Acting is overrated. The top leadership chooses the targets. The jihad already has a good orator at the top of the pyramid, they don't need another one in every cell. What they really need is a bunch of people with solid mechanical and practicall planning skills: Engineers.
I'm confused. Are you saying I'm rejecting their hypothesis that Engineers are more aggressively recruited because of their valuable skillset? Because I'm pretty sure I'm endorsing that hypothesis.
Or maybe it's that Engineers are recruited more aggressively than liberal arts majors because likely to bring useful skills and a concrete, analytical mindset to the mission.
We currently don't have any system to detect or track the movements of small-but-dangerous amounts of nuclear material. Investigation and enforcement agencies don't have the resources or the manpower to manually track all the material out there. These agencies don't have the resources or the manpower to audit the paper trails on the fraction of that material that is actually being documented. And it's not like those paper trails are 100% reliable or immune to abuse anyway.
Some sort of sensor network is going to be necessary. It's also going to allow agencies to track movements of nuclear material in real time, with a higher degree of reliability and accuracy, with a much lower requirement for manpower and other resources. This seems a lot more efficient than the old way of doing things.
I think you're confusing the time and effort that good police work requires with "inefficiency". When a murder is committed, the police often send officers house to house through the neighborhood, talking each and every person then can find in a several-block radius. Then these notes are given to the detectives working the case, and they painstakingly review them for clues that will help them find the murderer. This isn't inefficient, it's just the reality of police work.
Saying that canvassing, or bringing in a forensics team, or doing an autopsy, or working a stakeout, or monitoring a sensor network, because it's inefficient and might be abused, seems silly to me.
A moment ago, you were complaining that the system was technically unworkable due to the number of false positives it would generate (and that the cost of the system would be passed on to the consumer).
Now you're ignoring everything I've said against that complaint, and are changing the subject to some sort of paranoid conspiracy theory that this system will somehow be used to persecute innocent people and promote a totalitarian regime.
Well, fine, if that's how you feel. Can I at least assume that you're withdrawing your original complaint about the technical merits of the system?
"The Internet: Your stuff on someone else's computer."
I do banking online because I'm willing to accept the tradeoff between the perceived risk and the perceived reward. I perceive my bankers as being fairly trustworthy custodians of my information, and I perceive the reward of convenience and timeliness in banking transactions to be worth the risk I do perceive.
Facebook, on the other hand, I wouldn't trust with private photos, let alone my banking information. My stuff on the bank's computer is one thing. My stuff on Facebook's computer? Not fucking likely.
Assuming the FBI even has it always on, all the time, nationwide.
It might be the kind of thing they turn on if they already have reason to believe there's nuclear material in the area. Suspect is moving, is he carrying bomb components? Check the returns from the city block he's on. Is somebody trying to smuggle bomb components in via shipping container? Keep an eye on the returns around the container yard access points. Do we need to worry about someone stealing radioactive material from a research lab? Depends on whether or not the lab's "false positives" all stay on the grounds, or if one of them leaves the site and drives off... Etc.
And these are just protocols I can come up with off the top of my head, as a rank amateur, to gain an advantage from the system without being swamped by false positives. I assume that a professional investigating agency with a hundred years of knowledge and experience in sifting through evidence in a timely manner can probably come up with even more.
But hey, I admit I'm appealing to authority here. If you're a better authority than the FBI on how well this system could work, I'd be happy to consider your credentials and give your opinion the appropriate weight.
Right, because the Men In Black are going to roll blindly on any signal they get, without bothering to look it up on google maps first to see if it's a hospital radiology lab or a suspected terrorist safe house that the FBI's been watching for the past three months.
The article claims that flatworms with a combination of advantageous and disadvantageous traits are more likely to pass on the advantageous traits. The article says that this claim is backed up by experimental evidence.
Forgive me for not caring two figs for a USA Today poll.
But even allowing that the poll is correct, the reference.com definition of "creationism" is still too narrow, in that it objectively fails to account for the wide range of beliefs held by a wide range of creationists.
Using a highly-rated post near the top of the thread to add your offtopic bullshit might be less annoying if you had actually managed to come up with something original and non-obvious. You're about two days late, jackass.
Ah, but is that really true? I mean, we all assume that unsuccessful traits are eliminated because the organisms that bear unsuccessful traits are unsuccessful at reproducing. But what this article seems to suggest is that in organsims with a combination of advantageous and disadvantageous traits, they are more likely to pass on their advantageous traits to their offspring.
So, why do they preferentially pass on the advantageous traits, instead of passing on both advantageous and disadvantageous traits without bias either way, until natural selection weeds out the predominantly disadvantageous organisms by preventing them from passing on any traits at all? And--as I asked originally--where did this advantageous trait of preferentially passing on advantageous traits arise?
That's a bizarre definition of "creationism". It's been my experience, after decades of interacting with large numbers of creationists in various contexts, that the "creation-is-incompatible-with-evolution" types are but one small faction among many.
You may want to reconsider reference.com as a reliable source of unbiased information on controversial subjects.
You really haven't ever bothered to consider the implications of the "creationist" theory, have you?
If the universe is the creation of a being that transcends time and space, then there's no tedium involved in the design process because there's no time involved in the design process. Any "recycling" of ideas would have occurred for other reasons. As to what those reasons might be, a more likely "creationist" interpretation would be that in realm where time and space have no meaning, how can we possibly figure out the whys and wherefores of things (traditionally, "God works in mysterious ways").
Heh. I see the whole situation as a case for hobbyist bloggers. You want to find out more about something, you find the blog of a hobbyist who loves his hobby.
What you get with that scenario is news written by hobbyists, which is not necessarily bad, but they are only writing about what they find interesting. Which explains why Wikipedia has more information about He-Man and the Masters of the Universe than string theory.
The main entry for string theory is significantly longer than the main entry for He-Man and the Masters of the Universe. The entry for String Theory also has a significantly longer list of related entries in its "See Also" section.
The Electoral College mitigates the effects of mob rule, which is exactly what it's supposed to do. It gives the least-populous states slightly more power than they would otherwise have, and gives the most-populous states stlightly less power than they would otherwise have. I don't see it as "screwing" anybody out of the Presidency at all. The issue only arises in closely-contested elections where one or both candidates are having difficulty appealing to a broad majority of different regional voter blocs. North Dakota's Electors rarely matter, but when they do, and you fail to sway a majority of North Dakotans...
... evidence against the Bible means the evidence is wrong.
Mind you, "young earth" is, strictly speaking, an interpretation of the Biblical. An interpretation with which many thoughtful Christians disagree, on the basis that the "young earth" interpretation is shockingly unsupported--contradicted, even--by lots of really good science, and that the Biblical narrative allows for other interpretations that are supported by scientific evidence.
My gut feeling tells me that the monies used in the entire Hubble project would have changed lots of American lives in a big positive way. What have we got out of it that is worth all those billions spent so far? Can somebody convince me?
My gut feeling is that lots of talented scientists, engineers, administrators, and technicians meaningiful and challenging work changes their lives in a big positive way. That's worth it to me. I don't know if it convinces you, but consider this: How many American lives could you have changed in a big positive way, with the time and energy you've spent posting on Slashdot over the past five years?
Indeed, NASA's funding levels and mission choices are determined largely through public opinion, as filtered through our representatives in the legislature. How much effort have you put into changing your community's opinion about NASA, and influencing your representative's priorities for that agency? Do you really care about this issue, or are you just pissing into the ocean of piss that is Slashdot, and patting yourself on the back for "standing up to The Man"?
Obviously the letter writer failed to take into account America's history of bungling black ops, pissing off everybody else, looking like incompetent douchebags as a result, and seeing even their best intentions spun by the opposition faction into a plot for world domination and eating babies.
The only result of such a plan would be headlines such as "Freedom fighters murdered, American arms dealers profit, world still not a safer place".
so how could a chain of logical arguments convince a person of gods existence ?
Well, Kurt Godel did demonstrate than any logical system of argumentation must contain valid arguments the existence of which cannot be arrived at using the logic rules of that system...
Slashdot Mirror
Acting is overrated. The top leadership chooses the targets. The jihad already has a good orator at the top of the pyramid, they don't need another one in every cell. What they really need is a bunch of people with solid mechanical and practicall planning skills: Engineers.
I'm confused. Are you saying I'm rejecting their hypothesis that Engineers are more aggressively recruited because of their valuable skillset? Because I'm pretty sure I'm endorsing that hypothesis.
Or maybe it's that Engineers are recruited more aggressively than liberal arts majors because likely to bring useful skills and a concrete, analytical mindset to the mission.
We currently don't have any system to detect or track the movements of small-but-dangerous amounts of nuclear material. Investigation and enforcement agencies don't have the resources or the manpower to manually track all the material out there. These agencies don't have the resources or the manpower to audit the paper trails on the fraction of that material that is actually being documented. And it's not like those paper trails are 100% reliable or immune to abuse anyway.
Some sort of sensor network is going to be necessary. It's also going to allow agencies to track movements of nuclear material in real time, with a higher degree of reliability and accuracy, with a much lower requirement for manpower and other resources. This seems a lot more efficient than the old way of doing things.
I think you're confusing the time and effort that good police work requires with "inefficiency". When a murder is committed, the police often send officers house to house through the neighborhood, talking each and every person then can find in a several-block radius. Then these notes are given to the detectives working the case, and they painstakingly review them for clues that will help them find the murderer. This isn't inefficient, it's just the reality of police work.
Saying that canvassing, or bringing in a forensics team, or doing an autopsy, or working a stakeout, or monitoring a sensor network, because it's inefficient and might be abused, seems silly to me.
I'm confused.
A moment ago, you were complaining that the system was technically unworkable due to the number of false positives it would generate (and that the cost of the system would be passed on to the consumer).
Now you're ignoring everything I've said against that complaint, and are changing the subject to some sort of paranoid conspiracy theory that this system will somehow be used to persecute innocent people and promote a totalitarian regime.
Well, fine, if that's how you feel. Can I at least assume that you're withdrawing your original complaint about the technical merits of the system?
Heh. My rule of thumb is a definition:
"The Internet: Your stuff on someone else's computer."
I do banking online because I'm willing to accept the tradeoff between the perceived risk and the perceived reward. I perceive my bankers as being fairly trustworthy custodians of my information, and I perceive the reward of convenience and timeliness in banking transactions to be worth the risk I do perceive.
Facebook, on the other hand, I wouldn't trust with private photos, let alone my banking information. My stuff on the bank's computer is one thing. My stuff on Facebook's computer? Not fucking likely.
Assuming the FBI even has it always on, all the time, nationwide.
It might be the kind of thing they turn on if they already have reason to believe there's nuclear material in the area. Suspect is moving, is he carrying bomb components? Check the returns from the city block he's on. Is somebody trying to smuggle bomb components in via shipping container? Keep an eye on the returns around the container yard access points. Do we need to worry about someone stealing radioactive material from a research lab? Depends on whether or not the lab's "false positives" all stay on the grounds, or if one of them leaves the site and drives off... Etc.
And these are just protocols I can come up with off the top of my head, as a rank amateur, to gain an advantage from the system without being swamped by false positives. I assume that a professional investigating agency with a hundred years of knowledge and experience in sifting through evidence in a timely manner can probably come up with even more.
But hey, I admit I'm appealing to authority here. If you're a better authority than the FBI on how well this system could work, I'd be happy to consider your credentials and give your opinion the appropriate weight.
Right, because the Men In Black are going to roll blindly on any signal they get, without bothering to look it up on google maps first to see if it's a hospital radiology lab or a suspected terrorist safe house that the FBI's been watching for the past three months.
The article claims that flatworms with a combination of advantageous and disadvantageous traits are more likely to pass on the advantageous traits. The article says that this claim is backed up by experimental evidence.
You misunderstand the nature of the article.
Except that according to the arcticle, individual organisms do have a "preference" for passing on advantageous traits over disadvantageous traits.
And according to the article, if those traits are disadvantageous to the next generation, they are less likely to be passed on to the next generation.
Except that according to the article they do "decide" what traits to pass on - they are more likely to pass on advantageous traits.
Except that according to the article, it isn't such a random crap-shoot as we thought - Advantageous traits are more likely to be passed on.
Except that according to the article, there is such a preference by the organism to pass on good genes as opposed to bad genes.
Forgive me for not caring two figs for a USA Today poll.
But even allowing that the poll is correct, the reference.com definition of "creationism" is still too narrow, in that it objectively fails to account for the wide range of beliefs held by a wide range of creationists.
Using a highly-rated post near the top of the thread to add your offtopic bullshit might be less annoying if you had actually managed to come up with something original and non-obvious. You're about two days late, jackass.
Ah, but is that really true? I mean, we all assume that unsuccessful traits are eliminated because the organisms that bear unsuccessful traits are unsuccessful at reproducing. But what this article seems to suggest is that in organsims with a combination of advantageous and disadvantageous traits, they are more likely to pass on their advantageous traits to their offspring.
So, why do they preferentially pass on the advantageous traits, instead of passing on both advantageous and disadvantageous traits without bias either way, until natural selection weeds out the predominantly disadvantageous organisms by preventing them from passing on any traits at all? And--as I asked originally--where did this advantageous trait of preferentially passing on advantageous traits arise?
That's a bizarre definition of "creationism". It's been my experience, after decades of interacting with large numbers of creationists in various contexts, that the "creation-is-incompatible-with-evolution" types are but one small faction among many.
You may want to reconsider reference.com as a reliable source of unbiased information on controversial subjects.
You really haven't ever bothered to consider the implications of the "creationist" theory, have you?
If the universe is the creation of a being that transcends time and space, then there's no tedium involved in the design process because there's no time involved in the design process. Any "recycling" of ideas would have occurred for other reasons. As to what those reasons might be, a more likely "creationist" interpretation would be that in realm where time and space have no meaning, how can we possibly figure out the whys and wherefores of things (traditionally, "God works in mysterious ways").
Ah, but did this deterministic development mechanism evolve deterministically or randomly?
Heh. I see the whole situation as a case for hobbyist bloggers. You want to find out more about something, you find the blog of a hobbyist who loves his hobby.
Besides, aren't reporters "paid fact-checkers"?
The main entry for string theory is significantly longer than the main entry for He-Man and the Masters of the Universe. The entry for String Theory also has a significantly longer list of related entries in its "See Also" section.
The Electoral College mitigates the effects of mob rule, which is exactly what it's supposed to do. It gives the least-populous states slightly more power than they would otherwise have, and gives the most-populous states stlightly less power than they would otherwise have. I don't see it as "screwing" anybody out of the Presidency at all. The issue only arises in closely-contested elections where one or both candidates are having difficulty appealing to a broad majority of different regional voter blocs. North Dakota's Electors rarely matter, but when they do, and you fail to sway a majority of North Dakotans...
Instead of, you know, using that veto in an honest and ethical manner, as part of your sworn duty to serve the interests of all Americans?
Mind you, "young earth" is, strictly speaking, an interpretation of the Biblical. An interpretation with which many thoughtful Christians disagree, on the basis that the "young earth" interpretation is shockingly unsupported--contradicted, even--by lots of really good science, and that the Biblical narrative allows for other interpretations that are supported by scientific evidence.
My gut feeling is that lots of talented scientists, engineers, administrators, and technicians meaningiful and challenging work changes their lives in a big positive way. That's worth it to me. I don't know if it convinces you, but consider this: How many American lives could you have changed in a big positive way, with the time and energy you've spent posting on Slashdot over the past five years?
Indeed, NASA's funding levels and mission choices are determined largely through public opinion, as filtered through our representatives in the legislature. How much effort have you put into changing your community's opinion about NASA, and influencing your representative's priorities for that agency? Do you really care about this issue, or are you just pissing into the ocean of piss that is Slashdot, and patting yourself on the back for "standing up to The Man"?
Obviously the letter writer failed to take into account America's history of bungling black ops, pissing off everybody else, looking like incompetent douchebags as a result, and seeing even their best intentions spun by the opposition faction into a plot for world domination and eating babies.
The only result of such a plan would be headlines such as "Freedom fighters murdered, American arms dealers profit, world still not a safer place".
Nuclear proliferation is a real concern. How much more so MANPAD proliferation? They're easier to design, build, operate, and transport.
Well, Kurt Godel did demonstrate than any logical system of argumentation must contain valid arguments the existence of which cannot be arrived at using the logic rules of that system...