Speak for yourself, eh.

They annoy me because they set up such stupid pointless conditions. Why would anyone want to go to market with a fox and chickens? Who carries so much gold that it will sink a boat, who would want to hire and trust a riverman with such a marginal boat, and what happens if the next passenger weighs five pounds more?

It's more fun to ask questions back and make them admit the questions are pointless.

And I don't want to work at companies that think such questions have anything to do with how I work, so I figure I may as well have fun blowing up the interview.

I'd hope to come up with some smart ass answer involving walking on a moving bus.

It's like those annoying questions about having two chickens, a fix, and a bag of gold, trying to cross a river in a small boat which can only carry you and one thing at a time. I always imagine saying that's a pretty sorry ass boat, and maybe he needs some good ole market competition in the form of someone with a bigger boat. Or maybe to say that if I am going to market, what's with the fox -- no one sells fixes at market, so why not kill it and drape teh skin over your shoulder so you can sell the only sellable part? Or if it is a fox market, let it eat the chickens now. Or if you are coming from market, leave the fox behind. And if you are carrying so much gold that it would sink the boat, you are either an incredbly attractive thief target, or you should be able to find someone with a bigger boat, or that boat is incredibly dangerous if it is that close to sinking. /get off my lawn

thepiratebay.bit is registered but is currently pointing to an old IP.

http://explorer.namecoin.info/...

So, my ideological transition went from Reagan Republican to Goldwater libertarian to Rothbardian Anarchist.

Personally, I am socially boring, somewhat socially conservative, and evangelically religious. I don't (politically) care what other people do to themselves; as long as they and their government don't do it to me or my family.

I've really given up on government as an entity that can create moral good in the world; it seems that historical attempts to have government play that role have turned out poorly, both for the people involved and the morality being coerced.

I've tried to explain where my head is at so you can try and tailor the message in a way I might understand.

Can you help me understand what the "war on women" rhetoric is about?

Assume that I'm an intelligent person, with degrees in Math and CS, and extensively educated in history, medicine, politics, and economics.

Yet, despite this, I cannot for the life of me understand how people with different ideas came to those ideas via any plausible mental process. It seems to me that there are fallacies all around - why aren't they seeing them?

I want to assume that they are acting with good intentions, but I am unable to debug or understand them and their decision making process.

So, this is a legitimate request for help, and not a thinly veiled attempt to demean or attack someone.

Will you explain what the "war on women" is in a way that will cause me to want to listen? Explain what things are included in this war, and what things aren't.

I mean, my inclination is to throw a flag on the play before it even begins; a political "war on women" appears to suppose that all women should think and want the same things politically, which is self-evidently insulting to women and denies their essential individuality.

For instance, the only people I know personally who are tireless anti-abortion activists (and I know several) are all women. Are they part of the war on women?

I'll stop, and hope you craft a well-intentioned response.

Thanks.

I think currently demonstrated ship-mountable railguns can emit a 7+ pound projectile at Mach 7. More to the point, these can be kinetic projectiles, meaning no explosives required, and there's more room for other things like, oh guidance systems.

Good luck evading that.

-Matt

The one thing I want to point out is that you should recognize the name "Cass Sunstein"; he's not some random academic, he was part of the Obama administration, and has a bunch of ideas that you will find either kooky or great, depending on how you align politically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

He's also good about co-opting terms he disagrees with as a way to try and attack intellectual opposition. He calls a bunch of things libertarian that are flagrantly NOT libertarian, for instance.

Laser guns, meh. Limited to line-of-sight. Railguns on the other-hand are a whole 'nother ball of wax. Designs for Navy vessels now have to focus more and more on supplying power (as in electricity).

-Matt

Indeed. What they should have done was get the writer/director of the original film, who I gather had been trying to get a sequel made for over a decade, to come and write and direct the new one. Clearly whoever they got to write this didn't really understand Max's character at all.</sarcasm>

"Heartbeat monitor with a deadman's switch which blows away all my encryption keys."

ok... Maybe not.

"Car keys, house key, lead-line isotope container for when I need a distraction."

Hmm. Let me redact that.

"Car keys, house key, LED flash light, tag with 2D barcode with a virus URL in case someone is too curious."

There. That sounds reasonably sane.

-Matt

Freddie Mercury. Harry Belafonte. Led Zeppelin. Highway Star. Cyndi Loper. Pumped Up Kicks. Tron & Switched-On Bach. The Sons of the Pioneers. Chip Tune. Paranoia. Jimmy Hendrix. The Bobs. The Grateful Dead. R.E.M. Moonlight Sonata. The Disney Electric Parade. The Final Fantasy VI soundtrack. Forever Young. The Hukilau Song. Over the Rainbow, and Make New Friends. Joy of Man's Desiring. Gnarles Barkley.

It seems like every year, I get into more music. I discover things that I never saw in older music (such as The Sons of the Pioneers), and I also like seeing things from my childhood revisited, like with Mesh. I have a hard time finding what I consider to be genuinely "new" music; I always have this sense that I am hearing a mutation or freshening of things that have come before.

Totally agree. We put feeders on the hives in late winter / early spring for the same reasons. It's especially important here since blooming can be so variable.

my point was - bees don't freeze in winter, they starve.

Someone else covered this but is buried.

Bee colonies do not freeze in the winter. They starve.

We've been keeping bees in North Dakota, which is colder than wherever you are, for 7 years. All 3 of our colonies survived last winter. One is strong enough that we've split it this spring to try and prevent a swarm.

The way that bees operate in winter is amazing. The bees form a sphere, with the queen near its center. They vibrate their wings and bodies to create heat. The bees on the outside of the sphere obviously lose heat the fastest. The bees on the inside stay the warmest. The sphere of vibrating bees constantly turns itself inside out, over and over, so that the cooler outer edge bees return to the warm core and replenish their warmth, while the warm bees from the core circulate out towards the edges after they've recuperated.

This consumes lots of energy (and food).

As the cluster of bees does this, it moves upwards in the hive, consuming stored honey.

When they get to the top of the hive, they stop migrating. If they run out of honey, they die.

We use 2 deep supers and 1 medium honey super to over-winter our bees.

I don't use an ad blocker. I could turn ads off here on Slashdot; I don't because by and large their ads aren't obnoxious.

I don't want to give Google permission to scan my email, so their index will be ready for the NSA to hoover up.