or 70 or so at night she and a friend were on the porch talking. A light source came down, low/tree-top, over the street, quietly. It was NOT like any aircraft or hobby toys of the time. It seemed to be observing them, or just hanging around, then it abruptly left.
That's not to say there isn't a whole world of physics that we haven't even begun to theorize about, much less understand.
Matter by definition is composed of "fermions" which means something where two of them cannot have the same quantum state at the same time. Thus, any two fermions cannot co-exist together in the same space at the same time. This includes neutrinos... which are just so small and low-reactive that they pass through our bodies strategically missing everything in our body.
In fact, there are a billion of things that occupy the same space as we do, much of which we cannot sense, these are called "bosons". Light, presumably gravity, and the strong force.
So, if we were to find some miraculous new universe parallel to ours... that world would not be "matter".
Slashdot Mirror
I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.
LK
The key insight is that Class I Medical Devices aren't critical to life support. In order to be covered by insurance, the procedure/device must be MEDICALLY NECESSARY, and even then there's been a lot of debate about what exactly "medically necessary" means.
If there ever existed one thing that "medically necessary" is NOT, it is a firearm. So, expect a short-lived court case over denial of coverage for one of them, and the judge throwing it out because there is no way that a firearm can become "medically necessary". I'm more interested in that in Oregon and now Washington, people can be prescribed lethal doses of drugs... does this qualify for that law?
Also, not all "libruls" oppose gun rights. Just the ones too stupid to realize that guns are so infused into our culture that they're not going away. Agreed, liberals aren't perfect, and I agree that a lot of gun control is tantamount to abstinence-only education. However, saying that "liberals" don't want handguns out on the street, is like saying that conservatives didn't want alcohol in the country during the Temperance movement.
The state of the victim's susceptibility to suicide is entirely outside of the point. If a person were to say, have an eggshell skull, and you punch them, shattering their skull and killing them, you're responsible for their DEATH, not just for punching them. The extra susceptibility of the victim to your crime is not a defense against murder, or more harm being caused than originally intended.
If you accidentally give a person a peanut-containing granola bar, with no intentions of hurting that person, then you're fine, it was an accident. If however, you had put say, a drug intending to do harm to the person into the granola bar, and they instead react violently to the peanuts and die, you're responsible for their murder. You were INTENDING to do harm against the person, so you're responsible for all the harm that the person sustains.
McDonald's is not responsible for someone overeating their food, that's a misuse or abuse of their food. In the limited quantities intended to be consumed by McDonald's it is sufficiently healthy and non-harmful. It's like Tylenol, if you take it in the indicated amounts, you're fine, but if you over use it, and shut down your liver, it's like "whoops... should have followed our expectations... we even TOLD you what those were."
This woman was SEEKING intentionally to do harm to the victim. That the victim overreacted to the intended harm and killed herself is not an excuse for the behavior of the mother. I would have charged her with a form of manslaughter myself.
Yeah, totally, like when you break that enzyme that's responsible for making Vitamin-C... oh wait, unless you're getting it from your outside diet...
Dang, you know... there's just like nothing out there that can really cause a live-birth, yet can't be accounted for by provisions from outside.
30% to 50% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted due to problems like you've suggested. However, if a baby can be brought to term and born, then the chances are AWEFUL good, that something could be done to provide them whatever they're missing.
unless *.victim.com = *.slashdot.org ... and btw, the attack also caries glue records that can overwrite other records, including the nameservers. So by getting you to go to aaaagjghfjgf.slashdot.com, they have made all slashdot pages bad for you, and the next time you log in ( to their false page), they have your account information.
Now imagine they know where you bank...
Right... it requires special knowledge. Surely, that isn't that hard, and as well, they could easily set up a dredging email, just getting a few here and there.
Either way, as mentioned, you need to have special knowledge about what sites the individual is visiting. Without that knowledge it's a bunch of stabbing in the dark.
The attacker could send you a spam that has a image or link to blah.victim.com
I already stated... I never visit *.victim.com
So, it does no good, he's poisoned my cache, but to no effect... I will never visit the site he poisoned.
But recall... this vulnerability is only available to someone who has access to the caching server in the first place...
No!
This attack is simply a flood of false answers to a dns query made by either a client or caching server. They *look* like legit answers that beat the actual answer back. Because the legit answer has to be able to get back to the server, the spoofed ones are able to get there too.
The clients are only vulnerable within their own firewalled network; but a resolving server, even behind a firewall, is vulnerable to the Internet at large.
*ponders ponders ponders* Ok... so, you don't have to force the DNS caching resolver to resolve a specific address... however, if I never visit anything at *.victim.com then I won't be bombed by something at blah.victim.com If they can poison by including an image on *.victim.com, I'm still not going to *.victim.com anyways.
So, you end up with opportunistic danger... still a ways away from arbitrary danger, and especially remote privilege escalation.
But recall... this vulnerability is only available to someone who has access to the caching server in the first place...
Intra-business, do you really fear your employees that much that they might cache poison someone else?
At some point, you have to trust those who are in your network... a tight knit business platform doesn't really need to worry about this (as long as their DNS is protected from outside requests)
This primarily impacts open DNS servers with unrestricted access, or unknown arbitrary access, say ISPs...
They do not need to understand that this is a protocol specific issue, not a code specific issue.
How long did it take Microsoft to patch the WMF hole? Again, same sort of situation... the protocol/format itself is working as intended... it just can easily be abused.
I can see a fair amount of lack of concern from Apple... this affects DNS caches... rarely are these running on a Mac OSX machine...
Yes, beating a dead horse is pretty stupid.
This isn't about beating a dead horse, or running gags as somebody else claimed.
When somebody quotes a relevant line from a film, they are making a connection between one thing and another. Depending on the circumstances, this can be funny. It's not quoting a film itself that's funny, it's making the connection between the two things.
When somebody else sees a quote and responds with the next line, they are doing something entirely different. They are recognising a quote and jumping on the bandwagon. It's like a Pavlovian response, entirely devoid of any intelligence or humour.
Sure, running gags can be funny. But recognising a quote and saying the next line isn't a running gag.
The mods have spoken however... overwealmingly they believe that it was funny. So, you're in the unfunny minority. My suggestion to you, is: "stop over-analyzing funny"
However, the point I was trying to make is that I've learned to let it go - I've stopped having arguments with the closed-minded, usually I will not take the bait anymore. However, if there's an undecided third party involved, I'll fully expound my perspective, directly at them and for their benefit only.
I heard about this one guy who was arguing with his boss about "Thunderstorms", his boss was saying that there was no lightning in them, because "then they would be called thunder and lightning storms." He continued to debate it with his boss explaining that you may not see the lightning but it has to be there. Eventually, he just shrugged and gave up on the argument. He clearly wasn't going to convince this boss of anything.
Congratulations on completely missing the point.
He is not defining a whitelist of humor wherein only certain jokes are permitted. He is attempting to describe a single item from what should be a universal comedic blacklist.
Clever references are funny. Continuing the reference beyond its relevant portion is a shallowly vain tactic in which one merely attempts to demonstrate that he also gets the joke and is thus deserving of being held in social esteem at least as high as the original maker of the joke.
It's not humor. It's not a joke. It's pathetic attention whoring borne of an insecure ego, and your getting so defensive at it getting the derision it deserves leads me to believe you're part of the problem.
Stop crying about comedic oppression when what you defend is completely unrelated to humor.
You have never watched Family Guy, have you?
Yes, beating a dead horse is pretty stupid. But after awhile, it becomes fairly funny as people start to wonder why this dead horse is being beaten. Perhaps an irrational fear of horses?
Either way, Family Guy is almost the epitome of beating a dead horse to death to get a laugh. They work on the principle of 3s and 7s... for three times, it's funny, then it's not funny again until you start doing it 7 or more times.
Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.
Why did the chicken cross the road? It was stapled to the lizard.
Why did the chicken cross the road? To visit its family
(joke gets old here)
Why did the chicken cross the road? To say hello to her friend.
Why did the chicken cross the road? To bring a casserole to the new neighbor.
Why did the chicken cross the road? To take its eggs to their daddy for visitation.
(joke gets funny here again)
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because gravity was sheered inexplicably parallel to the plane of the earth.
Why did the chicken cross the road? It really had nothing better to do
Why did the chicken cross the road? To beat the dead horse.
Penn & Teller are good magicians, and sometime that show is spot on, but they're blind to the bias introduced by their own political leaning.
It causes them to regularly miss the obvious because they don't want to see it.
As it happens with anyone. However, as libertarians generally their bias is towards obtaining enough information to make an informed choice, rather than fall for bullshit from most people.
Their episode about second-hand smoke was dead on... at that time. Unfortunately, new information becomes available, and as they said, "Showtime doesn't like us doing revisits, or redactions." Somehow, I think that they believe that if they admitted that they had been wrong about the information at the time, that people would start to think that they were in fact bullshitting themselves. Rather, they made an informed, and rational choice at the time of that episode, and the people they were talking to might be technically right, but were being total idiots about why they're right.
Their episode on recycling was similarly biased, however accurate. Some recycling industries have managed to make a sustainable business off recycling goods other than metals (and in particular aluminum) but that doesn't prove that their method uses less power, less resources, etc. That they have to get it up to a certain economy of scale shows that the recycling is still very costly.
As well, paper? Yeah, we seriously do grow trees faster than we can cut them down. Talk to any logger... hell, just drive out to logging country. I dated a logger once, and beheld the scene that anti-logging people like to present... the barren field, full of stumps... a ruined "raped" land. Then I turned my head to the other side of the road, and saw a forest only 10 years old and they're already HUGE! Even the forests that are 4 years old are quite amazing.
If loggers didn't return the trees, then they would exhaust their resources and end up with a resource that's going to run out. Rather, let's plant CRAPLOADS of trees, each one a little CO2 to O2 converter, and watch them grow getting rid of greenhouse gases. Ask anyone who really knows about deforestation, and they're not upset about logging in the USA (we have more trees now, than when the settlers first arrived... no seriously) they're concerned about the RAINFORESTS, which are slash-and-burned by natives looking to make a meager living, but since the land is nutrient poor, they can't use it long... then they have to go cut down MORE land.
Let's give them something to do to make money besides destroy the rainforests... how about that? If we offshore all of our tech support to Brazil, we could totally help out their economy, lessen the impact of deforestation, and people all make money... oh wait, I used that evil word "offshore", I forgot... Americans are more important than all other people on the world.
You've misunderstood me in the first place. Both "fermions" and "bosons" are physical. Just "fermions" obey the exclusion principle, and "bosons" don't.
I don't want to wander off into sci-fi land, but I'm sure someone will want to relate the Star Trek fantasy warp drive here. In their pseudo-universe, they warp space, presumably through strong gravitational forces, to shorten the distance between two places, creating travel much like an inch worm does.
You don't understand the Star Trek universe. They don't "warp" space in order to shorten the distance between two places. In fact, the distance that the vehicle travels physically is never altered at all in the ST universe. Rather, they place the ship in a subspace bubble, and in this subspace the limit on speed is not the speed of light. Why use the word "warp"? Historical reasons. However, it remains that there is a "warp bubble" that moves the ship into subspace where the time-dilation effects of FTL travel don't come into effect.
Don't try to underestimate what can happen. We may hit a lull in our technological advancement, but it will continue to grow.
I'm not underestimating what can happen. I'm saying that if we found something else it wouldn't be "matter", it would be some other word, or qualifier, like "dark matter".
Native Spanish speakers know. Educated native Spanish speakers know even better.
It's a myth that all Spanish words ending in 'a' are feminine. 'Programa' is masculine. 'Telegrama' is masculine. I've been told in an advanced Spanish class that all words ending in 'ma' are masculine, but I have some doubts.
What you've found strongly suggests that 'chupacabra' is masculine, hence 'el chupacabra' and 'los chupacabras.' Spanish, although highly regular, has its exceptions, too.
Right, I already knew that. Surprisingly not all feminine nouns use "la", since it's "el agua" but "las aquas" :) So, yes, I know a fair amount about Spanish already.
The odd thing is that their article didn't just have "el chupacabra", but "el chupacabras". As if they were even treating the plural as a singular. That just seems odd to me.
The point is anyone who wants some free propaganda and have idiots trust that information can just get it into wikipedia.
That's obviously what author's reputations are there to protect. Integrity.
Wikipedia is full of crap, propaganda and even blatant lies (I'm sure you've noticed creationist crap poppping up again and again in biology sections already. Mostly some turkish ip)
And it's loads worse in the localized versions.
Will it be any better with Knol? You end up with a half-dozen crackpots rating each other's articles up in order to get creationism to come out on top, not to mention, I imagine that Google will eventually offer "premium articles" where you can pay them USD $x in exchange for a higher ranking.
Being in a peer-reviewed journal, as well as being a peer-reviewed journal itself is not enough to lend credibility anymore. Creationists have their own peer-reviewed journal, and when that journal competes with evolution on Knol, who will win?
A gun. No electricity involved at all, so it must be very safe.
Guns don't emit ionizing radiation though (ok, x-ray guns do) so, you're totally right. Ok, well, unless you're using plutonium bullets...
...
Also, IIRC, the concern is cancer caused by ionizing radiation, not thermal damage cause by exciting harmonics in water.
Cell phone radiation isn't ionizing at all, though. (assuming yours doesn't have plutonium batteries or something like that) So, if the issue is ionizing radiation cell phones should be completely safe. TFA hints that cell phone usage stimulates the secretion of stress hormones and messes with the blood brain barrier by some as-yet-unknown mechanism.
Isn't that how all this New Agey bullcrap medicine works? "It reduces stress!"
I don't trust the market, because the market thinks that a homeopathic spray of water into their dog/cat's water bowl will get rid of aches and pains. "It's all natural, safe, and environmentally friendly!" Yes, because water is natural, safe, and environmentally friendly.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
WILSON!!!!
Actually, there is NO absolute proof of the so called "second hand smoking" (passive smoking). Everything said about it is based on a single, very questionable report release way back (70s ? 80s ?).
Actually, Penn & Teller dealt with this in an open-forum with some people. They admitted that there were newer studies that confirmed a risk due to second hand smoke (I have not evaluated them, nor have I seen a critical evaluation of them) but that they stand by their original episode because "the data at the time were bullshit."
We still have fewer sunny days then Seattle though.
Wow, I feel sorry for you. :( There's a going joke with motorcyclists in Seattle. "If you're a fair-weather rider, you'll only be using your motorcycle maybe a month out of the year."
New Mexico is part of the United States. Mexico is not. Illegal aliens from Mexico are not the equivalent of American citizen from New Mexico. Yet, you act as though they are. Your comment is racist, and I bet you dont' even understand why.
The rest of your post is equally flawed. You need to grow up and get out into the real world, little girl. Until you do, you may as well just shut up because you are making a fool of yourself.
Well, at least you know Geography. However, I bet you didn't know that there are a number of Mexicans working in New Mexico and doing well. Also, there are New Mexico Hispanics that do not speak English, or speak it poorly.
I invite you to explain to me how my comment is racist. As well, my ideas are backed up with sociological theory... just as yours are. I don't tell you that you're too indoctrinated to understand why you're making things worse by trying to make them better... but you are.
No, most of it isn't even a funny hoax, it's just false and one page contradicts the next one. Let me give you just one random example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legion currently states (scroll down a bit):
But if you actually follow the link fo "Primus pilus" you get to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primus_pilus which says:
I'm not even going to get into a debate over which _I_ think is the correct translation. That's not my point. The point is that they contradict each other and can't both be true. One page say X and links to a page which says !X. It's not even the only such pair of pages contradicting each other, _by_ _far_. It's actually quite common.
It's not something funny like San Serife. It's just someone talking out of the butt, and posting incorrect information.
_That_ is my problem with Wikipedia.
But the article for Primus Pilus states 'Due to similarity between Latin words pilus (file) and pilum, this rank is often incorrectly translated as "first spear centurion"' Are we to get on Wikipedia for not snopesing everything?
I picked up an Encyclopedia that one would trust much more than Wikipedia (at least it would be a reasonable source to most people) and it says that Santa Fe is the first permanent settlement of New Mexico. Not true.
Contradictory information is because there are competing ideas arguing points, and an editor will be editing one article but not another (even though they're well related), and thus standards given for one article, are not necessarily met by a different article.
Whoda' thunk? Aliens get drunk!
Duh! it's the spoiled milk!
Also, a relative of mine told me that around 1969 or 70 or so at night she and a friend were on the porch talking. A light source came down, low/tree-top, over the street, quietly. It was NOT like any aircraft or hobby toys of the time. It seemed to be observing them, or just hanging around, then it abruptly left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning perhaps?
Nah. More like White Lightning
No no no... more like Blue Lightning
Physics, as we understand it.
That's not to say there isn't a whole world of physics that we haven't even begun to theorize about, much less understand.
Matter by definition is composed of "fermions" which means something where two of them cannot have the same quantum state at the same time. Thus, any two fermions cannot co-exist together in the same space at the same time. This includes neutrinos... which are just so small and low-reactive that they pass through our bodies strategically missing everything in our body.
In fact, there are a billion of things that occupy the same space as we do, much of which we cannot sense, these are called "bosons". Light, presumably gravity, and the strong force.
So, if we were to find some miraculous new universe parallel to ours... that world would not be "matter".