Actually, Sandy covered an enormous amount of territory for a tropical storm/hurricane (something close to twice the area of the next largest major storm to make landfall in the U.S.), which is what made it a "super-storm". The fact that it hit New York only compounded that.
The thing I see in the summary, which seems to be different from what you are seeing, is that this is a story about someone trying to pretend to be autistic in order to cover for bad behavior. My experience is that people with autism are no more likely to behave badly than anybody else (in certain circumstances, they may be more likely to behave poorly but not badly). So, when this guy claims autism as a defense for his behavior it reflects doubly bad on him. First, he committed these acts. Then he attempts to excuse his behavior.
Actually, make that reflects triply bad on him. The third being that he thinks that autism would be an excuse for bad behavior.
The reason that this story has the reference to autism in it is because the accused is attempting to use his alleged autism (I am going to assume that he has an actual diagnosis, not that it means he is actually autistic) as an excuse for his crimes. This story is actually a perfect example of what is wrong with the way our society (in general) is approaching autism. It is viewed as something which makes one unable to tell right from wrong. I do not actually believe that this man has autism, although I think it likely that he was diagnosed with it. This article does a good job of explaining what I am talking about.
Just like with pesticides that are known to wipe out bees, nothing will be done about this problem either. The corporate lobbyists own too many of your politicians.
Except of course that the pesticides in question are not "known to wipe out bees." There are (recent) studies that suggest that they may contribute to Colony Collapse Disorder (something for which science has an alternate, proven, explanation, but which is serious enough to warrant continued examination of all potential causes). Does this mean they are safe to continue using without a care? No. What it does mean is that any use of them should be done with caution. The information I have seen is that these new findings about the pesticides in question suggest that commercial beekeepers should change some of their techniques (having to do with the way they get their hives ready for the first flowers of spring). There are further implications for how the pesticides are used, but the information about how the use should change is still sketchy.
The Girl Scouts of America were founded as a sister organization to Boy Scouts of America. That is, at one time they were two separate arms of the same organization (at least in a de facto sense if not a de jure one).
As a former user of marijuana, I would have to disagree with you. Marijuana has negative impact on cognitive functioning. My observation is that these effects diminish over time after ceasing to use it and are worse for those who start using it at younger ages. However, that does not mean that the government should regulate its usage. It just means that I think that it is a mistake to use it (but I think that people should be free to make mistakes). There are some positive effects from marijuana use as well and some people are better off for using it.
I did not mean that to come out as the putdown it sounded like. However, my point is that serial dramas have come and gone in TV history. The Sopranos just started the latest wave, they did not cause it.
I agree. I have found that the slashdot "group think" is very diverse. If you look at the comments on a controversial topic the nature of those comments tends to reflect which "side" got there first in numbers. However, there are times when both sides are well represented. The latter tends to happen when people on either side are making good points. When that happens those who agree with them spend their mod points modding up those posts and do not have any left to mod down the posts they disagree with.
There may be more serial dramas on TV since the Sopranos than there was immediately preceding the Sopranos, but I do not perceive that there are any more than there were in the late 70s/early 80s (remember Dallas, Dynasty, etc?).
That was more or less what I was thinking. Did the various people associated with the article and making this post never hear of "The Elder Scrolls" games? Those are all rather open ended. Of course, on the other hand, they answered their own question when they compared the hype to "The Sopranos", as far as I can tell, "The Sopranos" changed nothing about television shows. "The Sopranos" was to TV shows what "The Godfather" was to movies, nothing more.
Thank you, I was wondering what this was about and now I know. I had never heard of either and now I understand both why I never heard of them and why they are on the front page of slashdot. The first part is because they are bad art, and very few of my friends like bad art. I know another way to spot bad art. It is when something is made for the purpose of being "art". Good art needs to be made for some purpose. It may be made to be decorative, or informative, or entertaining, or for numerous other reasons, but being "art" is not really a purpose.
According to CURRENT estimates of how many polar bears there were 60 years ago there are more polar bears alive today than there were 60 years ago. It is not just a matter of a difference between 60 year old estimates and current estimates. It is current estimates of what the population was that says there are more polar bears today.
Actually, while they did say that collecting metadata did not constitute a search, they have never said that putting someone under surveillance was a search either. The police do not need a search warrant to follow you around. In 1979, when the Supreme Court made the ruling in question, the metadata available was no more thorough than a police officer could obtain by following you around. Since that time, things have changed significantly. If a lawyer argued the case correctly, they could convince the court that it could overturn the precedent without having to find that the original ruling was a mistake.
Oh, going straight for the "they're making us into communists!" scare? How about this: "finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" is a long way from "all economic activity is controlled by the government".
When the "greenhouse gas" you are trying to reduce the emissions of is CO2 than no there is no distance at all between "finding ways to reduce greenhose gas emissions" and "all economic activity is controlled by the government" because ALL economic activity generates CO2 (all human activity generates CO2).
And the people who are talking the most about the "loss of Arctic sea ice" want to adopt the economic system that created the situation in the Aral Sea.
And that would be... the economic system where they ignore the long term environmental consequences of your actions in order to maximize short term gains?
That would be the economic system whereby all economic activity is controlled by the government.
And the people who are talking the most about the "loss of Arctic sea ice" want to adopt the economic system that created the situation in the Aral Sea.
Of course the problem with using polar bears as the measure is the fact that current estimates of polar bear population are massively higher than estimates for polar bear population in the 1950s. So, polar bear populations have RISEN over the last 60 years, yet global warming is threatening them with extinction?
I would have to do some research on the French government but the UK was heading in that direction until the British people had the sense to elect Margaret Thatcher.
You made the statement that you thought your taxes should be higher, so I assumed that you acted accordingly. So, yes, I guess I do make assumptions. I assume that people are not hypocrites until informed otherwise. At this point, I am beginning to think that you are a hypocrite, although you never quite come out and admit that you take all of the deductions you legally can, that seems to be what you are saying.
I missed your "statistics" on abortion. If you look, they are "estimates" but nowhere do they tell you what they based those estimates on. The article gives lots of numbers (including talking about "legal, safe abortions" in the Soviet Union, at the same time that they say that the biggest cause of the danger of illegal abortions in the U.S. was the fact that penicillin had yet to be developed. The Soviet Union did not have penicillin then either), but no source for any of them. I am supposed to take the word of a publication that thinks the Soviet Union under Stalin was a paradigm of women's rights? The article which is the source for your link goes into great detail about the horrors that women of color faced when they tried to get abortions...it sounds a lot like Dr. Gosnell's clinic.
It is not my problem if the wealthy do not choose to give to help those in need. I am not being charitable by sticking a gun in their face to take the money to give to the needy (which is really what taxing is). I do NOT believe that tax funded government assistance programs are effective (unless you mean at taking people's money and giving it to those who are politically connected), let alone being more effective than private ones. Basically, you think that you get to feel like you help the poor because you want to take other people's money to help them. That way, you don't have to bother to spend your own time and money figuring out what they need and help them get it. It is so much easier to just vote for the government to take other people's money and do something with it and count that as helping. You are right in one thing as a general rule, one person does not have enough money to pay for the kind of corruption that a government program can.
And the answer is, yes, I give a significant portion of what I earn to charity. The thing is that I DON't make assumptions about how other people use their money because it is THEIR money.
I am saying that people NEVER died from abortions on a massive scale and that they are STILL dying from abortions on the same scale that they always did. Legalizing abortions did nothing to reduce the dangers from abortions because those who are pro-choice oppose all attempts to regulate them. Dr. Gosnell only got stopped because one of his workers was selling prescription drugs on the side and the DEA raided his clinic. Those who were supposed to ensure that he was running a safe clinic were aware of the problems and refused to take any action until DEA agents, who were horrified by what they found, reported it to the press. How many other abortion clinics are just like Dr. Gosnell's clinic?
As to taxes, since you take the maximum deductions that you can, what you really mean is that you think other people should pay more taxes and you will take the risk that you will have to as well. Basically, you think that you, through the government, can make better use of my money than I can. I do not favor higher taxes because I believe that I can make better use of my money to help others than the government can. The fact of the matter is that I think that you can as well. Whether you choose to do so or not I will leave as up to you. I do not think that I have any right to force you to help others and since I think I, and you, can do a better job of helping those in need with our resources than the government can, I see no benefit to giving my money to the government in order for the bureaucrats to take a cut of money I would rather see help those in need.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Sandy covered an enormous amount of territory for a tropical storm/hurricane (something close to twice the area of the next largest major storm to make landfall in the U.S.), which is what made it a "super-storm". The fact that it hit New York only compounded that.
The thing I see in the summary, which seems to be different from what you are seeing, is that this is a story about someone trying to pretend to be autistic in order to cover for bad behavior. My experience is that people with autism are no more likely to behave badly than anybody else (in certain circumstances, they may be more likely to behave poorly but not badly). So, when this guy claims autism as a defense for his behavior it reflects doubly bad on him. First, he committed these acts. Then he attempts to excuse his behavior.
Actually, make that reflects triply bad on him. The third being that he thinks that autism would be an excuse for bad behavior.
The reason that this story has the reference to autism in it is because the accused is attempting to use his alleged autism (I am going to assume that he has an actual diagnosis, not that it means he is actually autistic) as an excuse for his crimes. This story is actually a perfect example of what is wrong with the way our society (in general) is approaching autism. It is viewed as something which makes one unable to tell right from wrong. I do not actually believe that this man has autism, although I think it likely that he was diagnosed with it. This article does a good job of explaining what I am talking about.
Just like with pesticides that are known to wipe out bees, nothing will be done about this problem either. The corporate lobbyists own too many of your politicians.
Except of course that the pesticides in question are not "known to wipe out bees." There are (recent) studies that suggest that they may contribute to Colony Collapse Disorder (something for which science has an alternate, proven, explanation, but which is serious enough to warrant continued examination of all potential causes). Does this mean they are safe to continue using without a care? No. What it does mean is that any use of them should be done with caution. The information I have seen is that these new findings about the pesticides in question suggest that commercial beekeepers should change some of their techniques (having to do with the way they get their hives ready for the first flowers of spring). There are further implications for how the pesticides are used, but the information about how the use should change is still sketchy.
The Girl Scouts of America were founded as a sister organization to Boy Scouts of America. That is, at one time they were two separate arms of the same organization (at least in a de facto sense if not a de jure one).
As a former user of marijuana, I would have to disagree with you. Marijuana has negative impact on cognitive functioning. My observation is that these effects diminish over time after ceasing to use it and are worse for those who start using it at younger ages. However, that does not mean that the government should regulate its usage. It just means that I think that it is a mistake to use it (but I think that people should be free to make mistakes). There are some positive effects from marijuana use as well and some people are better off for using it.
I did not mean that to come out as the putdown it sounded like. However, my point is that serial dramas have come and gone in TV history. The Sopranos just started the latest wave, they did not cause it.
I agree. I have found that the slashdot "group think" is very diverse. If you look at the comments on a controversial topic the nature of those comments tends to reflect which "side" got there first in numbers. However, there are times when both sides are well represented. The latter tends to happen when people on either side are making good points. When that happens those who agree with them spend their mod points modding up those posts and do not have any left to mod down the posts they disagree with.
Well, this is a problem I run into a lot. People forgetting that history did not start when they were born.
There may be more serial dramas on TV since the Sopranos than there was immediately preceding the Sopranos, but I do not perceive that there are any more than there were in the late 70s/early 80s (remember Dallas, Dynasty, etc?).
That was more or less what I was thinking. Did the various people associated with the article and making this post never hear of "The Elder Scrolls" games? Those are all rather open ended. Of course, on the other hand, they answered their own question when they compared the hype to "The Sopranos", as far as I can tell, "The Sopranos" changed nothing about television shows. "The Sopranos" was to TV shows what "The Godfather" was to movies, nothing more.
Thank you, I was wondering what this was about and now I know. I had never heard of either and now I understand both why I never heard of them and why they are on the front page of slashdot. The first part is because they are bad art, and very few of my friends like bad art. I know another way to spot bad art. It is when something is made for the purpose of being "art". Good art needs to be made for some purpose. It may be made to be decorative, or informative, or entertaining, or for numerous other reasons, but being "art" is not really a purpose.
Modern cars will not stall if your foot slips off the clutch pedal.
You have a car that automatically revs the engine for you when you release the clutch? That sounds dangerous.
So, you think it would be safer if they were using a paper map in that situation?
According to CURRENT estimates of how many polar bears there were 60 years ago there are more polar bears alive today than there were 60 years ago. It is not just a matter of a difference between 60 year old estimates and current estimates. It is current estimates of what the population was that says there are more polar bears today.
Actually, while they did say that collecting metadata did not constitute a search, they have never said that putting someone under surveillance was a search either. The police do not need a search warrant to follow you around. In 1979, when the Supreme Court made the ruling in question, the metadata available was no more thorough than a police officer could obtain by following you around. Since that time, things have changed significantly. If a lawyer argued the case correctly, they could convince the court that it could overturn the precedent without having to find that the original ruling was a mistake.
Oh, going straight for the "they're making us into communists!" scare? How about this: "finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" is a long way from "all economic activity is controlled by the government".
When the "greenhouse gas" you are trying to reduce the emissions of is CO2 than no there is no distance at all between "finding ways to reduce greenhose gas emissions" and "all economic activity is controlled by the government" because ALL economic activity generates CO2 (all human activity generates CO2).
And the people who are talking the most about the "loss of Arctic sea ice" want to adopt the economic system that created the situation in the Aral Sea.
And that would be ... the economic system where they ignore the long term environmental consequences of your actions in order to maximize short term gains?
That would be the economic system whereby all economic activity is controlled by the government.
And the people who are talking the most about the "loss of Arctic sea ice" want to adopt the economic system that created the situation in the Aral Sea.
Of course the problem with using polar bears as the measure is the fact that current estimates of polar bear population are massively higher than estimates for polar bear population in the 1950s. So, polar bear populations have RISEN over the last 60 years, yet global warming is threatening them with extinction?
I would have to do some research on the French government but the UK was heading in that direction until the British people had the sense to elect Margaret Thatcher.
You made the statement that you thought your taxes should be higher, so I assumed that you acted accordingly. So, yes, I guess I do make assumptions. I assume that people are not hypocrites until informed otherwise. At this point, I am beginning to think that you are a hypocrite, although you never quite come out and admit that you take all of the deductions you legally can, that seems to be what you are saying.
I missed your "statistics" on abortion. If you look, they are "estimates" but nowhere do they tell you what they based those estimates on. The article gives lots of numbers (including talking about "legal, safe abortions" in the Soviet Union, at the same time that they say that the biggest cause of the danger of illegal abortions in the U.S. was the fact that penicillin had yet to be developed. The Soviet Union did not have penicillin then either), but no source for any of them. I am supposed to take the word of a publication that thinks the Soviet Union under Stalin was a paradigm of women's rights? The article which is the source for your link goes into great detail about the horrors that women of color faced when they tried to get abortions...it sounds a lot like Dr. Gosnell's clinic.
It is not my problem if the wealthy do not choose to give to help those in need. I am not being charitable by sticking a gun in their face to take the money to give to the needy (which is really what taxing is). I do NOT believe that tax funded government assistance programs are effective (unless you mean at taking people's money and giving it to those who are politically connected), let alone being more effective than private ones. Basically, you think that you get to feel like you help the poor because you want to take other people's money to help them. That way, you don't have to bother to spend your own time and money figuring out what they need and help them get it. It is so much easier to just vote for the government to take other people's money and do something with it and count that as helping. You are right in one thing as a general rule, one person does not have enough money to pay for the kind of corruption that a government program can.
And the answer is, yes, I give a significant portion of what I earn to charity. The thing is that I DON't make assumptions about how other people use their money because it is THEIR money.
I am saying that people NEVER died from abortions on a massive scale and that they are STILL dying from abortions on the same scale that they always did. Legalizing abortions did nothing to reduce the dangers from abortions because those who are pro-choice oppose all attempts to regulate them. Dr. Gosnell only got stopped because one of his workers was selling prescription drugs on the side and the DEA raided his clinic. Those who were supposed to ensure that he was running a safe clinic were aware of the problems and refused to take any action until DEA agents, who were horrified by what they found, reported it to the press. How many other abortion clinics are just like Dr. Gosnell's clinic?
As to taxes, since you take the maximum deductions that you can, what you really mean is that you think other people should pay more taxes and you will take the risk that you will have to as well. Basically, you think that you, through the government, can make better use of my money than I can. I do not favor higher taxes because I believe that I can make better use of my money to help others than the government can. The fact of the matter is that I think that you can as well. Whether you choose to do so or not I will leave as up to you. I do not think that I have any right to force you to help others and since I think I, and you, can do a better job of helping those in need with our resources than the government can, I see no benefit to giving my money to the government in order for the bureaucrats to take a cut of money I would rather see help those in need.