But people don't love it...too much, and it's pretty bad for us (Carbon Dioxide poisoning anyone?). And besides, the point is that the other pollutants released along with CO2 (the ones everyone loves to ignore) are bad no matter what you are.
Nope. Sorry, but you're flat wrong on that. The assumption is that the measurements of the outer planets are correct AND the measurements on Earth are correct, not one or the other. You've got a bit of a Strawman going on there if you're claiming the supporters of solar global heating (just made that up btw) are claiming the Earth isn't heating at all.
"But the Sun's temperature has not increased that much."
Yeah! Those sun thermometers are super accurate...until they melt...
(I'd be extremely surprised to learn that we have the capability to measure a.3% change in solar temperature with our current technology. It's hard to do that on Earth, much less a hot ball of gas 96 million miles away.)
I know of one book that describes it as having a weight, Darth Bane: Path of Destruction (or something like that). It describes the apprentices (sith) using durasteel (typically presented as pretty heavy) blades to simulate the heft and weight of a lightsaber.
You're assuming they bought it all at retail, and, in the case of the Wii, markup beyond retail. That's a fairly unlikely assumption.
(And what's with your numbers for the consoles anyways? I can't find anything on the linked pages to support your prices at all, if we go by cheapest they're $285, $315, and $195 for the PS3, 360, and Wii respectively. If we go by actual retail the prices are $399, $350 or $450 (basic and elite), and $250 for the PS3, 360, and Wii respectively. All my data was taken off Amazon's prices, which mirror standard retail in 90% of cases, except the Wii which was simply priced according to my knowledge of the system's prices.)
Dr. Pepper's new Indiana Jones contest lets you know if you've won something on the cap, but not what you've won until you've registered on their site. Most of the prizes are pathetic too, they advertise a '1 in 6 chance of winning!' which is easy when half your prizes are Wallpapers and Screensavers, of the type that most people give away.
This is why spellcheckers need a 'does it make sense' check:P. In my defense, I don't know how to spell the word and let FF2 choose it for me, so it's not entirely my fault:P.
Hah! I know of a way which can be done from a Guest account, much less a user account. I'll give you a hint (since it's already all over the net and can be found easily), it involves using the commandline to call a certain program at a specified time, at which point it's called by the SYSTEM account rather than yours. I've tested it on my computer (fully upgraded security, Avast, and windows updates) and it worked fine. I have yet to find a way to lock that out (besides preventing anyone from having any account on my computer) so I highly doubt the average american parent and their 'where's the any key?' antics could find a way past that.
Live CD's also work, but they're too complex for my liking. I prefer my exploits to be easily doable in a few minutes while already logged in.
Not really, it still requires that someone verify the user's age. Given how much more kids know about technology on average than their parents it would be next to worthless unless it was somehow done when the computer was bought, otherwise the kid would get to enter the info themselves and the parent would never know, or care. It's just another form of DRM, one with a noble purpose (unlike the normal sort), but one which is still inheritable flawed because it requires that the user know less about their own system than the DRM designer.
How long do you think it would be before a crack was out that removed the age requirement from the game, or, better still, a simple method of changing the user age variable was found (and if it was implemented by microsoft, it would have a simple hack. Microsoft has made some notable strides forward in their security, but they're still one of the most venerable if you have physical access and a user account (the numerous 'Get Administrator access without a password' hacks show this). If it's that easy to gain Admin access, how hard would it be to gain user-age access. Better still, wouldn't that be changeable to an Admin, thereby requiring exactly 0 new hacks?
What about it? Not all wars are shooting wars, some are economic in nature (there were few shots fired during the Cold War, but I doubt anyone would claim there was no conflict). The world isn't some magical place where you're either 100% at war or 100% at peace.
There is little doubt that Saddam must have had the capability to gas his own people, many modern pesticides could be used for that with few alterations. The question was if he had the capability to manufacture high quality chemical weapons of the type that are dangerous to anyone, not the capability to kill his own people.
Heck, if he really couldn't get his hands on any other chemical weapons, he could just use Chlorine, which is not hard to get (a number of insurgent attacks have already been carried out with it) and very deadly.
Just because there's no evidence Saddam had chemical weapons doesn't mean he couldn't have gassed people. The two are entirely different matters, with one (chemical weapons) being highly tailored chemicals designed to kill the highest number of people from a distance, even if highly dispersed, and the other being easy to acquire but not very effective unless used in controlled circumstances (chlorine is useless because its visible and easily stopped by a gas mask).
Trying to simplify something as complex as chemical and biological weapon capabilities down to a simple Yes/No boolean is foolish. There are a near infinite range of possibilities. The US has the capability to very quickly and easily manufacture a boatload of chemical weapons (of the real weaponized kind, not the other kind) yet if you asked the average person if the US had chemical weapons I bet you'd get a response of No. Same goes for biological. Weapons are complex, especially when you start talking weapons that have other purposes besides war.
Not to mention people playing on older systems (I doubt my MB has one of these, and I use it for gaming every day) won't be able to play these 'enhanced' games.
Note to self: Avoid buying all near future Atari games until this is cracked...shouldn't be that hard...
Given what has been the standard university response so far (with a few notable exceptions) the type of school the student goes to is much less important than just about anything else, they'll still likely give the student up and do nothing to help.
3 - Perhaps. But you've also taken a job away from someone who may or may not be good enough and given it to someone who definitely is good enough. Two sides to every coin (and since I highly doubt the non-criminal would be getting the same kind of supervision you could argue that the job is brand new, for the criminal, and therefore you're not taking it away from anyone.) You could also use the job as a form of community service, paying them less but allowing them to stay out of jail on good behavior, which would mean no non-criminals had to lose anything.
4 - Indeed they do. Why shouldn't they? There are many people in prison who don't deserve to be in prison, but we're talking about people who do deserve to be in prison (for the most part) being given a chance to put their, unique, skills to use in a good way. If you could come up with a good and simple way to do that for, say, a drug dealer, or a murderer, then I'd support it (though none of that Starcraftian nonsense of 'Put all the murderers and violent criminals in giant suits of armor and make them your expendable army')
"Will you support a Native American movement that seeks to carve an independent country out of the United States?"
They have a semi-independent group of counties already. Sure, they're not allowed to do a lot of the standard government stuff, and it's far from the same thing, but they do get to ignore a lot of laws within their territory.
Other than that I tend to agree with your argument.
Wait...Sci Fi Channel spends a full TV grade budget on those movies? Seriously though, their awfulness surpasses meer cost. And Boll's movies aren't terrible, they're just not good.
Two good examples, firstly my Biology class. If you even thought that Evolution was not a full on fact you'd fail it. We had a question on a test worth 10 points (probably 1% total grade, not too much, but still) which was "Evolution is a Fact T/F".
And then there's the whole 'Evolution disclaimer' issue that's been kicking around. The scientific response to a disclaimer about how evolution isn't 100% proven true and there are alternate theories has been somewhat absurd. I've never understood it, if someone put such a disclaimer in about Einstein's relativity I'd applaud them, or Newton's gravity, but for some reason Darwin's work is off limits for disclaimers (disclaimer -> I have seen a disclaimer about Newtonian gravity before, basically saying that, while it's useful, it's also believed to be false and that there are newer, better methods of understanding gravity).
Are scientists supposed to be neutral unbiased parties? Yes. Are they? No. Are they as bad as Ben claims? Probably not. For the most part modern scientists are good about being neutral, except when you bring up the ol' Evolution. I suspect that a lot of the backlash is based on how unscientific some of the anti-evolutionist have been, but that doesn't excuse it.
"I prefer to treat them and others the way I prefer to be treated myself: with respect."
My friends and I have a habit of showing respect through joking. I once confused a teacher by getting in a huge joke argument with one of my best friends, which had us both laughing and the teacher wondering how we could be friends and be so mean to one another.
"These conditions do not apply to everyone and you assume too much"
They apply to myself and those I consider friends. Ergo we all enjoy such jokes (especially jabs at one of my friends because he's of Dutch origin and just happens to be a very frugal person. The two are entirely unrelated (there's a good reason for his frugality) but we all have fun poking fun at it, even the friend).
If you don't like such humor then that's fine, perhaps I went a little overboard in my statements because I was in a bad mood. But don't assume that those of us who do enjoy such humor are horrible people either. We happen to enjoy poking fun at someone because of things beyond their control, because it's clearly joking. I myself am often poked fun of for my height, all in good fun because we all know and acknowledge that none of these things are going to change, could be changed, and so laughing at them isn't offensive, because the person knows it's all in good fun (and trust me, they enjoy it just as much as I do, otherwise my best friend would long ago have ditched me:P).
And no, I'm not particurally well known for this type of humor. It's only in the company of those who I know are mature enough to not be offended, and find the jokes humorous, that I tell such jokes, and even then it wasn't I who started the trend with my friends (believe it or not it was the Dutch friend, who started the trend by [i]poking fun at his own frugality[/i].
There are many different types of people out there. Some of us can enjoy a good laugh at someone else's expense (especially our own expense), so long as the joke is meant in good fun and not intended to hurt them, and when we get together the stereotypes will fly right out the window and we'll all have a great time making fun of each other, but most of all making fun of people who actually believe the racist, sexist material we use:P.
Oh yeah, you seen how much metal is in the average SUV? And all that magnetic energy isn't being blocked because we got rid of the Ozone which was regulating it. It's a danger to us all.
This has been an official message from the Anti Global-Magnetizing association. Always remember to buy cheap cars, since they have less metal in them.
I find it quite amusing personally. Perhaps if you were more secure in the fact that Women can be incredible engineers and supremely intelligent people, and not just foodmakers, you'd be able to get the joke as well.
Poking fun at stereotypes is only amusing to people who aren't racist or sexist. To those who are it tends to seem offensive. I'm perfectly willing to crack disability jokes, if the person I'm talking to knows I'm kidding and won't be offended. Same goes with racist jokes (me and my friends have an ongoing joke about the token black person who appears in many movies and games which we find funny and non-offensive but I'm sure you would think is racist).
You reveal your own sexism by not being able to accept the fact that the stereotypical woman homemaker isn't the common case anymore, and that it's therefore open for jokes along with all other past stereotypes (for a good example of funny old stereotypes just watch any monty python skit/movie:P)
While you're technically true, one line "You *don't* need a warrant to put a microphone on an undercover agent and try to cajole the information out of the guy" is false in certain areas. Some states require both people to know that they're being recorded, others require only one person, and others, like mine, only require that someone along the way, be it you, the other guy, or some telephone company, know.
Slashdot Mirror
But people don't love it...too much, and it's pretty bad for us (Carbon Dioxide poisoning anyone?). And besides, the point is that the other pollutants released along with CO2 (the ones everyone loves to ignore) are bad no matter what you are.
Nope. Sorry, but you're flat wrong on that. The assumption is that the measurements of the outer planets are correct AND the measurements on Earth are correct, not one or the other. You've got a bit of a Strawman going on there if you're claiming the supporters of solar global heating (just made that up btw) are claiming the Earth isn't heating at all.
"But the Sun's temperature has not increased that much."
.3% change in solar temperature with our current technology. It's hard to do that on Earth, much less a hot ball of gas 96 million miles away.)
Yeah! Those sun thermometers are super accurate...until they melt...
(I'd be extremely surprised to learn that we have the capability to measure a
What? You haven't heard of RFC 1150 - Standard for the transmission of MMO Datagrams over Polyvinylpyrrolidine?
I know of one book that describes it as having a weight, Darth Bane: Path of Destruction (or something like that). It describes the apprentices (sith) using durasteel (typically presented as pretty heavy) blades to simulate the heft and weight of a lightsaber.
More like sell the Wii on ebay and buy a $10,000 gaming workstation :P.
You're assuming they bought it all at retail, and, in the case of the Wii, markup beyond retail. That's a fairly unlikely assumption.
(And what's with your numbers for the consoles anyways? I can't find anything on the linked pages to support your prices at all, if we go by cheapest they're $285, $315, and $195 for the PS3, 360, and Wii respectively. If we go by actual retail the prices are $399, $350 or $450 (basic and elite), and $250 for the PS3, 360, and Wii respectively. All my data was taken off Amazon's prices, which mirror standard retail in 90% of cases, except the Wii which was simply priced according to my knowledge of the system's prices.)
Dr. Pepper's new Indiana Jones contest lets you know if you've won something on the cap, but not what you've won until you've registered on their site. Most of the prizes are pathetic too, they advertise a '1 in 6 chance of winning!' which is easy when half your prizes are Wallpapers and Screensavers, of the type that most people give away.
And it last just long enough to get you the slightest bit interested. What is it, 20 seconds of footage?
This is why spellcheckers need a 'does it make sense' check :P. In my defense, I don't know how to spell the word and let FF2 choose it for me, so it's not entirely my fault :P.
Hah! I know of a way which can be done from a Guest account, much less a user account. I'll give you a hint (since it's already all over the net and can be found easily), it involves using the commandline to call a certain program at a specified time, at which point it's called by the SYSTEM account rather than yours. I've tested it on my computer (fully upgraded security, Avast, and windows updates) and it worked fine. I have yet to find a way to lock that out (besides preventing anyone from having any account on my computer) so I highly doubt the average american parent and their 'where's the any key?' antics could find a way past that.
Live CD's also work, but they're too complex for my liking. I prefer my exploits to be easily doable in a few minutes while already logged in.
Not really, it still requires that someone verify the user's age. Given how much more kids know about technology on average than their parents it would be next to worthless unless it was somehow done when the computer was bought, otherwise the kid would get to enter the info themselves and the parent would never know, or care. It's just another form of DRM, one with a noble purpose (unlike the normal sort), but one which is still inheritable flawed because it requires that the user know less about their own system than the DRM designer.
How long do you think it would be before a crack was out that removed the age requirement from the game, or, better still, a simple method of changing the user age variable was found (and if it was implemented by microsoft, it would have a simple hack. Microsoft has made some notable strides forward in their security, but they're still one of the most venerable if you have physical access and a user account (the numerous 'Get Administrator access without a password' hacks show this). If it's that easy to gain Admin access, how hard would it be to gain user-age access. Better still, wouldn't that be changeable to an Admin, thereby requiring exactly 0 new hacks?
What about it? Not all wars are shooting wars, some are economic in nature (there were few shots fired during the Cold War, but I doubt anyone would claim there was no conflict). The world isn't some magical place where you're either 100% at war or 100% at peace.
There is little doubt that Saddam must have had the capability to gas his own people, many modern pesticides could be used for that with few alterations. The question was if he had the capability to manufacture high quality chemical weapons of the type that are dangerous to anyone, not the capability to kill his own people.
Heck, if he really couldn't get his hands on any other chemical weapons, he could just use Chlorine, which is not hard to get (a number of insurgent attacks have already been carried out with it) and very deadly.
Just because there's no evidence Saddam had chemical weapons doesn't mean he couldn't have gassed people. The two are entirely different matters, with one (chemical weapons) being highly tailored chemicals designed to kill the highest number of people from a distance, even if highly dispersed, and the other being easy to acquire but not very effective unless used in controlled circumstances (chlorine is useless because its visible and easily stopped by a gas mask).
Trying to simplify something as complex as chemical and biological weapon capabilities down to a simple Yes/No boolean is foolish. There are a near infinite range of possibilities. The US has the capability to very quickly and easily manufacture a boatload of chemical weapons (of the real weaponized kind, not the other kind) yet if you asked the average person if the US had chemical weapons I bet you'd get a response of No. Same goes for biological. Weapons are complex, especially when you start talking weapons that have other purposes besides war.
Not to mention people playing on older systems (I doubt my MB has one of these, and I use it for gaming every day) won't be able to play these 'enhanced' games.
Note to self: Avoid buying all near future Atari games until this is cracked...shouldn't be that hard...
Given what has been the standard university response so far (with a few notable exceptions) the type of school the student goes to is much less important than just about anything else, they'll still likely give the student up and do nothing to help.
3 - Perhaps. But you've also taken a job away from someone who may or may not be good enough and given it to someone who definitely is good enough. Two sides to every coin (and since I highly doubt the non-criminal would be getting the same kind of supervision you could argue that the job is brand new, for the criminal, and therefore you're not taking it away from anyone.) You could also use the job as a form of community service, paying them less but allowing them to stay out of jail on good behavior, which would mean no non-criminals had to lose anything.
4 - Indeed they do. Why shouldn't they? There are many people in prison who don't deserve to be in prison, but we're talking about people who do deserve to be in prison (for the most part) being given a chance to put their, unique, skills to use in a good way. If you could come up with a good and simple way to do that for, say, a drug dealer, or a murderer, then I'd support it (though none of that Starcraftian nonsense of 'Put all the murderers and violent criminals in giant suits of armor and make them your expendable army')
"Will you support a Native American movement that seeks to carve an independent country out of the United States?"
They have a semi-independent group of counties already. Sure, they're not allowed to do a lot of the standard government stuff, and it's far from the same thing, but they do get to ignore a lot of laws within their territory.
Other than that I tend to agree with your argument.
Wait...Sci Fi Channel spends a full TV grade budget on those movies? Seriously though, their awfulness surpasses meer cost. And Boll's movies aren't terrible, they're just not good.
Two good examples, firstly my Biology class. If you even thought that Evolution was not a full on fact you'd fail it. We had a question on a test worth 10 points (probably 1% total grade, not too much, but still) which was "Evolution is a Fact T/F".
And then there's the whole 'Evolution disclaimer' issue that's been kicking around. The scientific response to a disclaimer about how evolution isn't 100% proven true and there are alternate theories has been somewhat absurd. I've never understood it, if someone put such a disclaimer in about Einstein's relativity I'd applaud them, or Newton's gravity, but for some reason Darwin's work is off limits for disclaimers (disclaimer -> I have seen a disclaimer about Newtonian gravity before, basically saying that, while it's useful, it's also believed to be false and that there are newer, better methods of understanding gravity).
Are scientists supposed to be neutral unbiased parties? Yes. Are they? No. Are they as bad as Ben claims? Probably not. For the most part modern scientists are good about being neutral, except when you bring up the ol' Evolution. I suspect that a lot of the backlash is based on how unscientific some of the anti-evolutionist have been, but that doesn't excuse it.
"I prefer to treat them and others the way I prefer to be treated myself: with respect."
:P).
:P.
My friends and I have a habit of showing respect through joking. I once confused a teacher by getting in a huge joke argument with one of my best friends, which had us both laughing and the teacher wondering how we could be friends and be so mean to one another.
"These conditions do not apply to everyone and you assume too much"
They apply to myself and those I consider friends. Ergo we all enjoy such jokes (especially jabs at one of my friends because he's of Dutch origin and just happens to be a very frugal person. The two are entirely unrelated (there's a good reason for his frugality) but we all have fun poking fun at it, even the friend).
If you don't like such humor then that's fine, perhaps I went a little overboard in my statements because I was in a bad mood. But don't assume that those of us who do enjoy such humor are horrible people either. We happen to enjoy poking fun at someone because of things beyond their control, because it's clearly joking. I myself am often poked fun of for my height, all in good fun because we all know and acknowledge that none of these things are going to change, could be changed, and so laughing at them isn't offensive, because the person knows it's all in good fun (and trust me, they enjoy it just as much as I do, otherwise my best friend would long ago have ditched me
And no, I'm not particurally well known for this type of humor. It's only in the company of those who I know are mature enough to not be offended, and find the jokes humorous, that I tell such jokes, and even then it wasn't I who started the trend with my friends (believe it or not it was the Dutch friend, who started the trend by [i]poking fun at his own frugality[/i].
There are many different types of people out there. Some of us can enjoy a good laugh at someone else's expense (especially our own expense), so long as the joke is meant in good fun and not intended to hurt them, and when we get together the stereotypes will fly right out the window and we'll all have a great time making fun of each other, but most of all making fun of people who actually believe the racist, sexist material we use
Oh yeah, you seen how much metal is in the average SUV? And all that magnetic energy isn't being blocked because we got rid of the Ozone which was regulating it. It's a danger to us all.
This has been an official message from the Anti Global-Magnetizing association. Always remember to buy cheap cars, since they have less metal in them.
An interesting and an insightful, on two false theories. I really hope some moderator is just having fun...
I find it quite amusing personally. Perhaps if you were more secure in the fact that Women can be incredible engineers and supremely intelligent people, and not just foodmakers, you'd be able to get the joke as well.
:P)
Poking fun at stereotypes is only amusing to people who aren't racist or sexist. To those who are it tends to seem offensive. I'm perfectly willing to crack disability jokes, if the person I'm talking to knows I'm kidding and won't be offended. Same goes with racist jokes (me and my friends have an ongoing joke about the token black person who appears in many movies and games which we find funny and non-offensive but I'm sure you would think is racist).
You reveal your own sexism by not being able to accept the fact that the stereotypical woman homemaker isn't the common case anymore, and that it's therefore open for jokes along with all other past stereotypes (for a good example of funny old stereotypes just watch any monty python skit/movie
While you're technically true, one line "You *don't* need a warrant to put a microphone on an undercover agent and try to cajole the information out of the guy" is false in certain areas. Some states require both people to know that they're being recorded, others require only one person, and others, like mine, only require that someone along the way, be it you, the other guy, or some telephone company, know.