If I remember correctly, the tonsils also act as a safeguard against infection. Instead of correcting a problem afterwards, though, the tonsils are meant to catch an infection before it can enter more important parts of the body like the lungs or digestive system. I guess that would make them the equivalent of a firewall.
Ideas in physics are never proven true. They are shown not to contradict any existing evidence, that is all. I can't think of any more than a few decades old which have survived even this.
I may be a bit behind the times, but the Law of Conservation of Energy comes to my mind pretty quickly.
Actually, there is a mention of a form of it. Onan practiced coitus interruptus (Genesis 38), and was condemned for it. But is this really on topic?
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.
A fairly common interpretation of that story is that Onan was killed because he refused to fulfill his obligation to give his brother an heir, having nothing to do with the "spilling his seed" part.
Unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress hasn't undone nearly as much of it as we had hoped they would.
Strange use of the word "undone" there. Considering FISA 2008 (aka, The Telcos/Bush/Everyone get-out-of-jail-free card) was passed by a D congress.
.. and Pelosi's place on the House Intel Committee (meaning she had full knowledge of the program and the means to put an end to it).
So if she was on the committee (your link only says that she's on the committee now because she's Speaker) she would have known what was going on, but since the majority party also has the majority in pretty much every committee, I doubt she would have had the ability to do anything that the Republican majority disagreed with.
Face it, the two-party system was OK while it lasted, but it's now time for a REAL change.
I'm too young to remember a time when the two-party system was OK. At this point, even having two parties that were actually different would be an improvement.
Seriously, many of the things the public blamed Bush for are the actions of Congress, which has been under Democratic control for several years.
If by "several" you mean two. The Republican party took control of Congress in the 1994 election (I think, maybe it was 1996), and kept it until the 2006 election. The Republican-controlled Congress started the vast majority of the actions that we've been complaining about. Unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress hasn't undone nearly as much of it as we had hoped they would.
When I did work under supervision (1974-1983) it was the supervision of people who did exactly what I did but had been doing it longer.
But what work were you doing at the time? Was that the time that you were learning your profession from the more experienced people in your field? If so, the reason for being supervised was less "working for them" and more "learning from them", which is obviously a case where you'd want the person above you to be able to teach you something.
How many lawyers work directly for large companies (IBM, Microsoft, Sun, etc.)? At some point between any such lawyer and the CEO, someone's immediate boss is not a lawyer. They probably aren't really being supervised in the sense that someone watches everything they do, they're just given a general direction, task, or goal, and their job is to figure out the details of that achieving that goal. If you're managing a group of people, such as engineers, you don't have to be a better engineer than the people working for you, you just have to know enough so that the engineers can do their jobs.
I use it becasue it has a great delivery of what is happening in the world now. You can not find a faster way to get information no what is happening right now.
So it's for people that, for some reason, think the 10-minute delay on mailing lists is too long to find out that McDonald's is having a sale on Big Macs next week?
I dunno about that. I thought that at first, but, when the administration was refusing to take back repayment of bailout money from some banks that wanted to pay it back and get out from under the control of the feds.....I started to worry at that point.
Er, yeah, I'd kinda worry about that too. Did the Treasury give any reason for that?
It would be called either socialist libertarian or left-wing libertarian. Socialism and libertarianism aren't really opposites, but orthogonal. Socialism is an economic view, and the opposite is capitalism. Libertarianism is more of a civil issues view, and the opposite is authoritarianism. Just like you can have both communist (the extreme of socialism) and fascist (the extreme of capitalism) dictatorships, you can have both socialist and capitalist societies that support civil liberties for all people.
Is it funny or sad that I can't figure out what party would represent what you just said?
There really isn't one in the United States. Kucinich would probably be the closest Democrat, but he's a fair amount more socialist and libertarian (in the social issues sense) than most of the rest of the Democrats. I hear that quite a few countries in Europe have real political parties that are like that, though.
The federal government is only trying to take over banks and businesses that came whining to the government about losing all their money, so you can't really say that they're about to make the entire country communist. Whether or not you think the government should be rescuing the dying businesses in the first place is a different matter.
You can sum up libertarianism as: Fuck everyone else, if you're poor, it's their your fault.
No, those people are called assholes. The basic principle of libertarianism is that the government should do as little as necessary to keep the society functioning. Of course, there's plenty of disagreement about what should be considered necessary. Personally, being on the socialist side of libertarian, I'm fine with the government collecting taxes to provide infrastructure that benefits society as a whole, as well as helping people in need (which doesn't mean spending money stupidly; training and educating people would be a lot more effective than just sending them a check every month). I'd even be okay with the government helping with health care for people that need it, since a healthy population is far more productive, which benefits everybody. For issues other than economics, I'm pretty far down the libertarian side; the government shouldn't be involved in what people do in private, including who they sleep with and how much marijuana they smoke.
Better examples of natural monopolies would have been things that have strict limits that can't be overcome in any feasible way. Education is a poor example, since it's always possible to go a few miles in the other direction to attend a different school. Natural monopolies are things like roads, water pipes, and utility lines, since there isn't enough space to have three roads and five water pipes running to everyone's home, nor would you want a different company every week closing the road to your home so that they can work on the pipes or power lines.
Probably the best solution for Internet access is something similar to what has been done for some electricity providers. One entity owns the physical lines, and different ISP's buy bandwidth on those lines to sell to customers. The ISP's are then competing on things like service, and the line owners are encouraged to build more bandwidth that they can sell to the ISP's.
You can reset the battery. Chemical changes are always reversible; for reactions that release energy, you have to add energy to revert the changes. There's pretty much always some energy loss in this process, too, and in many cases the energy needed to charge the battery is much higher than the energy that's released by the battery. Something that's powered by gravitational potential energy works the same way. As the weight falls, the lost potential energy (or to be more precise, I guess, the kinetic energy that comes from the potential energy) can be used to do work. To restore the potential energy, you have to add energy in order to lift the weight again. There will be some energy loss here, as well, mostly in the form of friction/air resistance as the weight is lifted.
Contrast with Windows: Where are my drivers? Okay, installed.
I think you left out a few steps, like "What's the manufacturer's web site? Okay, where is their downloads page? Okay, what's the exact model number? Okay, what version of Windows am I using?"
Slashdot Mirror
If I remember correctly, the tonsils also act as a safeguard against infection. Instead of correcting a problem afterwards, though, the tonsils are meant to catch an infection before it can enter more important parts of the body like the lungs or digestive system. I guess that would make them the equivalent of a firewall.
If God was a man, the bible would be a tri fold pamphlet with pictures of boobies on at least 30% of it to keep our attention..
Have you ever read it? There's just enough sex and violence to keep you interested for most of it.
Ideas in physics are never proven true. They are shown not to contradict any existing evidence, that is all. I can't think of any more than a few decades old which have survived even this.
I may be a bit behind the times, but the Law of Conservation of Energy comes to my mind pretty quickly.
Actually, there is a mention of a form of it. Onan practiced coitus interruptus (Genesis 38), and was condemned for it. But is this really on topic?
A fairly common interpretation of that story is that Onan was killed because he refused to fulfill his obligation to give his brother an heir, having nothing to do with the "spilling his seed" part.
Unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress hasn't undone nearly as much of it as we had hoped they would.
Strange use of the word "undone" there. Considering FISA 2008 (aka, The Telcos/Bush/Everyone get-out-of-jail-free card) was passed by a D congress.
So if she was on the committee (your link only says that she's on the committee now because she's Speaker) she would have known what was going on, but since the majority party also has the majority in pretty much every committee, I doubt she would have had the ability to do anything that the Republican majority disagreed with.
Face it, the two-party system was OK while it lasted, but it's now time for a REAL change.
I'm too young to remember a time when the two-party system was OK. At this point, even having two parties that were actually different would be an improvement.
Seriously, many of the things the public blamed Bush for are the actions of Congress, which has been under Democratic control for several years.
If by "several" you mean two. The Republican party took control of Congress in the 1994 election (I think, maybe it was 1996), and kept it until the 2006 election. The Republican-controlled Congress started the vast majority of the actions that we've been complaining about. Unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress hasn't undone nearly as much of it as we had hoped they would.
Synergies and Value Add Branding are more important. As is leveraging a new paradigm
Bingo!
Can anyone give an example of another common modern environment where "=" (or "==" as appropriate) is case insensitive?
The SQL standard. I'm not saying it's good, but it is the standard.
No, it foretells the coming of the one true operating system / text editor:
VIMACS!
All hail!
You mean emacs will finally get a usable text editor?
Nah, those are just the Luddites that have taken over groups like Greenpeace. They don't have much to do with legitimate environmental conservation.
a Defense Secretary that's never been a general
In case anyone wasn't aware, Obama didn't so much appoint the Secretary of Defense as keep the guy that was already there.
When I did work under supervision (1974-1983) it was the supervision of people who did exactly what I did but had been doing it longer.
But what work were you doing at the time? Was that the time that you were learning your profession from the more experienced people in your field? If so, the reason for being supervised was less "working for them" and more "learning from them", which is obviously a case where you'd want the person above you to be able to teach you something.
How many lawyers work directly for large companies (IBM, Microsoft, Sun, etc.)? At some point between any such lawyer and the CEO, someone's immediate boss is not a lawyer. They probably aren't really being supervised in the sense that someone watches everything they do, they're just given a general direction, task, or goal, and their job is to figure out the details of that achieving that goal. If you're managing a group of people, such as engineers, you don't have to be a better engineer than the people working for you, you just have to know enough so that the engineers can do their jobs.
I use it becasue it has a great delivery of what is happening in the world now. You can not find a faster way to get information no what is happening right now.
So it's for people that, for some reason, think the 10-minute delay on mailing lists is too long to find out that McDonald's is having a sale on Big Macs next week?
Sooo you're saying the right-conservative DISAGREE with:
-collecting taxes
-providing infrastructure
-helping people
-government health care
And AGREE with:
-government monitoring of who people sleep with
-government monitoring of what people smoke
?
Just checking.
Looks pretty much like what would be called the right and/or conservatives in the United States these days, which would be authoritarian capitalism.
I dunno about that. I thought that at first, but, when the administration was refusing to take back repayment of bailout money from some banks that wanted to pay it back and get out from under the control of the feds.....I started to worry at that point.
Er, yeah, I'd kinda worry about that too. Did the Treasury give any reason for that?
It would be called either socialist libertarian or left-wing libertarian. Socialism and libertarianism aren't really opposites, but orthogonal. Socialism is an economic view, and the opposite is capitalism. Libertarianism is more of a civil issues view, and the opposite is authoritarianism. Just like you can have both communist (the extreme of socialism) and fascist (the extreme of capitalism) dictatorships, you can have both socialist and capitalist societies that support civil liberties for all people.
Is it funny or sad that I can't figure out what party would represent what you just said?
There really isn't one in the United States. Kucinich would probably be the closest Democrat, but he's a fair amount more socialist and libertarian (in the social issues sense) than most of the rest of the Democrats. I hear that quite a few countries in Europe have real political parties that are like that, though.
The federal government is only trying to take over banks and businesses that came whining to the government about losing all their money, so you can't really say that they're about to make the entire country communist. Whether or not you think the government should be rescuing the dying businesses in the first place is a different matter.
You can sum up libertarianism as: Fuck everyone else, if you're poor, it's their your fault.
No, those people are called assholes. The basic principle of libertarianism is that the government should do as little as necessary to keep the society functioning. Of course, there's plenty of disagreement about what should be considered necessary. Personally, being on the socialist side of libertarian, I'm fine with the government collecting taxes to provide infrastructure that benefits society as a whole, as well as helping people in need (which doesn't mean spending money stupidly; training and educating people would be a lot more effective than just sending them a check every month). I'd even be okay with the government helping with health care for people that need it, since a healthy population is far more productive, which benefits everybody. For issues other than economics, I'm pretty far down the libertarian side; the government shouldn't be involved in what people do in private, including who they sleep with and how much marijuana they smoke.
The blink tag is so 1996. It's all about the marquee tag now.
Better examples of natural monopolies would have been things that have strict limits that can't be overcome in any feasible way. Education is a poor example, since it's always possible to go a few miles in the other direction to attend a different school. Natural monopolies are things like roads, water pipes, and utility lines, since there isn't enough space to have three roads and five water pipes running to everyone's home, nor would you want a different company every week closing the road to your home so that they can work on the pipes or power lines.
Probably the best solution for Internet access is something similar to what has been done for some electricity providers. One entity owns the physical lines, and different ISP's buy bandwidth on those lines to sell to customers. The ISP's are then competing on things like service, and the line owners are encouraged to build more bandwidth that they can sell to the ISP's.
Slashdot is undoubtedly contributing sales to the author by raising the profile of this book.
Considering how many people around here read past the summery of anything posted, "undoubtedly" isn't the word I would use.
I think my life has been determined by garden genomes.
Better than having your life determined by underpants genomes.
You can reset the battery. Chemical changes are always reversible; for reactions that release energy, you have to add energy to revert the changes. There's pretty much always some energy loss in this process, too, and in many cases the energy needed to charge the battery is much higher than the energy that's released by the battery. Something that's powered by gravitational potential energy works the same way. As the weight falls, the lost potential energy (or to be more precise, I guess, the kinetic energy that comes from the potential energy) can be used to do work. To restore the potential energy, you have to add energy in order to lift the weight again. There will be some energy loss here, as well, mostly in the form of friction/air resistance as the weight is lifted.
Contrast with Windows: Where are my drivers? Okay, installed.
I think you left out a few steps, like "What's the manufacturer's web site? Okay, where is their downloads page? Okay, what's the exact model number? Okay, what version of Windows am I using?"