It's exactly like the clock at work: it doesn't move for what feels like years, and when it does, it's only a little bit. Also, it's operated by Nobel laureates.
Fighting terrorists is like getting hit by a woman.
*slow clap* Bravo. You crammed enough misogyny and stupid into your first sentence to qualify for a cabinet position in the current administration. Or you're joking. Either way, keep posting. That was hilarious.
I can't see why the RIAA and MPAA bother going after the poor idiot who's sharing five songs from the new Brittany Spears album instead of going after the people like this who are actually making a profit violating someone else's copyright.
People who make a profit have the money to fight back. Casual infringers tend to be easily cowed into settling.
Please point out the reasonable Republicans. Moreover, please point out those "less government is better conservatives" who haven't spent the last 8 years supporting George W. Bush's rampant expansion of the federal government.
The goal of terrorism is to effect change in a society through fear. Every time you and your fraidy-cat buddies jumps because something reminds you of a crappy episode of 24 you give legitimacy to those tactics. Not only that, you encourage the subversion of the necessary civil liberties inherent to the United States by government forces. Instead of plotzing every time we see some unfamiliar blinkenlightz, we should be thinking about root causes. All the security in the world is not worth the price of my freedom. I'm surprised you don't feel the same way.
The parent poster links to a press release from Sen. James Inhofe. For an amusing take on the OP's "citation", read this. For a science-y take, read this. The money shot is that out of 528 papers (576 in the Deltoid search) in the Inhofe press release, only 3 reject the consensus. From the Deltoid article
The three that do reject the consensus are Gerhard, which was published in the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin; Shaviv arguing for cosmic rays, which doesn't explain how they could make a difference over the past 50 years when the cosmic rayflux hasn't changed over that period; and Zhen-Shan and Xian, which is just a rubbish paper that should not have been published. (What is the next number in this sequence? 60. Their answer is 60.)
You know what? "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean freedom from consequences. When you say something, you're not absolved from the feeling the results of your actions. You can feel free to use racial epithets in your everyday speech, or write Christ-based pornography, but don't expect people not to get outraged.
There is no "chilling effect" here. A very rich white guy used very poor judgment in verbally attacking some innocent women for nothing other than the fact that they were black women. He lost his job but gets to look forward to a comfortable retirement and lucrative speaking gigs. It would be different if he had been speaking some truth to power, but instead it was just a slur from a guy with a history of slurs.
Yeah, we can have a discourse about the awful misogyny in rap lyrics. That's a separate argument, though. And don't pretend that Sharpton hasn't stood up against violent rap lyrics. Google is your friend.
The NYT article doesn't even come close to calling it a "stinker". FTFA:
Fortunately none of this undercuts the inherent drama of the documentary, which suggests, in short, that all electronic voting machines may be riggable.
The WaPo article seems to focus more on style than substance:
The filmmakers also have chosen to make a TV documentary about one of the least telegenic subjects imaginable: software security flaws. To make their story more visual, and to humanize it, they've built their narrative around Bev Harris, a Seattle writer and gadfly who is convinced that electronic voting machines threaten the political process. Harris comes across as a zealot, imbued with the spirit of the righteous crusader, which is a nice way of saying she's a little hard to take.
Although there are apparently legitimate gripes substance-wise that the author has.
This is a classic non sequitor. "If people on the left are complaining & people on the right are complaining, I must be right in the middle!" That's absolutely not true. Modern "journalism" has declined to this point: present opposing viewpoints and call it balanced. Person A claims that magic leprachauns run the universe through elaborate dance rituals. Person B claims that the universe operates according to scientifically sound laws of physics. A "journalist" give them both equal room to speak and calls it balanced.
It's whether the complaints are valid or not. What is the substance of the complaints.
The "irreducability" argument is, to put it mildly, flawed. The argument goes something like this: ID Evangelist: Wow, the eye is really an amazing piece of work. In fact, it's so amazingly amazing that I can't think of a way that it could have evolved to this point. Ergo, someone must have designed it. The ID Evangelist takes a bow, walks off stage, and is hit by a bus that he failed to see
This is the true problem of injecting God (or the Divine) into science: Argument stops. No matter what happens, you can always say "God made it that way". It's the equivalent of saying that magical leprechauns run the universe, powering our brains with invisible strings and hiding our keys. There is no way to disprove it. Hence it fails to be science.
Why would you want to practice an "-ology" that had no (dis-)proveable tenants? You can't get anywhere. Science works because it is a free-flowing exchange of ideas, each of which (should be) proveable and testable.
Without testability, you wander into the lands of Faith and Belief. Those are nice lands, but wandering around in them is not going to make a n alternative-energy car, or a personal jet-pack.
Okay, show that they were Christian or some non-Deist religion. (you cannot prove that they weren't, since you can't prove a negative). I've shown you a link (albeit to aynrand.org *shudder*) that give examples of the Founding Fathers Deism/non-Christianity.
That all rights are created by God, are granted by Him, and that they are inalienable.
Um, why does this refute that they were deists? Keep in mind, that deism takes as a priori that God exists, and that the universe was created by Him.
The First Amendment removes the government's ability to control religion at all. It can't say ya or nay about anything, if you follow it as written.
Actually, America was founded on deist principles.
The First bloody Amendment gives freedom of religion and removes religion from government. I'd say that they had a Rationalist approach to principles, non?
This ties directly in to the Texas case (Santa Fe, I think). You may not have to recite the pledge (although in this case, I believe pledging was compulsory; please correct me if I'm wrong), but school property is being used to endorse a theistic viewpoint. Moreover, the message broadcast is that this is the position of the authorities.
What everyone must keep in mind is the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
I as an individual can profess my religious (non-)affiliations as much as I want. However, agents of the state cannot endorse or reject a religion while acting as said agents. Using school property to communicate a message with a distinctly theistic slant ("one nation, under God") is unconstitutional (again, see the Santa Fe v. Doe ruling). The state can't say one way or another about god (much in the way that Science should remain agnostic barring distinct evidence one way or another) unless it's in discussing religion in a neutral context. This doesn't mean that teachers can't pray, be religious, nor students; rather, you can't use public property or act on behalf of the government in a coercive way when doing it.
I bought a Honda Civic Hybrid and have already put 10k+ miles on it. It's an amazing vehicle. I get at least 40mpg (in Los Angeles on the surface streets). It has more power than my last car (toyota corolla). It's a little mushy off the line, but that's typically because the engine shuts off when you stop. Which is disturbing at first, but really cool once you get used to it.
In almost all respects, it's feels just like a car. The Prius feels different; it's cool but strange. The Civic has no real surprises.
The best thing about a Hybrid is that you are constantly watching your gas milage, and it becomes a game. And not supporting oil wars has its benefits as well.
Er, so because one person refuses treatment means treatment should not be available? So, if I refuse medical treatment, medical treatment should not be available for everyone?
I'm sorry that you have a crappy family situation, but one person does not a trend make. I would be willing to best that most homeless people are not homeless by choice. And I think that our failure to assist those that need the extra assistance is a sign of an unhealthy society.
As much as social Darwinists would like, socities are not put in place just so you can beat up on the weaker members. Socities are in place to give everyone a fair shot, create a sense of community, provide for the common good, and, yes, help out those people that are having trouble helping themselves.
If Johnny has had 100% attendance, and suddenly it drops to 50%, why wouldn't you want to call Johnny in and ask him if everything is ok?
Isn't this the job of the teacher? Isn't this database applying a technological solution to a social problem?
Data can be weird. Johnny could've had good reasons for changes in behavior. I don't want a school where behaviors are measured against some relatively arbitrary "norm".
We need more & better teachers -- make the classes nice & small, lead by competent, caring individuals who will notice behavioral changes and act accordingly. Don't waste money on a data collection system.
Slashdot Mirror
It's exactly like the clock at work: it doesn't move for what feels like years, and when it does, it's only a little bit. Also, it's operated by Nobel laureates.
Dunno why this made it on the front page of Slashdot. First off, it's old news.
Hi, you must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot: Today's News Sometime Next Week.
*slow clap*
Bravo. You crammed enough misogyny and stupid into your first sentence to qualify for a cabinet position in the current administration. Or you're joking. Either way, keep posting. That was hilarious.
People who make a profit have the money to fight back. Casual infringers tend to be easily cowed into settling.
It's called "irony". It comes in two flavors: delicious & bitter. This is delicious. Enjoy responsibly.
Please point out the reasonable Republicans. Moreover, please point out those "less government is better conservatives" who haven't spent the last 8 years supporting George W. Bush's rampant expansion of the federal government.
The goal of terrorism is to effect change in a society through fear. Every time you and your fraidy-cat buddies jumps because something reminds you of a crappy episode of 24 you give legitimacy to those tactics. Not only that, you encourage the subversion of the necessary civil liberties inherent to the United States by government forces. Instead of plotzing every time we see some unfamiliar blinkenlightz, we should be thinking about root causes. All the security in the world is not worth the price of my freedom. I'm surprised you don't feel the same way.
You know what? "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean freedom from consequences. When you say something, you're not absolved from the feeling the results of your actions. You can feel free to use racial epithets in your everyday speech, or write Christ-based pornography, but don't expect people not to get outraged.
There is no "chilling effect" here. A very rich white guy used very poor judgment in verbally attacking some innocent women for nothing other than the fact that they were black women. He lost his job but gets to look forward to a comfortable retirement and lucrative speaking gigs. It would be different if he had been speaking some truth to power, but instead it was just a slur from a guy with a history of slurs.
Yeah, we can have a discourse about the awful misogyny in rap lyrics. That's a separate argument, though. And don't pretend that Sharpton hasn't stood up against violent rap lyrics. Google is your friend.
I know what you mean. At one point, I wanted to be President of the United States...
The WaPo article seems to focus more on style than substance:
Although there are apparently legitimate gripes substance-wise that the author has.
This is a classic non sequitor. "If people on the left are complaining & people on the right are complaining, I must be right in the middle!" That's absolutely not true. Modern "journalism" has declined to this point: present opposing viewpoints and call it balanced. Person A claims that magic leprachauns run the universe through elaborate dance rituals. Person B claims that the universe operates according to scientifically sound laws of physics. A "journalist" give them both equal room to speak and calls it balanced.
It's whether the complaints are valid or not. What is the substance of the complaints.
The "irreducability" argument is, to put it mildly, flawed. The argument goes something like this:
ID Evangelist: Wow, the eye is really an amazing piece of work. In fact, it's so amazingly amazing that I can't think of a way that it could have evolved to this point. Ergo, someone must have designed it.
The ID Evangelist takes a bow, walks off stage, and is hit by a bus that he failed to see
This is the true problem of injecting God (or the Divine) into science: Argument stops. No matter what happens, you can always say "God made it that way". It's the equivalent of saying that magical leprechauns run the universe, powering our brains with invisible strings and hiding our keys. There is no way to disprove it. Hence it fails to be science.
Why would you want to practice an "-ology" that had no (dis-)proveable tenants? You can't get anywhere. Science works because it is a free-flowing exchange of ideas, each of which (should be) proveable and testable.
Without testability, you wander into the lands of Faith and Belief. Those are nice lands, but wandering around in them is not going to make a n alternative-energy car, or a personal jet-pack.
You have a +12 remote? Does that mean you only have to an 8 or better to hit a good show?
Someone please add the following to the fortune cookie file:
"The world would be a more boring place without William Shatner." - dswensen (slashdot)
This might be the most profound thing I have ever read on slashdot.
True, but Microsoft doesn't make Dell computers, does it?
Okay, show that they were Christian or some non-Deist religion. (you cannot prove that they weren't, since you can't prove a negative). I've shown you a link (albeit to aynrand.org *shudder*) that give examples of the Founding Fathers Deism/non-Christianity.
Um, why does this refute that they were deists? Keep in mind, that deism takes as a priori that God exists, and that the universe was created by Him.
I agree with you 100% on this.
Actually, America was founded on deist principles.
The First bloody Amendment gives freedom of religion and removes religion from government. I'd say that they had a Rationalist approach to principles, non?
What everyone must keep in mind is the First Amendment:
I as an individual can profess my religious (non-)affiliations as much as I want. However, agents of the state cannot endorse or reject a religion while acting as said agents. Using school property to communicate a message with a distinctly theistic slant ("one nation, under God") is unconstitutional (again, see the Santa Fe v. Doe ruling). The state can't say one way or another about god (much in the way that Science should remain agnostic barring distinct evidence one way or another) unless it's in discussing religion in a neutral context. This doesn't mean that teachers can't pray, be religious, nor students; rather, you can't use public property or act on behalf of the government in a coercive way when doing it.
That was a valid lawsuit, and had nothing to do with being a dumbass:t m
http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.h
But this is a review of the Treo 600...
I bought a Honda Civic Hybrid and have already put 10k+ miles on it. It's an amazing vehicle. I get at least 40mpg (in Los Angeles on the surface streets). It has more power than my last car (toyota corolla). It's a little mushy off the line, but that's typically because the engine shuts off when you stop. Which is disturbing at first, but really cool once you get used to it.
In almost all respects, it's feels just like a car. The Prius feels different; it's cool but strange. The Civic has no real surprises.
The best thing about a Hybrid is that you are constantly watching your gas milage, and it becomes a game. And not supporting oil wars has its benefits as well.
I love the Civic Hybrind and highly recommend it!
Er, so because one person refuses treatment means treatment should not be available? So, if I refuse medical treatment, medical treatment should not be available for everyone?
I'm sorry that you have a crappy family situation, but one person does not a trend make. I would be willing to best that most homeless people are not homeless by choice. And I think that our failure to assist those that need the extra assistance is a sign of an unhealthy society.
As much as social Darwinists would like, socities are not put in place just so you can beat up on the weaker members. Socities are in place to give everyone a fair shot, create a sense of community, provide for the common good, and, yes, help out those people that are having trouble helping themselves.
unfortunately, it's not on their site any more. It was titled: "Terrorism 'Not Likely' Cause Of Fire At Local Laundromat".
I like how everything links back to terrorism. It's really a rational approach to news reporting.
Isn't this the job of the teacher? Isn't this database applying a technological solution to a social problem?
Data can be weird. Johnny could've had good reasons for changes in behavior. I don't want a school where behaviors are measured against some relatively arbitrary "norm".
We need more & better teachers -- make the classes nice & small, lead by competent, caring individuals who will notice behavioral changes and act accordingly. Don't waste money on a data collection system.