No matter how badly you disagree with Bush's policies and actions, he doesn't compare to the Nazis.
What is your metric? Dead people? Deceit? Number of people tortured? You can always compare, using < =, or >. If you don't mind providing numbers, you would be doing us all a favor. Maybe a table: dead people Bush v. Nazis. Tortured Bush v. Nazis. Lies Bush v. Nazis. Heck, you could get creative. Try to be fair, though. I mean, if you break down types of killing, make sure you have a summary row for all dead people. Something like dead from bombs Bush v. Nazis, etc. I just thought of one: maimed Bush v. Nazis. Oh yes, then their is Monetary Cost of War Bush v. Nazis (don't forget to adjust for inflation!). I'm not saying you are right or wrong or making any predictions about the numbers, I'm just asking you to provide some concrete evidence for what you are saying--otherwise you just look ignorant and opinionated and need to STFU.
The reason for secrecy here could be to review Bush administration actions without risk of revealing those actions to the public. Of course we would all like to know who as been spied on and why, but it may not be legal for congress to reveal those things in an open session. However, congress's being properly informed about any wrongdoing may supersede our desire (or right, if you insist) to observe their their session. So, in terms of their future decisions concerning FISA, a closed session may be the best option considering that many legislators would not become properly informed of wrongdoing otherwise.
I bill $130 an hour. How many hours would it take to be as proficient in Open Office as I am in Word, or better yet Excel, I wonder?
If you are smart enough to bill at $130/hr and provide consummate value back to your customer, then you could probably pick up OO in about 5 minutes. If you are actually smart enough to need features that differ between the two, then it will take you about 5 minutes to learn where those features are in the OO suite (given your higher intelligence). If you are so dumb that you are confused by differently shaped buttons, then you won't have need for any use beyond the most basic text-editing abilities, so it will take you 5 minutes to learn all the features you are capable of using. So, about 5 minutes no matter what.
In my experience, it works just like MS Office--hey, but maybe I'm a genius so things come easy to me. I can never tell the cases where I am brilliant or where other people are just plain stupid.
Also, you will have to get over the "but I didn't pay for it so it must suck" barrier. This will take the average person approximately 16 years, depending on intelligence. Very, very smart people don't have this barrier, so you may be able to ignore it. If you are one of these complete retards that somehow equate OSS with communism, then you should find some way to remove yourself from the gene pool or, alternatively, pick up a basic primer on Sociological Theory.
"Radio" and light are fundamentally the same, the only difference is their location in the electromagnetic spectrum. More relevant might be "in what range of the electromagnetic spectrum do organisms use for communication (with other organisms)".
Since the device presumably requires contact with a person to use, this should effectively eliminate annoying background noises from public places, busses, etc., and it would also eliminate the echo effect that some headsets have (where you can hear yourself echoed in your own earplug). In fact, using these with normal talking should work just as well so you could reap these benefits without training. Now--if they could make a decent earplug with good volume and sound reproduction, we'd be all set.
If I yell "fire!" and cause a panic, I could/should be prosecuted for that panic and the damage it causes. If nothing happens, then I should not be prosecuted at all. In neither case should my freedom of speech enter into it.
Bad logic. Note that in yelling "fire!", the criminality is in the risk the action poses, not in what happens afterward. You can also be responsible for what happens afterward, but that is another issue. If there is no direct cause-effect risk in speech, it should be protected (outside of slander and libel, of course).
Of course the site certainly could be used to shine a positive spotlight on the great officers we also have.
Seize the day. It looks like you have an idea, now run with it and make a site yourself. Also, don't forget to appreciate that other people want to make the kind of sites they want. Its called freedom, and we are fighting for freedom all around the world, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, etc. Freedom and democracy baby!
Actually, Islam is the only major religion who has flown planes into buildings, posted videos of beheadings, preaches that the penalty for leaving the religion is death and is responsible for really REALLY close to 100% of terrorist attacks around the world (Not just the US, but all over the world). So, yeah. I think they deserve an honorary mention on this one.
You really should stop making these kinds of post-hoc generalizations. Yes, the people who flew the planes into the buildings are thought to be Muslim, but the religion of Islam did not officially sanction the attack. This is like saying that Tim McVeigh's religion sanctioned the Oklahoma bombing. A lot of bombing and mayhem goes on in this world. For instance, USA continues violent attacks all over the world. We do not call it terrorism and the attacks by the USA are organized by the US government and not by Christianity, which is the USA's most practiced religion.
More important and dangerous than the logical flaws in your rant is the fact that your comments perpetuate an unnecessary bigotry against a peaceful and established religious practice. Though you may be intelligent enough to understand that most Muslims are non-violent practitioners of their chosen religion, most non-Muslims do not possess this sort of intelligence. Consequently, the US government and other belligerent governments around the world (e.g. UK) use the hatred and fear-mongering you have demonstrated above to persuade the ignorant masses into spending fortunes on war and commit grave crimes against humanity.
Please be more careful and do not spread religious hatred.
Dipshit: I was talking about the phrase and not the language.
Does the queen make you where tight underwear? Because I get hit with some serious uptight British, I mean English, shit every time I even mention that cold rainy little Island--even in the most benign ways (mods: read thread).
decision workshopping with regard to procurement of necessary infrastructure precludes the detail assessment quid-pro-quo with regard to non-executive decision makers
Case in point: someone modded you +4 insightful. You're right yet again. And they wonder why the PHB's rule the day.
But with the new MacBook Air, I don't need to bludgeon my trout anymore.
Smack smack smack smack smack smack, tick tick tick. Pop pop (ooooooo smack tick smack).
I can just pluck it out of the water with my newly developed mind powers and have it baked with a side of waterfowl before it even hits the ground. Yummers, pyrokineticly cooked duck! Thanks MacBook Air!
Smack tick smack tick ooooo smack, smack smack tick tick k k k k k k k k k. Smack tick smack tick smack? Kgggg!!!
"Cue up" doesn't make any sense grammatically, as "up" implies a direction. The examples you choose never call for a preposition. When have you ever heard the phrase "signal up". Perhaps "spark up" might be similar, but I think that is stretching it a bit.
In USA, we say "line up" which would agree well with the British "queue up". I work with so many international people, that sometimes I say "queue" instead of "line" by accident. So, since I feel like "queue" is part of my working lexicon, I can say with confidence that "queue up" is very natural, while "cue up" is not.
That is what they are trying to do. They are going one step further also in saying that everyone else should do the same, like you are saying they should do--so you agree with them.
Your last argument is a strawman, and you know it....If he looks like me, fucks like me, he probably is me...
Um, what is the rhetorical term for what you have done here? Fucking would not be part of the identification process, so you have shot down a strawman with a foam bullet, or something like that. I'm a scientist and not a debater, so I don't know all of the terms for rhetoric, but I can spot bullshit when I see it.
I think what we are witnessing here is completely staged-sort of a reverse-Streisand effect, where an entity finds a way to get some information highly publicized and then makes a half-assed but successful attempt to get it removed, hoping that/. and other sites like it pick up the story. Then, they get free advertising for whatever it is they were trying to sell, like the cyber command. Anyone wish to give this effect a name? I'd name it the LaskoVortex effect, but it doesn't seem to fit--even though I like the though of having an effect named after myself. Aw hell, lets call it the LaskoVortex effect.
The requirement for a certain age on a prize is misguided to me. If you want a specific feat of science accomplished, you would have better chances at widening your pool of candidates. An age requirement can only work in math where one's work can be divorced from physical reality. Much discovery in the sciences is made by persistence--so, to limit the age of a prize winner in science selects for people who have good luck at a tender age. It is a lottery in this sense. Prize benefactors: remove age requirements.
Furthermore, the idea that copying down the answer to a problem helps you learn to solve that problem is idiotic.
Someone with less confidence and/or a smaller ego than me might take offense to your word choice here.
I am arguing precisely the opposite, namely that copying down, memorizing, and repeating the answers to problems does contribute to learning. Its counterintuitive and doesn't seem right, and will anger a lot of educators who want the process to be more complicated. However, I would not say this if I hadn't discovered this principle in college after struggling for nearly two years trying to figure out how to deal with the mass of information that my professors threw at me. My epiphany came with a little experiment in ochem II. I went to the back of the book and, for every other problem in the book (i.e. the one's with the answers included), put on one side of the flash card the problem and on the other put the answer. I generated about 600 cards this way. Each concept in the course had a perfect synopsis on a card. Then, for each chapter, I worked through these cards about once a day for the week: look at problem, remember answer, check answer, put correct ones in pile A, incorrect in pile B, continue until pile B is empty. Pattern recognition at its purist.
I aced the class with comments like "I can't believe you got this problem correct" from graders on the test. This was after three Bs in a row in chemistry and ochem--so no, I wasn't born a great student. When it came time for my qualifying exams during my PhD, I applied the same principle, making flash cards from every book on any and all relevant topics. I made several thousand cards. I don't have to tell you how my qualifying exams went. Lets just say I had a very pleased committee.
Now, you are probably saying to yourself that this process doesn't teach problem solving and doesn't teach the students to synthesize the information. To this I would say that you are dead wrong because, given information, the (normal) human brain does these things naturally. And if a student can't do these things naturally, they won't be able to do them on a test, even with difficult homework assignments. So, to assign problems and require students to work these problems in a vacuum with little feedback about the correctness or incorrectness of a problem convolutes two issues. The first issue is learning information and patterns, the second is synthesis and problem solving. To me, education should be about the former because if students have a solid knowledge of the patterns, they will naturally apply these patterns to solve problems. If education becomes about the latter, then students will waste time trying to solve problems without having mastered the basic patterns, and their knowledge will suffer as a result of frustration and wasted time.
In the worst case ("give me answers and I will post them"), this would amount to a student putting up a bulletin board (you know, of wood and cork and such) and encouraging people to put up the answers to all the homework problems, when the very point of those problems is that students get a benefit out of working them themselves when they don't know the answer.
You have a convoluted sense of what your students are actually doing. You seem to be under the impression that if answers are available, students will mindlessly copy them and hand in the copies. Some might do this, but you can identify those with testing. Most will try their best to learn. What you are ignoring, and what has been shown scientifically, is that learning by mimicry (copying) is highly effective and so having answers to problems available is not catastrophic, but actually beneficial. This is how babies learn language and how athletes learn athletic skills.
Again, think about what it takes to get knowledge into a brain. If you aren't finding a way to do this most effectively, you aren't being an educator. Give students problems, give them answers (don't give them an opportunity to share and violate your unnatural policies), and test them on their knowledge in a controlled environment. This is what I "want professors to do" and this is how I would do it. These are not sour grapes as I have successfully climbed the entire ladder of education and, on paper at least, have been one of the best. This is looking back on a my career as a student and identifying the most effective teaching practices from my best teachers. Any attitude of making students work for their knowledge erects artificial barriers to learning.
Slashdot Mirror
What is your metric? Dead people? Deceit? Number of people tortured? You can always compare, using < =, or >. If you don't mind providing numbers, you would be doing us all a favor. Maybe a table: dead people Bush v. Nazis. Tortured Bush v. Nazis. Lies Bush v. Nazis. Heck, you could get creative. Try to be fair, though. I mean, if you break down types of killing, make sure you have a summary row for all dead people. Something like dead from bombs Bush v. Nazis, etc. I just thought of one: maimed Bush v. Nazis. Oh yes, then their is Monetary Cost of War Bush v. Nazis (don't forget to adjust for inflation!). I'm not saying you are right or wrong or making any predictions about the numbers, I'm just asking you to provide some concrete evidence for what you are saying--otherwise you just look ignorant and opinionated and need to STFU.
The reason for secrecy here could be to review Bush administration actions without risk of revealing those actions to the public. Of course we would all like to know who as been spied on and why, but it may not be legal for congress to reveal those things in an open session. However, congress's being properly informed about any wrongdoing may supersede our desire (or right, if you insist) to observe their their session. So, in terms of their future decisions concerning FISA, a closed session may be the best option considering that many legislators would not become properly informed of wrongdoing otherwise.
If you are smart enough to bill at $130/hr and provide consummate value back to your customer, then you could probably pick up OO in about 5 minutes. If you are actually smart enough to need features that differ between the two, then it will take you about 5 minutes to learn where those features are in the OO suite (given your higher intelligence). If you are so dumb that you are confused by differently shaped buttons, then you won't have need for any use beyond the most basic text-editing abilities, so it will take you 5 minutes to learn all the features you are capable of using. So, about 5 minutes no matter what.
In my experience, it works just like MS Office--hey, but maybe I'm a genius so things come easy to me. I can never tell the cases where I am brilliant or where other people are just plain stupid.
Also, you will have to get over the "but I didn't pay for it so it must suck" barrier. This will take the average person approximately 16 years, depending on intelligence. Very, very smart people don't have this barrier, so you may be able to ignore it. If you are one of these complete retards that somehow equate OSS with communism, then you should find some way to remove yourself from the gene pool or, alternatively, pick up a basic primer on Sociological Theory.
"Radio" and light are fundamentally the same, the only difference is their location in the electromagnetic spectrum. More relevant might be "in what range of the electromagnetic spectrum do organisms use for communication (with other organisms)".
Since the device presumably requires contact with a person to use, this should effectively eliminate annoying background noises from public places, busses, etc., and it would also eliminate the echo effect that some headsets have (where you can hear yourself echoed in your own earplug). In fact, using these with normal talking should work just as well so you could reap these benefits without training. Now--if they could make a decent earplug with good volume and sound reproduction, we'd be all set.
The answer lies in the question. If everyone ignores you, its implied that you won't get arrested, which is a good thing in my opinion.
Bad logic. Note that in yelling "fire!", the criminality is in the risk the action poses, not in what happens afterward. You can also be responsible for what happens afterward, but that is another issue. If there is no direct cause-effect risk in speech, it should be protected (outside of slander and libel, of course).
Seize the day. It looks like you have an idea, now run with it and make a site yourself. Also, don't forget to appreciate that other people want to make the kind of sites they want. Its called freedom, and we are fighting for freedom all around the world, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, etc. Freedom and democracy baby!
You really should stop making these kinds of post-hoc generalizations. Yes, the people who flew the planes into the buildings are thought to be Muslim, but the religion of Islam did not officially sanction the attack. This is like saying that Tim McVeigh's religion sanctioned the Oklahoma bombing. A lot of bombing and mayhem goes on in this world. For instance, USA continues violent attacks all over the world. We do not call it terrorism and the attacks by the USA are organized by the US government and not by Christianity, which is the USA's most practiced religion.
More important and dangerous than the logical flaws in your rant is the fact that your comments perpetuate an unnecessary bigotry against a peaceful and established religious practice. Though you may be intelligent enough to understand that most Muslims are non-violent practitioners of their chosen religion, most non-Muslims do not possess this sort of intelligence. Consequently, the US government and other belligerent governments around the world (e.g. UK) use the hatred and fear-mongering you have demonstrated above to persuade the ignorant masses into spending fortunes on war and commit grave crimes against humanity.
Please be more careful and do not spread religious hatred.
The PDF file was broke or the link went to nowhere.
Which part exactly do you object to?
Dipshit: I was talking about the phrase and not the language.
Does the queen make you where tight underwear? Because I get hit with some serious uptight British, I mean English, shit every time I even mention that cold rainy little Island--even in the most benign ways (mods: read thread).
Ah, yes, because they speak English in England. Point taken.
Patience, my friend, patience.
Case in point: someone modded you +4 insightful. You're right yet again. And they wonder why the PHB's rule the day.
Click click, smack. Tick tick tick tick, smack smack, tick. Click smack, pop!
You can't just stab & enjoy, you've gotta beat the sucker senseless first. Ever tried clubbing a bass to death.Smack, smack, click click click, tick, tick click, smack smack. Click smack tick? Tick smack.
Its hard work.Smack tick, tick smack smack tick pop, pop....pop smack tick. Ooooooooouuuooooouuuuuooo.
But with the new MacBook Air, I don't need to bludgeon my trout anymore.Smack smack smack smack smack smack, tick tick tick. Pop pop (ooooooo smack tick smack).
I can just pluck it out of the water with my newly developed mind powers and have it baked with a side of waterfowl before it even hits the ground. Yummers, pyrokineticly cooked duck! Thanks MacBook Air!Smack tick smack tick ooooo smack, smack smack tick tick k k k k k k k k k. Smack tick smack tick smack? Kgggg!!!
"Cue up" doesn't make any sense grammatically, as "up" implies a direction. The examples you choose never call for a preposition. When have you ever heard the phrase "signal up". Perhaps "spark up" might be similar, but I think that is stretching it a bit.
In USA, we say "line up" which would agree well with the British "queue up". I work with so many international people, that sometimes I say "queue" instead of "line" by accident. So, since I feel like "queue" is part of my working lexicon, I can say with confidence that "queue up" is very natural, while "cue up" is not.
LOS COCHINOS CD (1973), "Cheborneck"
When I was a kid, I had the whole LP memorized.
That is what they are trying to do. They are going one step further also in saying that everyone else should do the same, like you are saying they should do--so you agree with them.
I think more appropriate, and funny, in my opinion, would be "if it looks like a fuck, and fucks like a duck...
Um, what is the rhetorical term for what you have done here? Fucking would not be part of the identification process, so you have shot down a strawman with a foam bullet, or something like that. I'm a scientist and not a debater, so I don't know all of the terms for rhetoric, but I can spot bullshit when I see it.
I think what we are witnessing here is completely staged-sort of a reverse-Streisand effect, where an entity finds a way to get some information highly publicized and then makes a half-assed but successful attempt to get it removed, hoping that /. and other sites like it pick up the story. Then, they get free advertising for whatever it is they were trying to sell, like the cyber command. Anyone wish to give this effect a name? I'd name it the LaskoVortex effect, but it doesn't seem to fit--even though I like the though of having an effect named after myself. Aw hell, lets call it the LaskoVortex effect.
The requirement for a certain age on a prize is misguided to me. If you want a specific feat of science accomplished, you would have better chances at widening your pool of candidates. An age requirement can only work in math where one's work can be divorced from physical reality. Much discovery in the sciences is made by persistence--so, to limit the age of a prize winner in science selects for people who have good luck at a tender age. It is a lottery in this sense. Prize benefactors: remove age requirements.
Someone with less confidence and/or a smaller ego than me might take offense to your word choice here.
I am arguing precisely the opposite, namely that copying down, memorizing, and repeating the answers to problems does contribute to learning. Its counterintuitive and doesn't seem right, and will anger a lot of educators who want the process to be more complicated. However, I would not say this if I hadn't discovered this principle in college after struggling for nearly two years trying to figure out how to deal with the mass of information that my professors threw at me. My epiphany came with a little experiment in ochem II. I went to the back of the book and, for every other problem in the book (i.e. the one's with the answers included), put on one side of the flash card the problem and on the other put the answer. I generated about 600 cards this way. Each concept in the course had a perfect synopsis on a card. Then, for each chapter, I worked through these cards about once a day for the week: look at problem, remember answer, check answer, put correct ones in pile A, incorrect in pile B, continue until pile B is empty. Pattern recognition at its purist.
I aced the class with comments like "I can't believe you got this problem correct" from graders on the test. This was after three Bs in a row in chemistry and ochem--so no, I wasn't born a great student. When it came time for my qualifying exams during my PhD, I applied the same principle, making flash cards from every book on any and all relevant topics. I made several thousand cards. I don't have to tell you how my qualifying exams went. Lets just say I had a very pleased committee.
Now, you are probably saying to yourself that this process doesn't teach problem solving and doesn't teach the students to synthesize the information. To this I would say that you are dead wrong because, given information, the (normal) human brain does these things naturally. And if a student can't do these things naturally, they won't be able to do them on a test, even with difficult homework assignments. So, to assign problems and require students to work these problems in a vacuum with little feedback about the correctness or incorrectness of a problem convolutes two issues. The first issue is learning information and patterns, the second is synthesis and problem solving. To me, education should be about the former because if students have a solid knowledge of the patterns, they will naturally apply these patterns to solve problems. If education becomes about the latter, then students will waste time trying to solve problems without having mastered the basic patterns, and their knowledge will suffer as a result of frustration and wasted time.
You have a convoluted sense of what your students are actually doing. You seem to be under the impression that if answers are available, students will mindlessly copy them and hand in the copies. Some might do this, but you can identify those with testing. Most will try their best to learn. What you are ignoring, and what has been shown scientifically, is that learning by mimicry (copying) is highly effective and so having answers to problems available is not catastrophic, but actually beneficial. This is how babies learn language and how athletes learn athletic skills.
Again, think about what it takes to get knowledge into a brain. If you aren't finding a way to do this most effectively, you aren't being an educator. Give students problems, give them answers (don't give them an opportunity to share and violate your unnatural policies), and test them on their knowledge in a controlled environment. This is what I "want professors to do" and this is how I would do it. These are not sour grapes as I have successfully climbed the entire ladder of education and, on paper at least, have been one of the best. This is looking back on a my career as a student and identifying the most effective teaching practices from my best teachers. Any attitude of making students work for their knowledge erects artificial barriers to learning.