Yeah, I'm suspecting the lack of a dev kernel too.
If anything, the dev cycle had a period of time where only bug-fixes were allowed, right before the stable release, which resulted in everyone else spinning their wheels...and possibly poking around in their code optimizing stuff so they could stick that change in the next dev kernel.
'Those bombs' didn't kill any civilians at all, you loon. They killed 241 US servicemen and 58 French servicemen.
At least I presume you meant 'civilians'. You actually said 'citizens', and essentially every person in the world is a citizen of somewhere. If you're going to pretend to be some super list-making group, feel free to actually use the correct terms next time so you don't look like such a tool.
Bombs rarely have flags either. And, considering that airplane transponders are usually off during bombing runs, it's hard to see how you're supposed to 'see' their flag anyway if you're trying to shoot them down from any distance away. Yes, they might 'technically' have a six-inch flag on their side, but that hardly helps identify them.
Strictly speaking, only people have to identify themselves during a war. No one has to paint any logos on their vehicles in any way, shape, or form. (Although, oddly enough, not having a logo on a ship means it is a pirate vessel and can legitimately be sunk by neutral nations and that isn't an act of war.)
Now, Hezbollah doesn't operate as a national military, which means they have poorly defined uniforms to start with, and no backing country, so people could perhaps object to them on those grounds. OTOH, the war in Lebanon, during which the barracks were bombed, was much closer to a civil war that other countries got involved in than an international war, and the sides are always a bit fuzzy and unprepared in those.
But, anyway, it's perfectly legal under the laws of war to sneak bombs up next to the other side and blow them up. Or hurl them at the enemy, aka, grenades, or shoot them at the enemy, aka, RPGs. Or beat them to death with lead pipes.
The media has, for the longest time, tried to imply that improvised weaponry is somehow illegal in a war, that triggering a pipe bomb made of cobbled-together tech and a cell phone, that blows up a military truck, is somehow terrorism, while shooting an RPG at it isn't.
This is, of course, incredibly stupid and unsupported by any interpretation of the laws of war, and the only reason the media is pushing it is that the US keeps getting involved in wars against people who can't afford 'real' weapons.
Terrorism, is, as always, a tactic, not a type of weapon. There are weapons that are not acceptable in wars, like chemical weapons, but bombs certainly are allowed, especially ones that don't injure any civilians. Likewise, attacking barracks is certainly allowed. (Hell, it's encouraged...attacking the military while they are at their base is much safer for random civilians than attacking the military elsewhere.)
Especially the bombing of a military barracks in a war. One side of which we were, in fact, supporting. (Granted, we weren't actually fighting yet, but that just means their actions were, duh, a declaration of war against us for supporting their enemies.)
Remember kids: Bombs dropped from airplanes on civilian targets to kill military personal that might be inside, and certainly kill a bunch of civilians: Normal war.
Bombs driven up in trucks to military barracks to kill only military personal: Terrorism.
Another advantage of cursive over print: Your hand cramps less, because the pen moves less. (Specifically, lifting the pen is a lot of work.) This is comparing two equally practiced people, of course.
But this is again negated by typing, which, comparatively speaking, never produces cramping.
This is because typists, at least correctly trained and ergonomically prepped ones, have their hands in a 'natural' position. Whereas writing position is unnatural, and requires you to hold something at all times. Also, you use two hands when typing, so each hand is automatically doing half the work.
After a month or so of training, you can sit and type 8 hours straight, with five minute breaks each hour. No one can write that much without their hand exploding.
And almost all handwriting these days is quick notes or lists, and everyone is untrained to start with, so cursive is hardly going to be better even compared to print.
Just like how people consider painting, playing an instrument or just about every other artistic skill as being overrated because they are not good at it.
No one has a problem with people learning cursive of calligraphy, or hell, shorthand or cuneiform. Or interpretive dance! Learn whatever you want, do whatever you want as art.
What people here are objecting to is pounding it into kids head for absolutely no purpose. Spending the time we could be teaching people to have actual good print handwriting.
Oh, and since it's so hard to learn, and nowadays so unused, people end up writing in some sort of idiotic mix of cursive and print that is entirely and utterly unreadable, even moreso than actual cursive.
Thanks to cursive, almost no has handwriting that is actually readable by other people, unless they're either the 10% who are actually 'gifted' in this 'art', or unless they've just given up on cursive and print instead, like a good 25% of the younger population has done.
The reason that so many people have bad penmanship is trying to force cursive on them.
It would be like, after we teach kids normal speech, we attempt to make them all rap, and spent six year doing that, at the end rendering something like 90% unable to speak coherently at all. Oh, sure, the speech from the 10% of kids that can rap is sometimes amazing, but no one else can fucking talk to each other anymore, cause they're doing it in a very poor half-rap/half-speech thing that's very hard to understand.
To me, these are the only arguments that matter in handwriting
No one else in the history of humanity since the invention of automated lumber mills has ever picked a style of writing based on 'size it takes up on the page'.
The most important goal for the rest of the entire human race when writing are legibility. And legible cursive takes as much time to write as legible print.
And, hell, if you actually care about trading speed for legibility, you write in shorthand...usually with print.
Cursive does have less cramping, because it takes less hand movement to write. But people who ever write more than a page or two of text out by hand are disappearing.
I think Kozar_The_Malignant point was that Fox offers 'hate on demand' 24/7, where you don't have to tune in at a specific time. You just have wait maybe a minute for the hate to restart.
They really should put the thing to hate in big words on the screen, which would let people immediately start the hate. And a counter...I hate it when I start hating, and then they change the topic 45 seconds in, and I have to start over. So usually I just end up hating at the channel itself for wasting my time for the next two minutes, although I'm not sure that actually counts.
But, on the whole, it's much more convenient than Olbermann, who you have to catch at a specific time, and watch the entire thing for his hate, and half the time he doesn't even do it!
OTOH, you can get a podcast of Olbermann and put it on your portable mp3 or video player. Or listen to it in your car! (Do not attempt to watch Fox News, or in fact any TV, while driving.) Although, annoying, you have to download the entire thing.
Now you are also wrong about the findings a court makes. It does not find that a violation of a law happened, the find that it's possible it happened and the case determines if it happened or not. Often, after the court has taken testimony and tried the facts, it is determined that a law was not broken.
I really don't know why I discuss things with you, as you've repeatedly demonstrated you're as dumb as a post.
Courts, before they listen to any facts, they determine whether or not it would constitute a violation of the law if those facts proved what the prosecutor wanted. There is something called a question of law, which is entirely distinct from the question of facts which is the trial itself.
As an example you may be able to understand, let us say the police arrest me for turning right on a red light. In some jurisdictions, where that is illegal, there would actually be a case there, where people would introduce evidence and witnesses.
In other places, where that is legal, the case would be thrown on the finding of law that such behavior is not actually illegal, regardless of what I actually did or didn't do. The person's 'guilt' or 'innocence' doesn't enter into it, because said behavior isn't actually a crime.
Now, hold that thought, and let's get back to what you said. And I'll quote 'Not one creditable judge has said the wire taping was illegal'.
Judges can, in fact, do that. They can say something isn't a crime. That would be a finding of law. They can stand there and say 'The behavior that this person is accused of is not a crime, case dismissed.'. They do this first, before any evidence is presented. (Because, obviously, it doesn't depend on any evidence.)
They did not do that in this case. They got past that little hurdle, and then threw out the case due to lack of evidence. (Strictly speaking, it was lack of evidence of standing, not lack of evidence of the crime itself, but that amounts to the same thing here.)
In other words, according to the court, the US government has not been proven to have done specific acts which the courts thinks would be illegal. They said, quite clearly to anyone who knows that the slightest bit about courts, that they think that behavior might be illegal but that it cannot be proven the government actually did it.
Incidentally, your claim that the judge who originally found them guilty was operating in an unprofessional manner is idiotic.
The first judge found them guilty because he accepted, into evidence, a document that the government had mistakenly given the ACLU demonstrating that the person in the suit was wiretapped.
On appeal, another judge refused to let that be entered as evidence, allowing the government to claim 'national security' for a document already publically published, and hence the ACLU had no evidence of the wiretapping.
You're arguing that it is incorrect behavior for judges to admit documents into evidence.
Now congress believed the president had this power constitutionally in 1967-68, so how did it disappear without any constitutional amendments?
'Congress' is not in charge of what constitutional powers the president has, you moron. The Constitution is.
Now, I like the way you attempted to phrase this whole phone tap business as openly as possible to make it appear that the government was listening to you tell Aunt Betty, mom's cookie recipe, but the reality of it is a lot different. The phone taps were only on people who were in contact with known terrorist and one end of the phone call was from outside the country. No one who has had any insight into the program, and yes, that includes democrats too, has ever made the claim otherwise.
Like I said, you can provide nothing that hasn't already been discredited. Not one creditable judge has said the wire taping was illegal and the one judge who did, not only got overturned, but also had ties to the ACLU which was a plaintiff in the case.
You know, I was going to make a nice long reply to this, but if you can't even do the most basic research about this, I don't know why I'm bothering.
Courts have two things...first a findings of law, and findings of fact. That is, before a case starts, before anyone starts asserting what did, or didn't, happen, they first make sure the behavior actually alleged was in violation of the law. This do this finding of law before any testimony or evidence, so the court doesn't, for example, charge people with things that are not actually illegal even if all the facts alleges were proven true.
And, and this is very important, neither court which heard the ACLU's case did so. Neither of them threw out the case on finding of law, which means the court thinks such behavior by the government would be illegal, at least to the extent the court can tell. To restate: The courts seem to think that such wiretapping would be illegal if done to the plaintiffs.
However, the ACLU failed to demonstrate that it had been done to the plaintiffs, and hence the case was thrown out. (They failed to prove it because the court refused to accept a classified document the ACLU had accidentally been handed that proved it.)
You can stand there and argue that, because of the lack of evidence, there was no wiretapping, and hence everything was legal. You'll sound crazy, but you can, in theory, argue that.
But you cannot argue that the courts found such wiretapping legal, as they most certainly did not. They found it couldn't be proven to have happened.
There is good legal evidence that makes the wire taps seem legal in specific situations and congress did not think it was an impeachable offense as the option had been brought up to them several times by the loony-toon democrats.
There is absolutely no legal theory that would allow the president to spy on communications of American citizens without warrants.
So two wrongs make a right? I mean what the hell does someone doing something wrong have to do with their children heirs, or whoever other then them? The op said "Obama really needs to issue an executive order to lock them (and their families, aids, hairdressers, etc) up until we get answers to some of those questions" which is a corruption of blood, something clearly denied in the constitution.
Yes, because someone on slashdot suggesting something is even vaguely relevant to the actual government actually doing things.
Now I know your hatred for bush blinds you but think about that, if your daddy goes out and drinks and drives and kills someone, should you be locked up because of it? Should you be locked up on an executive order because of it?
That's what your saying isn't it, that because bush supposedly tortured someone, that you can be locked up on a single person's decree simply because you were related to someone who might have did something wrong in some way? Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking here?
I didn't say any such thing at all, Mr. Delusional.
Even if Bush did do something that even England wouldn't do, it still doesn't make someone else doing severe wrong right.
Really? So locking people up in Gitmo who might be able to provide evidence of crimes is now not acceptable? Interesting. When did that happen? January 12 2009, right?
People committing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of felonies certainly seems like a reasonable reason to lock people up in Gitmo, according to my understand of it.
So I have to ask, what was done that warranted impeachments and be specific enough that it can be addressed.
Um, wiretapping people without warrants? A clear violation of the law. A felony, in fact, for each offense. Um, duh.
Why in the fuck can you claim on person violated the constitution or deserved to be impeached with no hard facts to back it up while advocating that the current administration do one of the most abhorrent acts any sitting president could do that not only is forbidden in the constitution, but also a key reason why we rebelled from England in the first place.
As opposed to Bush torturing people, which even England wouldn't do.
More importantly, swine flu isn't treatable as far as I understand. So it's not like you can look at the 1%-2% mortality rate and conclude you don't want to risk it, that you want to be cured. It doesn't work like that. The flu is a virus, we're sucky at curing viruses.
The flu kills by breaking things in your body. People who are sick need to watch and make sure they are at a normal level of sickness, and if they aren't, they can report to the hospital where the doctor will attempt to fix, or at least help it limp along, whatever is broken...until your body fights the flu off naturally.
That was sorta vague, can someone post some sort of warning signs for people who already suspect they have the flu and thus are staying away from other people? Signs that indicate that something is actually wrong and they do need to see a doctor?
It doesn't kill them at a lower rate, it presents symptoms of flu at a higher rate. I.e., it makes even healthy adults sick, unlike normal flu, which is almost entirely fought off without anyone realizing it.
Do people even listen to themselves?
Swine flu is more contagious than normal flu, because we don't have antibodies against it. Hence more people get it instead of fighting it off before it can present symptoms. They start sneezing, coughing, spreading it to others, and get diagnosed as having the flu, and then they fight it off.
Honest to God, it's like you morons think the only measure of a disease is the mortality rate. If it has the same mortality rate as a normal flu, but infects 10% more people that come in contact with it, it will kill something like 100 times as many people, as those people spread it around!
Flu outbreaks have killed fifty million (low estimate) of people in 1918, after having infected 500 million out a world pop of 1.6 billion.
Granted, medicine at the time resulted in a 10% mortality, and, luckily, we've got it down to 1%...so pretending that, again, only a third of the world is infected (Which is a bit silly, we're much more interconnected now.), so that's roughly 2 billion infected, hey, look, only two million dead people! (Let's pretend we can keep that mortality rate so low when all our hospitals are overflowing.)
Older people are actually more likely to have immunities to H1.
There aren't a lot of people around today who were alive during the 1918 pandemic, but apparently there were repeated outbreaks over the years until that strain of flu eventually mostly vanished. Someone who's 60 might have been exposed to it at some point in their life and still have some immunity.
The reason younger people are being hit harder than they normally are hit is that young people have much better immune systems, but better immune systems still need to build up some actual immunity before they can work. Hence they're very helpful against H3 flu, but not so much against stuff they've never seen before.
But, yes, standard mortality rate, but higher infection rate. (And just a slightly higher infection rate can quickly balloon out of control.)
ADD does, in fact, exist. It is actually easy enough to demonstrate with medication...if you can give someone a stimulant, and they get calmer, they have ADD.
It is an actual thing that really exist, people whose 'optimal operating stimuli' is a higher level than normal background. If they do not get this additional stimulation (like with drugs, or tapping their leg, or whatever.), they will start inventing by imagining things and being 'attention deficit'. When there is more stuff going on, they can focus better.
And, because their 'standard' level of focus is also higher, they can 'hyperfocus' once they do learn to live without other stimuli.
It is, in a sense, the opposite of some autism, some of which is hypothesized to be caused when people cannot handle the normal level of stimulation and withdraw. (Please note I said 'some'. Other autism is caused by organic brain damage and other things we can actually point at.)
Now, the great question of the 21st century is why we're suddenly producing so many kids with miscalibrated stimuli dials. But it happens, both ways. Denying it actually happens is just silly.
That does not, however, mean we should actually be drugging kids we do, or treating it as some sort of disease. It's not even clear it's actually a 'disorder', vs. a difference like being left handed. Or, more analogous, having good night vision but bad day vision.
What we need to do is realize that, just like different kids learn different, some audio, some visual, some kinetic, different kids need different levels of background 'static', to distract them , to learn.
Which in turn requires being careful that their distraction doesn't distract others, and teaching them by middle school how to distract themselves, like with rolling a pencil in their hand or something. Parents need to realize that some kids should have the radio on while doing their homework, or whatever.
Just because you don't like the 'overdiagnosis' and 'overmedication' of ADHD and see it as some sort of 'excuse' for wild kids doesn't mean the thing doesn't actually exist.
And, again, any insistence that 'There weren't that many kids with ADD 50 years ago is probably true'. But, like I said, there weren't that many kids with autism back then, either, and I suspect you don't think that's some imaginary misdiagnosed disease. Something is doing this, in both directions.
Also, simply inhaling warm vapors when you have a cold, and drinking warm things, especially stuff that 'sticks' to your throat thanks to the fat in the broth, has known medical benefits. That is, in fact, the entire point of cough drops and vapor-rub.
Oh, and don't underestimate the value of just eating something you're sick. Chicken soup provides proteins and carbohydrates in a form that even someone with the worst throat irritation can eat. While they would not, for example, want to eat a cheeseburger, which would have nearly the same nutritional content.
So at the very least, it is a) something warm to drink that will help clear nasal passages, that b) people can actually eat easily while sick and even coughing, and we know both those things already for a fact. Any additional chemical medical benefit is still hypothetical and being tested.
I'm sorry, I hadn't realized I was talking to an animal right person.
I was speaking from the POV of sane people, who think that PETA is strictly an animal welfare group. People who see their work as an attempt to stop animal abuse do not realize they are, in fact, attempting to stop all animal 'use' period, even use that the vast majority of people regard as reasonable.
Like eating meat painless slaughtered, which, despite what you think, PETA does not actually approve of. They do not, under any circustances, give out any seal of approval on any meat all, despite what you appear to think.(1) They, however, would get nowhere in picketing KFCs for serving chicken, whereas they can get the public on their side for picketing for torturing chickens. (Please note I have no objection to making KFC stop that. I'm all in favor of ending animal abuse. Animals should not suffer needlessly.)
Because PETA is dishonest about their goals, something like 75% of all support of them is, in essence, due to trickery of people that, had they known PETA's actual goals, would give their support instead to the local humane society or something.
And sometimes this difference between their assumed goals and their actual goals produces rather large difference between what people expect PETA to do, and what it actually does, like the 'only kill animal shelter' (By analogy with a 'no kill shelter') it ran, where it essentially killed all animals it collected. This is a horrible concept if you're against animal abuse, but if you regard pets as slaves, well, dogs and cats living in slavery can probably never been made free, their will has been broken and if they were set free they'd just starve to death as they don't know how to hunt, so the best and most moral thing to do is to kill them.
PETA, of course, won't actually admit out loud to holding this position, but it's pretty easy to figure out based on their behavior of killing every pet that comes into their shelters, and reading between the lines on their web site.
1) I have no idea how actual animal right people regard PETA, nor, really, do I care. Probably you guys think they're a sellout, but for all I know you think they're Martians sent here to enslave ferrets or something. Because I cannot possibly figure out how you think.
It is a novelty to see this from the other side, from people who actually admit they're in the animal right's movement, and thus, having bought PETA's thin facade, think they are sellouts or something. It's sorta funny. PETA's gotten so good at hiding what they are that you guys are believing it.
Yeah, there are a lot of different meanings of 'Front', but, regardless of whether you can figure it out from their name, the point is, there really isn't a 'ELF' that actually does anything. It's just a group that people ascribe their actions to.
Yes, PETA runs ads saying 'X is unacceptable', and run ads about the most horrific animal abuse.
That does not mean they consider other uses 'acceptable'. PETA is an inherently dishonest organization.
I point out their webpage explicitly says, and I quote 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 2.0 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world.'.
And just in case that's not clear, here's their FAQ: 'What do you mean by âanimal rightsâ(TM)?
People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her). For more information on why animals should have rights, click here.
They are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose
PETA believes it is immoral to use any animals, whatsoever, in any manner at all. Not just abuse of them, heck, not even eating them. Read what they actually say about pets: http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp
And you'll notice they don't actually answer the real question 'Do you believe it is ethical to own pets at all?'.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'm suspecting the lack of a dev kernel too.
If anything, the dev cycle had a period of time where only bug-fixes were allowed, right before the stable release, which resulted in everyone else spinning their wheels...and possibly poking around in their code optimizing stuff so they could stick that change in the next dev kernel.
'Those bombs' didn't kill any civilians at all, you loon. They killed 241 US servicemen and 58 French servicemen.
At least I presume you meant 'civilians'. You actually said 'citizens', and essentially every person in the world is a citizen of somewhere. If you're going to pretend to be some super list-making group, feel free to actually use the correct terms next time so you don't look like such a tool.
Bombs rarely have flags either. And, considering that airplane transponders are usually off during bombing runs, it's hard to see how you're supposed to 'see' their flag anyway if you're trying to shoot them down from any distance away. Yes, they might 'technically' have a six-inch flag on their side, but that hardly helps identify them.
Strictly speaking, only people have to identify themselves during a war. No one has to paint any logos on their vehicles in any way, shape, or form. (Although, oddly enough, not having a logo on a ship means it is a pirate vessel and can legitimately be sunk by neutral nations and that isn't an act of war.)
Now, Hezbollah doesn't operate as a national military, which means they have poorly defined uniforms to start with, and no backing country, so people could perhaps object to them on those grounds. OTOH, the war in Lebanon, during which the barracks were bombed, was much closer to a civil war that other countries got involved in than an international war, and the sides are always a bit fuzzy and unprepared in those.
But, anyway, it's perfectly legal under the laws of war to sneak bombs up next to the other side and blow them up. Or hurl them at the enemy, aka, grenades, or shoot them at the enemy, aka, RPGs. Or beat them to death with lead pipes.
The media has, for the longest time, tried to imply that improvised weaponry is somehow illegal in a war, that triggering a pipe bomb made of cobbled-together tech and a cell phone, that blows up a military truck, is somehow terrorism, while shooting an RPG at it isn't.
This is, of course, incredibly stupid and unsupported by any interpretation of the laws of war, and the only reason the media is pushing it is that the US keeps getting involved in wars against people who can't afford 'real' weapons.
Terrorism, is, as always, a tactic, not a type of weapon. There are weapons that are not acceptable in wars, like chemical weapons, but bombs certainly are allowed, especially ones that don't injure any civilians. Likewise, attacking barracks is certainly allowed. (Hell, it's encouraged...attacking the military while they are at their base is much safer for random civilians than attacking the military elsewhere.)
Especially the bombing of a military barracks in a war. One side of which we were, in fact, supporting. (Granted, we weren't actually fighting yet, but that just means their actions were, duh, a declaration of war against us for supporting their enemies.)
Remember kids: Bombs dropped from airplanes on civilian targets to kill military personal that might be inside, and certainly kill a bunch of civilians: Normal war.
Bombs driven up in trucks to military barracks to kill only military personal: Terrorism.
Another advantage of cursive over print: Your hand cramps less, because the pen moves less. (Specifically, lifting the pen is a lot of work.) This is comparing two equally practiced people, of course.
But this is again negated by typing, which, comparatively speaking, never produces cramping.
This is because typists, at least correctly trained and ergonomically prepped ones, have their hands in a 'natural' position. Whereas writing position is unnatural, and requires you to hold something at all times. Also, you use two hands when typing, so each hand is automatically doing half the work.
After a month or so of training, you can sit and type 8 hours straight, with five minute breaks each hour. No one can write that much without their hand exploding.
And almost all handwriting these days is quick notes or lists, and everyone is untrained to start with, so cursive is hardly going to be better even compared to print.
I've never seen anyone write cursive even remotely as ugly as that one example!
Really? Have you ever seen anyone write cursive at all?
Because that's actually some of the most legible cursive I've ever seen outside of a book or professional calligraphy.
Just like how people consider painting, playing an instrument or just about every other artistic skill as being overrated because they are not good at it.
No one has a problem with people learning cursive of calligraphy, or hell, shorthand or cuneiform. Or interpretive dance! Learn whatever you want, do whatever you want as art.
What people here are objecting to is pounding it into kids head for absolutely no purpose. Spending the time we could be teaching people to have actual good print handwriting.
Oh, and since it's so hard to learn, and nowadays so unused, people end up writing in some sort of idiotic mix of cursive and print that is entirely and utterly unreadable, even moreso than actual cursive.
Thanks to cursive, almost no has handwriting that is actually readable by other people, unless they're either the 10% who are actually 'gifted' in this 'art', or unless they've just given up on cursive and print instead, like a good 25% of the younger population has done.
The reason that so many people have bad penmanship is trying to force cursive on them.
It would be like, after we teach kids normal speech, we attempt to make them all rap, and spent six year doing that, at the end rendering something like 90% unable to speak coherently at all. Oh, sure, the speech from the 10% of kids that can rap is sometimes amazing, but no one else can fucking talk to each other anymore, cause they're doing it in a very poor half-rap/half-speech thing that's very hard to understand.
To me, these are the only arguments that matter in handwriting
No one else in the history of humanity since the invention of automated lumber mills has ever picked a style of writing based on 'size it takes up on the page'.
The most important goal for the rest of the entire human race when writing are legibility. And legible cursive takes as much time to write as legible print.
And, hell, if you actually care about trading speed for legibility, you write in shorthand...usually with print.
Cursive does have less cramping, because it takes less hand movement to write. But people who ever write more than a page or two of text out by hand are disappearing.
I think people would start setting that as their status.
Seriously. Within a day.
Really? Because the left did, indeed, condemn Code Pink for disrupting events.
And notable did not show up at events and start yelling.
If that's not how it works then the terrorists win.
No, he's doing his two minute hate on MSNBC.
I think Kozar_The_Malignant point was that Fox offers 'hate on demand' 24/7, where you don't have to tune in at a specific time. You just have wait maybe a minute for the hate to restart.
They really should put the thing to hate in big words on the screen, which would let people immediately start the hate. And a counter...I hate it when I start hating, and then they change the topic 45 seconds in, and I have to start over. So usually I just end up hating at the channel itself for wasting my time for the next two minutes, although I'm not sure that actually counts.
But, on the whole, it's much more convenient than Olbermann, who you have to catch at a specific time, and watch the entire thing for his hate, and half the time he doesn't even do it!
OTOH, you can get a podcast of Olbermann and put it on your portable mp3 or video player. Or listen to it in your car! (Do not attempt to watch Fox News, or in fact any TV, while driving.) Although, annoying, you have to download the entire thing.
Now you are also wrong about the findings a court makes. It does not find that a violation of a law happened, the find that it's possible it happened and the case determines if it happened or not. Often, after the court has taken testimony and tried the facts, it is determined that a law was not broken.
I really don't know why I discuss things with you, as you've repeatedly demonstrated you're as dumb as a post.
Courts, before they listen to any facts, they determine whether or not it would constitute a violation of the law if those facts proved what the prosecutor wanted. There is something called a question of law, which is entirely distinct from the question of facts which is the trial itself.
As an example you may be able to understand, let us say the police arrest me for turning right on a red light. In some jurisdictions, where that is illegal, there would actually be a case there, where people would introduce evidence and witnesses.
In other places, where that is legal, the case would be thrown on the finding of law that such behavior is not actually illegal, regardless of what I actually did or didn't do. The person's 'guilt' or 'innocence' doesn't enter into it, because said behavior isn't actually a crime.
Now, hold that thought, and let's get back to what you said. And I'll quote 'Not one creditable judge has said the wire taping was illegal'.
Judges can, in fact, do that. They can say something isn't a crime. That would be a finding of law. They can stand there and say 'The behavior that this person is accused of is not a crime, case dismissed.'. They do this first, before any evidence is presented. (Because, obviously, it doesn't depend on any evidence.)
They did not do that in this case. They got past that little hurdle, and then threw out the case due to lack of evidence. (Strictly speaking, it was lack of evidence of standing, not lack of evidence of the crime itself, but that amounts to the same thing here.)
In other words, according to the court, the US government has not been proven to have done specific acts which the courts thinks would be illegal. They said, quite clearly to anyone who knows that the slightest bit about courts, that they think that behavior might be illegal but that it cannot be proven the government actually did it.
Incidentally, your claim that the judge who originally found them guilty was operating in an unprofessional manner is idiotic.
The first judge found them guilty because he accepted, into evidence, a document that the government had mistakenly given the ACLU demonstrating that the person in the suit was wiretapped.
On appeal, another judge refused to let that be entered as evidence, allowing the government to claim 'national security' for a document already publically published, and hence the ACLU had no evidence of the wiretapping.
You're arguing that it is incorrect behavior for judges to admit documents into evidence.
Now congress believed the president had this power constitutionally in 1967-68, so how did it disappear without any constitutional amendments?
'Congress' is not in charge of what constitutional powers the president has, you moron. The Constitution is.
Now, I like the way you attempted to phrase this whole phone tap business as openly as possible to make it appear that the government was listening to you tell Aunt Betty, mom's cookie recipe, but the reality of it is a lot different. The phone taps were only on people who were in contact with known terrorist and one end of the phone call was from outside the country. No one who has had any insight into the program, and yes, that includes democrats too, has ever made the claim otherwise.
Yeah, no one's suggested tha
Like I said, you can provide nothing that hasn't already been discredited. Not one creditable judge has said the wire taping was illegal and the one judge who did, not only got overturned, but also had ties to the ACLU which was a plaintiff in the case.
You know, I was going to make a nice long reply to this, but if you can't even do the most basic research about this, I don't know why I'm bothering.
Courts have two things...first a findings of law, and findings of fact. That is, before a case starts, before anyone starts asserting what did, or didn't, happen, they first make sure the behavior actually alleged was in violation of the law. This do this finding of law before any testimony or evidence, so the court doesn't, for example, charge people with things that are not actually illegal even if all the facts alleges were proven true.
And, and this is very important, neither court which heard the ACLU's case did so. Neither of them threw out the case on finding of law, which means the court thinks such behavior by the government would be illegal, at least to the extent the court can tell. To restate: The courts seem to think that such wiretapping would be illegal if done to the plaintiffs.
However, the ACLU failed to demonstrate that it had been done to the plaintiffs, and hence the case was thrown out. (They failed to prove it because the court refused to accept a classified document the ACLU had accidentally been handed that proved it.)
You can stand there and argue that, because of the lack of evidence, there was no wiretapping, and hence everything was legal. You'll sound crazy, but you can, in theory, argue that.
But you cannot argue that the courts found such wiretapping legal, as they most certainly did not. They found it couldn't be proven to have happened.
There is good legal evidence that makes the wire taps seem legal in specific situations and congress did not think it was an impeachable offense as the option had been brought up to them several times by the loony-toon democrats.
There is absolutely no legal theory that would allow the president to spy on communications of American citizens without warrants.
So two wrongs make a right? I mean what the hell does someone doing something wrong have to do with their children heirs, or whoever other then them? The op said "Obama really needs to issue an executive order to lock them (and their families, aids, hairdressers, etc) up until we get answers to some of those questions" which is a corruption of blood, something clearly denied in the constitution.
Yes, because someone on slashdot suggesting something is even vaguely relevant to the actual government actually doing things.
Now I know your hatred for bush blinds you but think about that, if your daddy goes out and drinks and drives and kills someone, should you be locked up because of it? Should you be locked up on an executive order because of it?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
That's what your saying isn't it, that because bush supposedly tortured someone, that you can be locked up on a single person's decree simply because you were related to someone who might have did something wrong in some way? Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking here?
I didn't say any such thing at all, Mr. Delusional.
Even if Bush did do something that even England wouldn't do, it still doesn't make someone else doing severe wrong right.
Really? So locking people up in Gitmo who might be able to provide evidence of crimes is now not acceptable? Interesting. When did that happen? January 12 2009, right?
People committing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of felonies certainly seems like a reasonable reason to lock people up in Gitmo, according to my understand of it.
The trains didn't run on time. What that actually demonstrates that, under fascism, no one reports the trains aren't on time.
So I have to ask, what was done that warranted impeachments and be specific enough that it can be addressed.
Um, wiretapping people without warrants? A clear violation of the law. A felony, in fact, for each offense. Um, duh.
Why in the fuck can you claim on person violated the constitution or deserved to be impeached with no hard facts to back it up while advocating that the current administration do one of the most abhorrent acts any sitting president could do that not only is forbidden in the constitution, but also a key reason why we rebelled from England in the first place.
As opposed to Bush torturing people, which even England wouldn't do.
More importantly, swine flu isn't treatable as far as I understand. So it's not like you can look at the 1%-2% mortality rate and conclude you don't want to risk it, that you want to be cured. It doesn't work like that. The flu is a virus, we're sucky at curing viruses.
The flu kills by breaking things in your body. People who are sick need to watch and make sure they are at a normal level of sickness, and if they aren't, they can report to the hospital where the doctor will attempt to fix, or at least help it limp along, whatever is broken...until your body fights the flu off naturally.
That was sorta vague, can someone post some sort of warning signs for people who already suspect they have the flu and thus are staying away from other people? Signs that indicate that something is actually wrong and they do need to see a doctor?
It doesn't kill them at a lower rate, it presents symptoms of flu at a higher rate. I.e., it makes even healthy adults sick, unlike normal flu, which is almost entirely fought off without anyone realizing it.
Do people even listen to themselves?
Swine flu is more contagious than normal flu, because we don't have antibodies against it. Hence more people get it instead of fighting it off before it can present symptoms. They start sneezing, coughing, spreading it to others, and get diagnosed as having the flu, and then they fight it off.
Honest to God, it's like you morons think the only measure of a disease is the mortality rate. If it has the same mortality rate as a normal flu, but infects 10% more people that come in contact with it, it will kill something like 100 times as many people, as those people spread it around!
Flu outbreaks have killed fifty million (low estimate) of people in 1918, after having infected 500 million out a world pop of 1.6 billion.
Granted, medicine at the time resulted in a 10% mortality, and, luckily, we've got it down to 1%...so pretending that, again, only a third of the world is infected (Which is a bit silly, we're much more interconnected now.), so that's roughly 2 billion infected, hey, look, only two million dead people! (Let's pretend we can keep that mortality rate so low when all our hospitals are overflowing.)
Older people are actually more likely to have immunities to H1.
There aren't a lot of people around today who were alive during the 1918 pandemic, but apparently there were repeated outbreaks over the years until that strain of flu eventually mostly vanished. Someone who's 60 might have been exposed to it at some point in their life and still have some immunity.
The reason younger people are being hit harder than they normally are hit is that young people have much better immune systems, but better immune systems still need to build up some actual immunity before they can work. Hence they're very helpful against H3 flu, but not so much against stuff they've never seen before.
But, yes, standard mortality rate, but higher infection rate. (And just a slightly higher infection rate can quickly balloon out of control.)
Actually, if they don't like it, they can fucking leave. You don't need consent in any state, it's just in some that you have to inform them.
They want you to turn it off, you can tell them to get bent and keep recording.
ADD does, in fact, exist. It is actually easy enough to demonstrate with medication...if you can give someone a stimulant, and they get calmer, they have ADD.
It is an actual thing that really exist, people whose 'optimal operating stimuli' is a higher level than normal background. If they do not get this additional stimulation (like with drugs, or tapping their leg, or whatever.), they will start inventing by imagining things and being 'attention deficit'. When there is more stuff going on, they can focus better.
And, because their 'standard' level of focus is also higher, they can 'hyperfocus' once they do learn to live without other stimuli.
It is, in a sense, the opposite of some autism, some of which is hypothesized to be caused when people cannot handle the normal level of stimulation and withdraw. (Please note I said 'some'. Other autism is caused by organic brain damage and other things we can actually point at.)
Now, the great question of the 21st century is why we're suddenly producing so many kids with miscalibrated stimuli dials. But it happens, both ways. Denying it actually happens is just silly.
That does not, however, mean we should actually be drugging kids we do, or treating it as some sort of disease. It's not even clear it's actually a 'disorder', vs. a difference like being left handed. Or, more analogous, having good night vision but bad day vision.
What we need to do is realize that, just like different kids learn different, some audio, some visual, some kinetic, different kids need different levels of background 'static', to distract them , to learn.
Which in turn requires being careful that their distraction doesn't distract others, and teaching them by middle school how to distract themselves, like with rolling a pencil in their hand or something. Parents need to realize that some kids should have the radio on while doing their homework, or whatever.
Just because you don't like the 'overdiagnosis' and 'overmedication' of ADHD and see it as some sort of 'excuse' for wild kids doesn't mean the thing doesn't actually exist.
And, again, any insistence that 'There weren't that many kids with ADD 50 years ago is probably true'. But, like I said, there weren't that many kids with autism back then, either, and I suspect you don't think that's some imaginary misdiagnosed disease. Something is doing this, in both directions.
Here it is.
Also, simply inhaling warm vapors when you have a cold, and drinking warm things, especially stuff that 'sticks' to your throat thanks to the fat in the broth, has known medical benefits. That is, in fact, the entire point of cough drops and vapor-rub.
Oh, and don't underestimate the value of just eating something you're sick. Chicken soup provides proteins and carbohydrates in a form that even someone with the worst throat irritation can eat. While they would not, for example, want to eat a cheeseburger, which would have nearly the same nutritional content.
So at the very least, it is a) something warm to drink that will help clear nasal passages, that b) people can actually eat easily while sick and even coughing, and we know both those things already for a fact. Any additional chemical medical benefit is still hypothetical and being tested.
I'm sorry, I hadn't realized I was talking to an animal right person.
I was speaking from the POV of sane people, who think that PETA is strictly an animal welfare group. People who see their work as an attempt to stop animal abuse do not realize they are, in fact, attempting to stop all animal 'use' period, even use that the vast majority of people regard as reasonable.
Like eating meat painless slaughtered, which, despite what you think, PETA does not actually approve of. They do not, under any circustances, give out any seal of approval on any meat all, despite what you appear to think.(1) They, however, would get nowhere in picketing KFCs for serving chicken, whereas they can get the public on their side for picketing for torturing chickens. (Please note I have no objection to making KFC stop that. I'm all in favor of ending animal abuse. Animals should not suffer needlessly.)
Because PETA is dishonest about their goals, something like 75% of all support of them is, in essence, due to trickery of people that, had they known PETA's actual goals, would give their support instead to the local humane society or something.
And sometimes this difference between their assumed goals and their actual goals produces rather large difference between what people expect PETA to do, and what it actually does, like the 'only kill animal shelter' (By analogy with a 'no kill shelter') it ran, where it essentially killed all animals it collected. This is a horrible concept if you're against animal abuse, but if you regard pets as slaves, well, dogs and cats living in slavery can probably never been made free, their will has been broken and if they were set free they'd just starve to death as they don't know how to hunt, so the best and most moral thing to do is to kill them.
PETA, of course, won't actually admit out loud to holding this position, but it's pretty easy to figure out based on their behavior of killing every pet that comes into their shelters, and reading between the lines on their web site.
1) I have no idea how actual animal right people regard PETA, nor, really, do I care. Probably you guys think they're a sellout, but for all I know you think they're Martians sent here to enslave ferrets or something. Because I cannot possibly figure out how you think.
It is a novelty to see this from the other side, from people who actually admit they're in the animal right's movement, and thus, having bought PETA's thin facade, think they are sellouts or something. It's sorta funny. PETA's gotten so good at hiding what they are that you guys are believing it.
Yeah, there are a lot of different meanings of 'Front', but, regardless of whether you can figure it out from their name, the point is, there really isn't a 'ELF' that actually does anything. It's just a group that people ascribe their actions to.
Yes, PETA runs ads saying 'X is unacceptable', and run ads about the most horrific animal abuse.
That does not mean they consider other uses 'acceptable'. PETA is an inherently dishonest organization.
I point out their webpage explicitly says, and I quote 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 2.0 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world.'.
And just in case that's not clear, here's their FAQ: 'What do you mean by âanimal rightsâ(TM)?
People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her). For more information on why animals should have rights, click here.
They are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose
Right there. Black and white. PETA's own web page. http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp
PETA believes it is immoral to use any animals, whatsoever, in any manner at all. Not just abuse of them, heck, not even eating them. Read what they actually say about pets: http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp
And you'll notice they don't actually answer the real question 'Do you believe it is ethical to own pets at all?'.