Six of one...
I prefer seven of nine, myself.
Six of one...
I prefer seven of nine, myself.
And Bush before him, and Clinton before him and Bush before him, etc etc. Lets get real, corporate ownership of government is a wholly buy-partisan endeavor.
Given the money in politics these days, that's not just a fun turn of phrase, it's the truth.
What the Navajo codetalkers would not know is what the fuck a "wind talker" is.
Sounds flatulent. Perhaps it's the code word for politician?
Phone lines, but only if you speak in Navajo.
Historical trivia -- the Navajo codetalkers didn't just speak in the Navajo language, they spoke in a strange code that used Navajo vocabulary. So instead of simply translating the word abreast for so many people walking shoulder-to-shoulder, they would encode that first as ant breast, and then translate that into the corresponding Navajo, probably wóláchíí be’. More here. Other Navajo speakers who hadn't been trained in the code wouldn't understand what was being said. The Japanese even captured a native Navajo speaker in the Philippines, Joe Keiyoomia, but since he hadn't ever been trained as a codetalker, he wasn't able to make any sense of the codetalker code.
What is this silliness, that "humans" in the broad, blanket sense could not digest starch? Feh.
We already know from analysis of Neanderthal remains that they could digest starch, and did in fact eat things like starchy tubers and grains. By 8000 years ago, it's generally accepted that the Neanderthals were no more, at least as a distinct population, and that any remaining Neanderthal-specific genes had been absorbed by the wider Cro Magnon population. (Interestingly, it sounds like the Neanderthal genes might give their descendants, i.e. non-sub-Saharan-Africa humans, extra resistance to viral infection.)
This study, where evidence from one individual is extrapolated to the entire human population, sounds silly in the extreme. "One Size Fits All!" never really does.
For some reason in the past century or so, Americans and other Western cultures have started to develop an aversion to offal, but that's a recent and somewhat stupid development.
I wonder if that timing is indicative -- I wonder if the Western aversion to organ meets is at all related to the ways in which 1) organ meats typically contain higher concentrations of environmental poisons, and 2) the number and dangerousness of environmental poisons has increased substantially since we started learning how to make more of them.
argh.. typo... "right" should be "rich".
Though, politically, there seems to be an awful lot of overlap... Somehow I'm reminded of this scene. Ah, science!
You may be on to something there. The creator as incompetent and sadistic cretin sounds pretty consistent with observable facts.
Have you noticed that life is cruel and insensible?
That's because the creator is angry and insane -- Sithrak the Blind Gibberer!
So why not convert to Sithrak -- the god who hates you unconditionally.
In other words, the world we're living in, except for that bit about "amplified intelligence".
No, no, things are certainly amplified, so that part is correct. It's the "intelligence" part that's a bit off the mark here. Networking can help leverage the abilities of each of the networked nodes (people, in this case). When many of those nodes excel at being dumb animals, well, you get a heavy preponderance of lolcats and porn. Many (perhaps most?) of us humans are just living day to day and trying to get by. Not a lot of room there for higher-order thinking.
Lest we lose sight of all hope, it's important to recognize that it's not all gloom and doom, though -- despite all the porn and lolcats, there's also a good bit of smart thinking that is also amplified. That's easy to miss amidst all the noise, but it's definitely there.
Hamburg regional court
is known for its cowtowing to the intellectual property holders. That is why they try to go to that particular court if they sue for copyright infridgement.
And Hamburg is known as the birthplace of the hamburger, which is made from beef, which is raised in large quantities in Texas, and the most prosecution-friendly venue for patent lawsuits in the US is East Texas...
Aha! We've found the causal link!
But now I wonder what the basic legal trends are for the Frankfurt regional court.
The target range of the Skyjack drones is limited by the range of the WiFi card, but Kamkar said he uses a very powerful WiFi adapter called the Alfa AWUS036H, which produces 1000mW of power.
So this "very powerful" Wi Fi outputs 1000 milliwatts
Am I missing something, or is this just bad reporting?
Any citation for that?
Nope; as noted, "I haven't run across anyone in my personal life...", so this would fall under the "anecdote" category.
I want to see a proper double blind study done of this.
I look at an LCD all day, then sometimes some more at home. I do not suffer from any eyestrain I can detect.
Similar to the anecdote/data duality is the fact that not everyone is affected by things the same way. You may be one of the lucky few or lucky many who aren't negatively impacted by looking at an LCD all day. I know that my nearsightedness is markedly worse at the end of any workweek where I've been staring at the monitor all the time, and that my eyesight is noticeably improved after spending several days not staring at something only a couple feet away. YMMV, and all that.
The impact of backlit screens on circadian rhythms has been studied, if memory serves. Some quick googling pulls up a goodly number of hits, including a couple actual studies just in the first page of hits. Changing from regular web-wide Google to Google Scholar produces more hits for studies.
And more specific to eye strain are these hits. I haven't waded through, but the number of hits (524) and the titles of the first page of hits suggests that this is an area of study. This one in particular sounds like what you might be looking for: Comparison of eye fatigue among readings on conventional book and two typical electronic books equipped with electrophoretic display and LC display . This link to the paper is paywalled, unfortunately, but you might be able to ferret out an open copy of it somewhere.
I want to see a real study about this supposed eye stress people keep mentioning.
A real study would be good. At the same time, I haven't run across anyone in my personal life who doesn't prefer reading a dead-tree book over an ebook. Ebooks are certainly more convenient in many ways, especially once you factor in portability. But many (most?) ebook readers these days that I see around me are backlit (as they tend to be tablets), which does lead to a certain amount of eyestrain and can cause circadian imbalance.
You've just admitted that [a power utility] has a "low rate of return." If there's one thing the government should never put up money for, it's projects with a low rate of return.
What are you talking about? Really, you're not making any sense. You sound like you're talking about stock investment instead of public-sector infrastructure.
Seriously, by your line of argument, the freeways wouldn't exist. You need to look beyond the near-term immediately quantifiable numbers. A power utility has a low rate of return when properly operated and managed. The only power utilities that get high margins are the ones on the verge of breaking things -- like Enron. That said, the greater return -- beyond just the financials of the utility company itself -- includes things like, you know, people having relatively inexpensive access to electric power. Which is kind of a requirement for anything resembling a modern life and economy.
Enterprises with low rates of financial return, but high rates of overall return in terms of what they enable, are precisely the kinds of things that government should do, precisely because the private sector either won't get involved, or will engineer market conditions that benefit the company while screwing over everyone else. Imagine if every road were a toll road, or if every power company were like Enron. I certainly don't want to live in that world.
If you're telling any person that some of the political speech they want to engage in is illegal, then that is censorship. I suggest you embrace the term and not try to call it by another name. My business belongs to me.
...But one thing the law needs to stay very clear on, and that is never censoring people from engaging in political speech however the heck they want to engage in it.
From my reading of this thread, Duhavid is not advocating "telling any person that some of the political speech they want to engage in is illegal". Nor is he making any argument regarding business ownership. He is instead arguing that a business (corporation) is not a person, and therefore has no legitimate right to free speech, political or otherwise. By extension, he takes the position that any political speech must come from individuals, not from collectives, be they businesses or unions.
I think you both have good points to make. I also think you're both talking past each other to some extent.
A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. -- Samuel Goldwyn