There's at least one more corporate news outlet that's conspicuously absent from your list.
Are you subtly implying that Rupert Murdoch hews to fact better than Time Warner, General Electric & Microsoft, Westinghouse, and Disney?
All of them are similar. - their business is not to produce news, and the viewers are not their customers. "News" is just a tool to attract viewers, and viewers are just another product they sell.
"Past attempts... have failed because the enzymes have required acidic conditions" Maybe it would work with fatty acids. We could install permanent liposuction ports to our bellies and recharge our cell phones on the go.
> if someone out there could suggest some way I might stop my self from all this Goddamn swearing 1) Don't forbid yourself from thinking whatever you want to think. 2) Don't forbid yourself from expressing whatever you want to express. 3) Define words for yourself as "phonic constructions that generally denote and connote the same thing to most of a community." 4) Profit! You'll never swear again, because there will be no such thing as swearing.
There is only a continuing quest to accurately translate your thoughts to words that listeners will themselves translate to the thoughts you wished to transmit.
Can somebody even define what separates swear words from acceptable words? In learning a couple foreign languages, I had to be often corrected when a word I picked up turned out to be on a community's do-not-utter list.
> egotistical intellectuals, who mistakenly think they understand > the real world.
You want national leaders with no ego? Lose your own, then run for office.
And if intellectuals bother you, you're in the wrong place.
As to "mistakenly thinking they understand the real world", how do you know you understand it better? Do you have broader experience? A better advisory staff? More resources? Greater access to NASA?
I agree with you on the X-Prize approach. You have good points in there, but they can get drowned in the ranting and hyperbole.
> meaning often pools in a key word or two It's true.
My own hearing is not great. I often miss just a word or two in a sentence. But they are often key words, and missing them leaves the sentence meaningless. If I counted the words I understand correctly I'd probably have a 95% success rate. But if I counted the sentences I understand correctly, I'd be around 80%. So I get by, but I tend to annoy people when I ask for repeats over one missed word.
> it seems like u.s. justice system is so fucked up. It probably is. But your post here, vastly understating murder sentences and exaggerating obstruction charges, is a good example of how twisted and oblivious to reality the American mind can be. And, since people like you often vote, we don't really have to look that far to see why the "system is so fucked up".
> it's a contract, and contracts require all parties to agree to it
Yeah... no. Not really.
Most "contracts" for services include a clause like "We, The Company, can unilaterally change the terms of this contract at our whim. You should frequently check the following URL to see what the terms are on any given day."
With often arcane laws, with evidence not allowed, and with sophist lawyers (who may or may not understand the context) running the show, I can't imagine how any jury in any case could ever get a clear picture of what really happened.
> had Pfizer pay a massive fine as a penalty for their offense Massive to you and me. FTA: "In all, Pfizer lost the equivalent of three months' profit."
> DoJ decided that... pnealty was disproportionate > punishment given the nature if the offense No, DoJ decided the punishment prescribed by the law would devastate innocent people. The punishment to the corporation itself was very appropriate for the crimes.
> Shouldn't we be encouraged when prosecutors... take into account... the consequences of what they do I think our discouragement is less about prosecutors' ethics, and more about their impotence.
> It's a privacy-vs-justice tradeoff I'm willing to make.
Trade-off? Justice and Privacy are not opposites any more than obesity and amputation are. All you'll be trading is a reassuring illusion of efficiency for a reality of freedom lost by a thousand cuts such as this.
Yes, I can. I can also choose to live outside tornado alley, or away from the San Andreas fault, or inside a gated community.
But it's naive to think everybody in America has the same options as the average slashdotter. Many of the people who "chose" not to leave NOLA in the time leading up to Katrina couldn't. Some didn't have money for bus tickets, or a way to transport a bed-ridden family member. Disregard them if it lets you sleep better, but those are facts.
People don't "choose" to live in trailer parks or crime-ridden neighborhoods or their car purely out of foolishness; people with less money have fewer options. Blame them for their "choices" if you want, but if they could afford a safer place they'd choose it.
In any natural disaster, the poor will be disproportionately affected. It's just a market reality.
> a few tens of thousands who chose to live below sea level
Your casting this as innocent vs willing is completely ignorant. Why don't those, "um, 100 million people" whom you more sympathize with just "choose" to live off the grid? Problem solved.
Before taking it international, I recommend you cut your teeth on a more modest goal. You might start by introducing tolerance, respect and understanding among more geographically united people that already speak a common language, say, on the message boards of Yahoo or youTube.
My first reaction was that this was a great idea, to let disparate peoples meet and try to understand each other.
But now I see you're right - after meeting our teabaggers and treehuggers all they'll walk away with is that americans are generally barbaric assholes and ignorant wimps.
Make sure you include some kind of tuner, because I don't want to have to see Radio Disney nor the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. But full-body scans at the airport might be a fun channel - those x-ray glasses I ordered when I was 12 didn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure Arizona thought this through - the little buggers are expensive to deport.
There's at least one more corporate news outlet that's conspicuously absent from your list.
Are you subtly implying that Rupert Murdoch hews to fact better than Time Warner, General Electric & Microsoft, Westinghouse, and Disney?
All of them are similar. - their business is not to produce news, and the viewers are not their customers. "News" is just a tool to attract viewers, and viewers are just another product they sell.
True. In particular, somebody googling to confirm what they already believe will find what they want to find.
But I think the parent's point is that those interested in learning facts don't really have to work all that hard.
Internet or not, seekers of reality need the savvy to recognize bullshit and bias.
> the common person can now find proof ... with a single Google search.
True, true true.
If only the common person favored favored facts over beliefs.
"Past attempts ... have failed because the enzymes have required acidic conditions"
Maybe it would work with fatty acids. We could install permanent liposuction ports to our bellies and recharge our cell phones on the go.
Please refresh my memory - how did they build Stonehenge? The great pyramids? Lightsabers?
> if someone out there could suggest some way I might stop my self from all this Goddamn swearing
1) Don't forbid yourself from thinking whatever you want to think.
2) Don't forbid yourself from expressing whatever you want to express.
3) Define words for yourself as "phonic constructions that generally denote and connote the same thing to most of a community."
4) Profit! You'll never swear again, because there will be no such thing as swearing.
There is only a continuing quest to accurately translate your thoughts to words that listeners will themselves translate to the thoughts you wished to transmit.
You're right, that is funny in it's irony.
But I think the English teacher in question would be of the philosophy that language usage is correct if it has the intended effect on its audience.
Can somebody even define what separates swear words from acceptable words? In learning a couple foreign languages, I had to be often corrected when a word I picked up turned out to be on a community's do-not-utter list.
> egotistical intellectuals, who mistakenly think they understand
> the real world.
You want national leaders with no ego? Lose your own, then run for office.
And if intellectuals bother you, you're in the wrong place.
As to "mistakenly thinking they understand the real world", how do you know you understand it better? Do you have broader experience? A better advisory staff? More resources? Greater access to NASA?
I agree with you on the X-Prize approach. You have good points in there, but they can get drowned in the ranting and hyperbole.
> meaning often pools in a key word or two
It's true.
My own hearing is not great. I often miss just a word or two in a sentence. But they are often key words, and missing them leaves the sentence meaningless. If I counted the words I understand correctly I'd probably have a 95% success rate. But if I counted the sentences I understand correctly, I'd be around 80%. So I get by, but I tend to annoy people when I ask for repeats over one missed word.
> it seems like u.s. justice system is so fucked up.
It probably is. But your post here, vastly understating murder sentences and exaggerating obstruction charges, is a good example of how twisted and oblivious to reality the American mind can be. And, since people like you often vote, we don't really have to look that far to see why the "system is so fucked up".
Identity theft? I'm not sure how much it would bother me if Sarah Palin really did lose her identity.
> it's a contract, and contracts require all parties to agree to it
Yeah... no. Not really.
Most "contracts" for services include a clause like "We, The Company, can unilaterally change the terms of this contract at our whim. You should frequently check the following URL to see what the terms are on any given day."
Mod parent up.
With often arcane laws, with evidence not allowed, and with sophist lawyers (who may or may not understand the context) running the show, I can't imagine how any jury in any case could ever get a clear picture of what really happened.
That's really interesting, I had no idea of that.
But after reading that article, the title seems misleading. What was studied was contamination of the soil around the power plants.
That is not the same as comparing radiation levels of fly ash and nuclear waste.
Numberous aviation accidents between the years 1905 and 2009 may indicate the FAA is not doing it's job, either.
> had Pfizer pay a massive fine as a penalty for their offense
Massive to you and me. FTA: "In all, Pfizer lost the equivalent of three months' profit."
> DoJ decided that... pnealty was disproportionate
> punishment given the nature if the offense
No, DoJ decided the punishment prescribed by the law would devastate innocent people. The punishment to the corporation itself was very appropriate for the crimes.
> Shouldn't we be encouraged when prosecutors... take into account ... the consequences of what they do
I think our discouragement is less about prosecutors' ethics, and more about their impotence.
> ... they have every right to reprimand her for
> making the emails regardless of the content.
Ok. But if what she did was wrong "regardless of the content", why did the employer have to read them?
> It's a privacy-vs-justice tradeoff I'm willing to make.
Trade-off? Justice and Privacy are not opposites any more than obesity and amputation are. All you'll be trading is a reassuring illusion of efficiency for a reality of freedom lost by a thousand cuts such as this.
Yes, I can. I can also choose to live outside tornado alley, or away from the San Andreas fault, or inside a gated community.
But it's naive to think everybody in America has the same options as the average slashdotter. Many of the people who "chose" not to leave NOLA in the time leading up to Katrina couldn't. Some didn't have money for bus tickets, or a way to transport a bed-ridden family member. Disregard them if it lets you sleep better, but those are facts.
People don't "choose" to live in trailer parks or crime-ridden neighborhoods or their car purely out of foolishness; people with less money have fewer options. Blame them for their "choices" if you want, but if they could afford a safer place they'd choose it.
In any natural disaster, the poor will be disproportionately affected. It's just a market reality.
> a few tens of thousands who chose to live below sea level
Your casting this as innocent vs willing is completely ignorant. Why don't those, "um, 100 million people" whom you more sympathize with just "choose" to live off the grid? Problem solved.
That's a beautiful idea.
Before taking it international, I recommend you cut your teeth on a more modest goal. You might start by introducing tolerance, respect and understanding among more geographically united people that already speak a common language, say, on the message boards of Yahoo or youTube.
My first reaction was that this was a great idea, to let disparate peoples meet and try to understand each other.
But now I see you're right - after meeting our teabaggers and treehuggers all they'll walk away with is that americans are generally barbaric assholes and ignorant wimps.
Make sure you include some kind of tuner, because I don't want to have to see Radio Disney nor the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. But full-body scans at the airport might be a fun channel - those x-ray glasses I ordered when I was 12 didn't work.