I didn’t mean that, and it was pretty obvious, but at the same time I certainly wasn’t implying that that sort of treatment doesn’t happen (if anything I was implying that it could, as a result of screening them differently), so all-in-all I really have no idea what was relevant about your reply.
There was an “original panacea of equitable treatment”. It wasn’t carried out very well; some people had been left out. That’s since been fixed, though.
The ideal wasn’t flawed: it was the application of it that was faulty.
No, still just smarter. The antelope’s natural predators are used to the concept of “run as fast as you can so you catch it before it gets away” and the antelope in turn is used to “run as fast as you can and get away from the predator”.
If persistence hunters ran as fast as they could, they’d have neither the speed nor stamina to catch an antelope. Instead they run at a pace they can maintain for hours, because the antelope just ran all-out until it was exhausted and cannot rest enough in that short time to fully recuperate.
It’s sort of like the story... one guy was bragging about his fast horse, so somebody else cleverly challenged him to a long race. Of course the fast horse was tired by the end and the guy with the slower horse overtook him and won. Then the guy with the fast horse complained that he’d been tricked and it hadn’t been a fair race, so he offered to switch horses and race the guy again after lunch. This time he was riding the fast horse but he reined it in after it got a little lead, took an easy trot until the slower horse had nearly caught up, then sped up again, and in this way he beat the slower horse without exhausting the fast one. If the guy with the fast horse had know to do this he would have won the first race, but he wasn’t smart enough to figure it out on his own. Neither are the antelope.
For some reason I can’t find the source for that story. I want to say it’s Mark Twain, but Google is failing me.
My comment had nothing to do about slavery directly or the 3/5 compromise itself. It was a comment relevant to the thread, not intended to be a history lesson.
It was intended to be a snarky comment that implied the 3/5ths of a person deal was a bad thing, which it wasn’t. In fact it was a step in the right direction.
I didn’t say you missed out on anything; I said regardless of whether or not they taught you math and science, they tried to teach you how to think like them. Obviously they didn’t teach you how to read.
You’re leaving out the fact that group B’s ideas were tried in the past but successfully neutered by “compromises” wrangled by group A such that they were ineffective and failed. The ones that were working didn’t work quickly enough and group A killed them as soon as possible. The government was then mired in a perpetual cycle of each group getting blamed or credited for the other group’s failures or successes.
The T/W customer "support" person's response was, "Well, sir, we don't have any control over that. Those are decisions made by the network." To which I replied that Time/Warner owned TBS and TBS was, at the time, one of the biggest (ab)users of this type of TV spam. Her response? Dead silence. Made my day.
Yeah, you showed her all right. Just imagine what she must have typed in the box on the form where it said “reason for cancellation”...
“Can I get a female security agent, and can she check for testicular cancer while she’s down there? Takes care of two stones with one bird, that way...”
How can it possibly hurt Microsoft if there are customers who want to purchase and repurpose their hardware for something other than playing a game?
Which do you think is more in Microsoft’s best interests, selling a bunch of high-tech electronics in a molded plastic case for $150, or selling a piece of stamped plastic for $40?
FTFY. You can get printers that are not sold under that business model. Unsurprisingly, they cost more.
Price the toner/ink and the printer together. If you just buy a cheap printer you’re only looking at half of the equation. Find out what it uses, and how much it costs.
That just shows your political inclination. A liberal would say the opposite.
The simple fact of the matter is that people tend to remember disappointments much better than they remember successes. Your excitement is quickly forgotten over the campaign promises that the Republicans actually kept, and you’re similarly not going to be too enthused over the ones that the Democrats have been prevented from pushing through.
The “education” system is designed largely to make people think the way their teachers want them to think. The teachers as a general whole (with some exception) strongly lean toward liberalism; is it any surprise that the “highly educated” either are, or become, liberal themselves, while a significant number of conservatives drop out due to the bias against them?
Also, (and this is partly why I’m replying to you, instead of Capt Morgan), the correct term is “by and large”, not “by in large”. It’s a nautical term, describing the action of tacking a sailing ship. You go by (to the wind) and large (cross the wind), but the overall result is what’s primary: by and large, you get to your destination.
it comes out to $1.5B to equip all US soldiers presently engaged on the front lines with SCAR 16
I seriously doubt that could happen under Democrat control. Republican... maybe, and only if enough people knew and cared.
I somewhat agree, though, that improvements should be made overall, not just on the high-profile stuff like jets. They are trying, which was the point of why I posted the link about the OICW... and I’d like to see better tech in the combat rifle too; it just tends to fall through the cracks, I guess.
Even accepting the premise that humans have evolved and persistence hunting was an ideal method of capturing prey at some point in human history, it is a primitive form of hunting that requires great expenditures of energy. The intelligence of humans is such that we are better off if we use our intellect in our favour rather than just our muscles. What you should be concluding is that humans are evolved precisely toward the purpose of eliminating that sort of behaviour.
Advertent or not, it was a red herring... the muckety-mucks in charge will likely handle that sort of complaint with “okay, we’ll write in a special exemption for them... but the rest of you whiners still have to submit to our screening!!”
They shouldn't do this at all, of course, for so many of the reasons others have posted.
Exactly. Best just to leave it at that. Or, when you do point out that it’s particularly embarrassing for certain people, follow up with that caveat. Invasion of privacy is equally wrong for everyone; it’s just particularly harmful to some.
you guys spend absolutely insane amount of money on big shiny toys like F-22, but your basic Army stuff - like the standard infantry rifle - still has known problems compared to most other designs in service of other countries
The whole problem is that it’s horribly expensive and that means you can’t put one in the hands of every soldier, which works out a lot better with planes than it does with combat rifles.
If a trans-female walks through one of these things (pre-op), should she be subjected to the questions that will bring up? It seems like an unnecessary and humiliating search.
It seems humiliating because it is humiliating, and transgendered people shouldn’t get any special treatment. It wouldn’t help anyway...
“Excuse me, why do I have to go through this and she didn’t?” “She’s transgendered.” “Oh...”
We’re talking about an analog computer, not a digital one. Presumably increased voltage = increased bandwidth. You have a greater range between “zero” and “maximum”.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn’t mean that, and it was pretty obvious, but at the same time I certainly wasn’t implying that that sort of treatment doesn’t happen (if anything I was implying that it could, as a result of screening them differently), so all-in-all I really have no idea what was relevant about your reply.
There was an “original panacea of equitable treatment”. It wasn’t carried out very well; some people had been left out. That’s since been fixed, though.
The ideal wasn’t flawed: it was the application of it that was faulty.
No, still just smarter. The antelope’s natural predators are used to the concept of “run as fast as you can so you catch it before it gets away” and the antelope in turn is used to “run as fast as you can and get away from the predator”.
If persistence hunters ran as fast as they could, they’d have neither the speed nor stamina to catch an antelope. Instead they run at a pace they can maintain for hours, because the antelope just ran all-out until it was exhausted and cannot rest enough in that short time to fully recuperate.
It’s sort of like the story... one guy was bragging about his fast horse, so somebody else cleverly challenged him to a long race. Of course the fast horse was tired by the end and the guy with the slower horse overtook him and won. Then the guy with the fast horse complained that he’d been tricked and it hadn’t been a fair race, so he offered to switch horses and race the guy again after lunch. This time he was riding the fast horse but he reined it in after it got a little lead, took an easy trot until the slower horse had nearly caught up, then sped up again, and in this way he beat the slower horse without exhausting the fast one. If the guy with the fast horse had know to do this he would have won the first race, but he wasn’t smart enough to figure it out on his own. Neither are the antelope.
For some reason I can’t find the source for that story. I want to say it’s Mark Twain, but Google is failing me.
How else do you get cat urine without litter or newspaper in it?
My comment had nothing to do about slavery directly or the 3/5 compromise itself. It was a comment relevant to the thread, not intended to be a history lesson.
It was intended to be a snarky comment that implied the 3/5ths of a person deal was a bad thing, which it wasn’t. In fact it was a step in the right direction.
I didn’t say you missed out on anything; I said regardless of whether or not they taught you math and science, they tried to teach you how to think like them. Obviously they didn’t teach you how to read.
You’re leaving out the fact that group B’s ideas were tried in the past but successfully neutered by “compromises” wrangled by group A such that they were ineffective and failed. The ones that were working didn’t work quickly enough and group A killed them as soon as possible. The government was then mired in a perpetual cycle of each group getting blamed or credited for the other group’s failures or successes.
The T/W customer "support" person's response was, "Well, sir, we don't have any control over that. Those are decisions made by the network." To which I replied that Time/Warner owned TBS and TBS was, at the time, one of the biggest (ab)users of this type of TV spam. Her response? Dead silence. Made my day.
Yeah, you showed her all right. Just imagine what she must have typed in the box on the form where it said “reason for cancellation”...
Yeah. Never mind.
More importantly, would tinfoil be a good material to make it from?
Since when is a single gunshot lethal to everyone on the plane?
Just the standard FUD. It’s not even worth arguing with him; if he could be convinced by logic he probably already would have been by now.
Kill two birds with one stone.
Other way round...
“Can I get a female security agent, and can she check for testicular cancer while she’s down there? Takes care of two stones with one bird, that way...”
Maybe not... maybe he just has a long thingy. ;-)
How can it possibly hurt Microsoft if there are customers who want to purchase and repurpose their hardware for something other than playing a game?
Which do you think is more in Microsoft’s best interests, selling a bunch of high-tech electronics in a molded plastic case for $150, or selling a piece of stamped plastic for $40?
It's the same business mode as a cheap printer.
FTFY. You can get printers that are not sold under that business model. Unsurprisingly, they cost more.
Price the toner/ink and the printer together. If you just buy a cheap printer you’re only looking at half of the equation. Find out what it uses, and how much it costs.
to most people a picture of a nude kid is just a picture of a nude kid. Kind of cute in a "Coppertone dog pulls down the bathingsuit" way.
What you have just said is perfectly reasonable and sane. The problem is that most pedophiles would agree with it.
That just shows your political inclination. A liberal would say the opposite.
The simple fact of the matter is that people tend to remember disappointments much better than they remember successes. Your excitement is quickly forgotten over the campaign promises that the Republicans actually kept, and you’re similarly not going to be too enthused over the ones that the Democrats have been prevented from pushing through.
The “education” system is designed largely to make people think the way their teachers want them to think. The teachers as a general whole (with some exception) strongly lean toward liberalism; is it any surprise that the “highly educated” either are, or become, liberal themselves, while a significant number of conservatives drop out due to the bias against them?
Also, (and this is partly why I’m replying to you, instead of Capt Morgan), the correct term is “by and large”, not “by in large”. It’s a nautical term, describing the action of tacking a sailing ship. You go by (to the wind) and large (cross the wind), but the overall result is what’s primary: by and large, you get to your destination.
it comes out to $1.5B to equip all US soldiers presently engaged on the front lines with SCAR 16
I seriously doubt that could happen under Democrat control. Republican... maybe, and only if enough people knew and cared.
I somewhat agree, though, that improvements should be made overall, not just on the high-profile stuff like jets. They are trying, which was the point of why I posted the link about the OICW... and I’d like to see better tech in the combat rifle too; it just tends to fall through the cracks, I guess.
Even accepting the premise that humans have evolved and persistence hunting was an ideal method of capturing prey at some point in human history, it is a primitive form of hunting that requires great expenditures of energy. The intelligence of humans is such that we are better off if we use our intellect in our favour rather than just our muscles. What you should be concluding is that humans are evolved precisely toward the purpose of eliminating that sort of behaviour.
“turn left”... off an overpass. (It’s fixed now.)
The map, or the side of the bridge?
Advertent or not, it was a red herring... the muckety-mucks in charge will likely handle that sort of complaint with “okay, we’ll write in a special exemption for them... but the rest of you whiners still have to submit to our screening!!”
They shouldn't do this at all, of course, for so many of the reasons others have posted.
Exactly. Best just to leave it at that. Or, when you do point out that it’s particularly embarrassing for certain people, follow up with that caveat. Invasion of privacy is equally wrong for everyone; it’s just particularly harmful to some.
you guys spend absolutely insane amount of money on big shiny toys like F-22, but your basic Army stuff - like the standard infantry rifle - still has known problems compared to most other designs in service of other countries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_Individual_Combat_Weapon_program
The whole problem is that it’s horribly expensive and that means you can’t put one in the hands of every soldier, which works out a lot better with planes than it does with combat rifles.
If a trans-female walks through one of these things (pre-op), should she be subjected to the questions that will bring up? It seems like an unnecessary and humiliating search.
It seems humiliating because it is humiliating, and transgendered people shouldn’t get any special treatment. It wouldn’t help anyway...
“Excuse me, why do I have to go through this and she didn’t?” “She’s transgendered.” “Oh...”
We’re talking about an analog computer, not a digital one. Presumably increased voltage = increased bandwidth. You have a greater range between “zero” and “maximum”.
In other words, they made it go to 11.