For one thing, we do. If everyone researched only the most pressing and urgent medical issues though, two things would happen. One: more wasted effort as multiple labs would be researching each subject. Splitting up ensures more ground covered in shorter time. Two: potential dead ends. We might not yet know enough to cure AIDS or cancer. A breakthrough in baldness research might potentially help us stumble onto a vital clue that we then later use to cure cancer. In researching it, it's possible we'll discover something new about endocrinology and the uptake of hormones that will be relevant to another disease that is affected by hormone uptake, such as breast or testicular cancer. If we only do direct investigations of cancer though, we wouldn't find it.
I take it the neocons and confused Republicans are out in full force modding today.
Yeah, and I recently got modded down for mentioning something the Paulites didn't like. I haven't gotten mod points in months. CONSPIRACY! An anti-left conspiracy!
It's such an impossible job that every country in the world is just a big a failure as the US in teaching math??
I wasn't making excuses for our teachers, I was saying let's not act as if they're doing an easy job poorly. These are people who are doing a very tough job for little pay.
Not saying treat them as saints or accept poor performance, but don't call them bozos or dumb. Save that scorn for people like Keanu Reeves, or the CEO of AIG, who get paid thousands of times a teacher's salary, for a job that is a thousand times easier, which they do a thousand times worse.
It's that our nation's schools are run by a bunch of bozos who pay teachers on the basis of seniority instead of performance, bozos who disparage being elite academically, but celebrate athletic elitism, and frankly that among the ranks of our teachers are some of the dumbest people in our society.
You know, it's a pretty daunting task to me personally to teach even one child for a year. Teaching 20 kids, even if they were synchronized in their abilities and even if they were perfectly obedient, would be even tougher.
But of course, every kid is different. Making sure all 20 kids are learning up to his potential in even one subject area for one hour a day, without leaving the dumb ones in the dust or leaving the smart ones bored... I think pretty highly of myself, but I know that's far beyond me. A little respect for people who are tasked with doing what is essentially AN IMPOSSIBLE JOB is due.
I am so glad they came up with a new gecko adhesive. I haven't had good results nailing my geckos down, they eat the tape, and the natural gecko adhesive just doesn't cut it.
It actually looks like you just got the overrated mod AKA "I disagree with you," not troll.
That's what you get when you post -in support of a teleco -against linux -in support of microsoft -against Ron Paul or libertarianism -in support of America -in support of any given government
In response to your original overrated comment, I've only read the summary, but this didn't exactly sound like big government stepping on small buisness. It sounds more likely that the people of monticello didn't consider what was being offered a viable option and decided they could do things better, challenging a monopoly and provoking it's wrath. Which then turned out to be laughable.
I call bullshit, unless you provide a damn good reason why clandestine electronic eavesdropping on DWB prevents them from doing their work.
I'll give you three
1. Anyone paying attention knows that the US is not always the good guy overseas these days. Say for example they are trying to save some innocent civilians which the US is trying to kill, the NSA tapping their phone lines would compromise that.
2. What they do is stressful work, if they can't relax with some phone sex because they know they're being listened in on, they might be too stressed to do their good work.
3. Provide me with a damn good reason why the NSA needs to be eavesdropping on DWB or else fuck off, Nutria.... I guess that last one wasn't really what you were asking for, in a literal sense anyway.
NSA awarded Adrienne Kinne a NSA Joint Service Achievement Medal in 2003 at the same time she says she was listening to hundreds of private conversations between Americans, including many from the International Red Cross and Doctors without Borders.
"We knew they were working for these aid organizations," Kinne told ABC News. "They were identified in our systems as 'belongs to the International Red Cross' and all these other organizations. And yet, instead of blocking these phone numbers we continued to collect on them," she told ABC News.
That wouldn't have helped. The NSA continued to listen in even after they realized it was the case. Common sense would dictate that while it might be impossible to never listen in on a US person's phone calls, you would not continually do it. Yet the NSA did.
When working in the dynamic environment of an operations theater, it's difficult to make distinctions about what traffic should be monitored and when. That is not to say that US Persons [wikipedia.org] should continue to be collected on after their status is known, even under these circumstances.
One wonders why Bush bothered to pledge that US citizens would never be spied on in the first place. It certainly sounds like something that's impossible to know until afterward. Did he intentionally lie to try to get us to forget about it, did he mean "intentionally," or did he just not realize how it worked?
Would someone explain to me how that was trolling? Why are the Ron Paulites STILL rabidly defending their candidate and making up excuses as to why he lost, rather than using the off season to convince people of his issues. He had valid points, if the grassroots campaign would stick together and try to get the message out, I think libertarianism could become something that people think about. The next Ron Paul wouldn't have such a hard time getting airtime.
In all honesty, can someone please explain how this could even remotely be true? Aren't these planes flying around at all altitudes with a multitude of radio wave radiation from an untold number of sources, both human and naturally occurring?
Design flaw. Not saying that's how it is, but it doesn't seem impossible that this plane was poorly designed.
A more likely possibility: the plane failed randomly, and scapegoating something was a more attractive alternative than saying "we have no idea why our plane failed, it could be anything really, maybe they all will fall."
I have little doubt that it was only the lack of exposure in, and distortion by, the old media that is responsible for his continued marginalization.
Why exactly do you have little doubt about that? You said he had broad appeal, yet the fact that he was unable to secure a nomination indicates that it wasn't broad enough with republicans, and he at least seemed to think he didn't have enough broad appeal to have a legitimate shot as a 3rd party candidate.
He raised a lot of money, so did Dean. Went nowhere. I think the people who agreed with him REALLY agreed with him, but that doesn't translate into most of the voting public agreeing at all with him.
His message may be old, and I think you're saying that if he had been given a fair shot it therefore would have worked again, I see no proof of that.
I see no reason why his message was so repugnant to the mainstream media that they had a conspiracy to ignore him.
I also don't see any evidence that the media is as effective at setting our politics as you're saying. Right now, for example, the media isn't really reporting on anything besides Sarah Palin, yet Obama is gaining ground, not losing.
And how does one convince them if they don't hear the arguments? Since the message is very convincing WHEN IT'S DELIVERED, it's specifically "being ignored (or distorted and libeled) by the media" that is the missing link.
You're really taking it for granted that his message is compelling to everyone rather than just a small group of people. Ron Paul's particular brand of it may have been novel, but libertarianism has been around for a long time and yet has not been much of a political force. It seems to me that most people really don't care about libertarianism, and not because the media isn't talking about it.
Slashdot Mirror
It has the makings of a civil war.
Woo Hoo! The US army still fights with bayonets and muskets, right?
For one thing, we do. If everyone researched only the most pressing and urgent medical issues though, two things would happen. One: more wasted effort as multiple labs would be researching each subject. Splitting up ensures more ground covered in shorter time. Two: potential dead ends. We might not yet know enough to cure AIDS or cancer. A breakthrough in baldness research might potentially help us stumble onto a vital clue that we then later use to cure cancer. In researching it, it's possible we'll discover something new about endocrinology and the uptake of hormones that will be relevant to another disease that is affected by hormone uptake, such as breast or testicular cancer. If we only do direct investigations of cancer though, we wouldn't find it.
As a young earth creationist, I'm offended and also confused by all those words.
I take it the neocons and confused Republicans are out in full force modding today.
Yeah, and I recently got modded down for mentioning something the Paulites didn't like. I haven't gotten mod points in months. CONSPIRACY! An anti-left conspiracy!
What do they teach kids in schools these days.
Obviously not enough about punctuation or weapons of mass destruction.
It wouldn't make much difference. A car that doesn't work and a car driven by your average Kansan both move at about the same speed.
Just more terrorism from those we pay taxes to.
It's a trick! He's from the USSR, just trying to get us to stop paying our taxes, THEN the commies will win!
And stress doesn't cause technology, we do.
I may not have "fixed" that for you, but it's true when you think about it...
OK. Lets STOP accepting poor performance from teachers.
I just have to point out I WASN'T DOING THAT.
It's such an impossible job that every country in the world is just a big a failure as the US in teaching math??
I wasn't making excuses for our teachers, I was saying let's not act as if they're doing an easy job poorly. These are people who are doing a very tough job for little pay.
Not saying treat them as saints or accept poor performance, but don't call them bozos or dumb. Save that scorn for people like Keanu Reeves, or the CEO of AIG, who get paid thousands of times a teacher's salary, for a job that is a thousand times easier, which they do a thousand times worse.
It's that our nation's schools are run by a bunch of bozos who pay teachers on the basis of seniority instead of performance, bozos who disparage being elite academically, but celebrate athletic elitism, and frankly that among the ranks of our teachers are some of the dumbest people in our society.
You know, it's a pretty daunting task to me personally to teach even one child for a year. Teaching 20 kids, even if they were synchronized in their abilities and even if they were perfectly obedient, would be even tougher.
But of course, every kid is different. Making sure all 20 kids are learning up to his potential in even one subject area for one hour a day, without leaving the dumb ones in the dust or leaving the smart ones bored... I think pretty highly of myself, but I know that's far beyond me. A little respect for people who are tasked with doing what is essentially AN IMPOSSIBLE JOB is due.
There are probably a few more uses for it than using a small pad to blue a book to a wall and to be spiderman. Don't be so obtuse.
I am so glad they came up with a new gecko adhesive. I haven't had good results nailing my geckos down, they eat the tape, and the natural gecko adhesive just doesn't cut it.
It actually looks like you just got the overrated mod AKA "I disagree with you," not troll.
That's what you get when you post
-in support of a teleco
-against linux
-in support of microsoft
-against Ron Paul or libertarianism
-in support of America
-in support of any given government
In response to your original overrated comment, I've only read the summary, but this didn't exactly sound like big government stepping on small buisness. It sounds more likely that the people of monticello didn't consider what was being offered a viable option and decided they could do things better, challenging a monopoly and provoking it's wrath. Which then turned out to be laughable.
The pointlessness of a two-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Yes, the pointlessness of a system which has worked so far throughout American history.
I call bullshit, unless you provide a damn good reason why clandestine electronic eavesdropping on DWB prevents them from doing their work.
I'll give you three
1. Anyone paying attention knows that the US is not always the good guy overseas these days. Say for example they are trying to save some innocent civilians which the US is trying to kill, the NSA tapping their phone lines would compromise that.
2. What they do is stressful work, if they can't relax with some phone sex because they know they're being listened in on, they might be too stressed to do their good work.
3. Provide me with a damn good reason why the NSA needs to be eavesdropping on DWB or else fuck off, Nutria. ... I guess that last one wasn't really what you were asking for, in a literal sense anyway.
FTFA:
NSA awarded Adrienne Kinne a NSA Joint Service Achievement Medal in 2003 at the same time she says she was listening to hundreds of private conversations between Americans, including many from the International Red Cross and Doctors without Borders.
"We knew they were working for these aid organizations," Kinne told ABC News. "They were identified in our systems as 'belongs to the International Red Cross' and all these other organizations. And yet, instead of blocking these phone numbers we continued to collect on them," she told ABC News.
That wouldn't have helped. The NSA continued to listen in even after they realized it was the case. Common sense would dictate that while it might be impossible to never listen in on a US person's phone calls, you would not continually do it. Yet the NSA did.
When working in the dynamic environment of an operations theater, it's difficult to make distinctions about what traffic should be monitored and when. That is not to say that US Persons [wikipedia.org] should continue to be collected on after their status is known, even under these circumstances.
One wonders why Bush bothered to pledge that US citizens would never be spied on in the first place. It certainly sounds like something that's impossible to know until afterward. Did he intentionally lie to try to get us to forget about it, did he mean "intentionally," or did he just not realize how it worked?
...which will really help out the lawsuit that he's going to file.
Oh please, "insightful?" When did that start meaning the same thing as "so cynical as to be delusional."
Would someone explain to me how that was trolling? Why are the Ron Paulites STILL rabidly defending their candidate and making up excuses as to why he lost, rather than using the off season to convince people of his issues. He had valid points, if the grassroots campaign would stick together and try to get the message out, I think libertarianism could become something that people think about. The next Ron Paul wouldn't have such a hard time getting airtime.
You become a creationist and buy another copy of windows.
I can't believe it! Do you? *gasps*
By definition, no one can. If I could believe it, it wouldn't be "unbelievably big."
In all honesty, can someone please explain how this could even remotely be true? Aren't these planes flying around at all altitudes with a multitude of radio wave radiation from an untold number of sources, both human and naturally occurring?
Design flaw. Not saying that's how it is, but it doesn't seem impossible that this plane was poorly designed.
A more likely possibility: the plane failed randomly, and scapegoating something was a more attractive alternative than saying "we have no idea why our plane failed, it could be anything really, maybe they all will fall."
I have little doubt that it was only the lack of exposure in, and distortion by, the old media that is responsible for his continued marginalization.
Why exactly do you have little doubt about that? You said he had broad appeal, yet the fact that he was unable to secure a nomination indicates that it wasn't broad enough with republicans, and he at least seemed to think he didn't have enough broad appeal to have a legitimate shot as a 3rd party candidate.
He raised a lot of money, so did Dean. Went nowhere. I think the people who agreed with him REALLY agreed with him, but that doesn't translate into most of the voting public agreeing at all with him.
His message may be old, and I think you're saying that if he had been given a fair shot it therefore would have worked again, I see no proof of that.
I see no reason why his message was so repugnant to the mainstream media that they had a conspiracy to ignore him.
I also don't see any evidence that the media is as effective at setting our politics as you're saying. Right now, for example, the media isn't really reporting on anything besides Sarah Palin, yet Obama is gaining ground, not losing.
And how does one convince them if they don't hear the arguments? Since the message is very convincing WHEN IT'S DELIVERED, it's specifically "being ignored (or distorted and libeled) by the media" that is the missing link.
You're really taking it for granted that his message is compelling to everyone rather than just a small group of people. Ron Paul's particular brand of it may have been novel, but libertarianism has been around for a long time and yet has not been much of a political force. It seems to me that most people really don't care about libertarianism, and not because the media isn't talking about it.