That's what I don't understand. Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie.
At this point, I wouldn't say Obama is like a peace loving hippie. Obama is a typical corrupt politician who happened to choose the left wing as the group he'd get cozy with to advance in politics and get elected. So he publicly supports all sorts of left-wing causes and groups, and gives them what they want because it's political patronage. Stuxnet was created in secret; what they don't know about they won't complain about, and since he doesn't actually care about their cause, it didn't prevent him from supporting it.
As for his other military adventures, he probably is aware that those acts are better for getting elected than the loss of leftist support is for not getting elected, which is the bottom line. And not many leftists would reject him for killing Osama anyway.
He's also done a bunch of other non-peacenik things, even where the peaceniks are right: he's supported warrantless wiretapping (to the point where the Supreme Court actually asked the administration if they were going to change their position now that Obama was in office and they said no).
I think the major flaw is that this seems to be assuming that bias on Wikipedia is done in the same way as bias elsewhere. Someone who wants to bias a Wikipedia article has to do so within the confines of rules which help prevent some kinds of bias more than others.
For instance, one of the most common ways to bias a Wikipedia article is undue weight--you include negative information and exclude positive information, or vice versa. This sort of bias doesn't use coded language (thus making it invisible to this study) and while it is still against Wikipedia rules, Wikipedia does relatively poorly at stopping it.
Someone who warns enemy forces about military presence is a combatant, mother or not. It's war; you don't get to make your side immune from being killed by making sure you are using mothers to do your military work for you.
Secondly, it is about perception and politics, not reality.
If the argument is that we shouldn't do it because it's wrong, it absolutely is about reality. Killing lots of innocent people is immoral; being perceived as killing them because of propaganda, is not immoral.
Superheroes inherently do things which if performed in the real world would get a lot of innocent people caught in the crossfire as well. That scene may not have been an example but even if it had been, it has nothing to do with the involvement of the military--just consider that superheroes tend to do warrantless searches, use gratuitous violence against suspects (and maybe even threaten them with physical harm to get information), gratuitously destroy property, etc. which would be really disastrous if performed by real-life law enforcement officials (and sometimes are when they are).
That's not a fair response because not only has the government built things using tax money, it has distorted the market and prevented those things from being built without tax money. He can avoid using those things, but he can't avoid *not* using the things that the government's presence drove out.
Furthermore, even most libertarians believe that the government has a role in national defense, so border patrol isn't objectionable anyway.
According to TFA, the government refused to say whether the Icelandic parliament member was violating the law or could be jailed. Perhaps we haven't snatched any Icelanders yet, but the government is still reserving the right to do so in the future and specifically is reserving the right to snatch this particular person.
Of course, the government probably wouldn't snatch any Icelanders, but that would be because of selective prosecution--the law lets them snatch anyone. If the law lets them snatch anyone, then anyone should have standing.
Manage your Facebook password with a password management application, so you can legitimately tell them you "don't know" any Facebook passwords
"Well, I guess you're not hired then".
Geeks have this idea that if you just answer a question in a way that is literally accurate but not what the other guy wants, that's the way to win. The real world doesn't work that way except in a very small number of cases, of which this is not one. If the employer asks for your Facebook password, as far as he's concerned, either you provide it or you don't. "Honestly, I rigged up some system where I can log into my Facebook account but truthfully say I don't know the password" counts as not providing it. The fact that the statement "I don't know the password" is truthful makes no difference whatsoever.
As some people have said (amidst all the trolls deliberately recommending age-inappropriate comics), modern comics are aimed at either teens, or adults who used to read comics when they were a kid. There's just about no comic book that's actually intended for children.
Since he likes Spider-Man anyway, Marvel has been reprinting Spider-Man starting at the beginning, and those were suitable for 1960's kids.
That especially bothered me because in "Turn Left" we saw what actually would happen if the Doctor ceases to exist. Each problem he wasn't there to fix just made things worse and worse. But now suddenly he ceases to exist and everything's fine?
In Fury from the Deep it was used to open things--exactly how you'd expect a futuristic, but single purpose, device to work. He uses it to weld in the Dominators, which is the start of it getting extra properties. The War Games again uses it to open things, but it became an out of control plot device soon after that.
That's why they destroyed it in the Visitation. The new series brought it back and it seemed to have been an out of control plot device from the very start.
Too bad they can't follow up by changing the law about swastikas. This has caused censorship of American media because the companies want to sell them in Germany--there's a reason that the only swastika in the Captain America movie is a one second scene that could be easily cut for foreign distribution.
Money is fungible. If you provide "peaceful activities" such as translation for terrorists, that's money the terrorists can use for terrorism instead of spending so much on the peaceful activities themselves.
Why is it that when I search for jobs, I find a lot more C++ than C jobs, and when I do find a C job, 1) either the job is actually "C/C++", or 2) depending on the site or employer, some job postings mung punctuation, thus causing C# or C++ jobs to show up as C.
That's like saying that locking your door is getting on the wrong foot with people on the street because it assumes they may want to break into your house. Or that checking to see if someone can program before hiring them is assuming that they're lying about their ability to program.
Or for that matter, like saying that telling your users not to reveal their passwords to other people is wrong because it assumes the other people would use the passwords to do bad things.
That one's not too bad because it's not presented as a multiple choice question but as something for a teacher to grade. It's obviously asking the teacher to look for the student's knowledge that the banana is yellow because of the light it reflects. A student who gave an actual correct answer (that the banana reflects a part of the spectrum that looks yellow when combined) would then be marked as correct.
And to add another anecdote to the mix, I had an elementary schoolteacher who insisted that iodine is a liquid. She probably thought that bottles of "iodine" contain pure iodine rather than this being short for "iodine solution".
The stupid boss is likely to interpret anything the employee does through of the lens of "he's probably up to something because the computer says so" without directly confronting him over the issue.
There was some excellent research showing that when researchers submitted resumes with identical credentials to firms, but one with a white sounding name and one with an Asian sounding name, the white sounding names had a significantly hire success rate in getting calls. ... and as a result, people of Asian descent have had a hard time getting jobs in software engineering, accounting for the near complete lack of Asians in the industry? Whatever you say.
Slashdot Mirror
At this point, I wouldn't say Obama is like a peace loving hippie. Obama is a typical corrupt politician who happened to choose the left wing as the group he'd get cozy with to advance in politics and get elected. So he publicly supports all sorts of left-wing causes and groups, and gives them what they want because it's political patronage. Stuxnet was created in secret; what they don't know about they won't complain about, and since he doesn't actually care about their cause, it didn't prevent him from supporting it.
As for his other military adventures, he probably is aware that those acts are better for getting elected than the loss of leftist support is for not getting elected, which is the bottom line. And not many leftists would reject him for killing Osama anyway.
He's also done a bunch of other non-peacenik things, even where the peaceniks are right: he's supported warrantless wiretapping (to the point where the Supreme Court actually asked the administration if they were going to change their position now that Obama was in office and they said no).
Because the media, who are biased in favor of Obama, aren't giving them the free publicity that they used to get when they were going up against Bush.
That's not an argument for government control over soda, it's an argument against socialized healthcare.
I think the major flaw is that this seems to be assuming that bias on Wikipedia is done in the same way as bias elsewhere. Someone who wants to bias a Wikipedia article has to do so within the confines of rules which help prevent some kinds of bias more than others.
For instance, one of the most common ways to bias a Wikipedia article is undue weight--you include negative information and exclude positive information, or vice versa. This sort of bias doesn't use coded language (thus making it invisible to this study) and while it is still against Wikipedia rules, Wikipedia does relatively poorly at stopping it.
Someone who warns enemy forces about military presence is a combatant, mother or not. It's war; you don't get to make your side immune from being killed by making sure you are using mothers to do your military work for you.
If the argument is that we shouldn't do it because it's wrong, it absolutely is about reality. Killing lots of innocent people is immoral; being perceived as killing them because of propaganda, is not immoral.
Superheroes inherently do things which if performed in the real world would get a lot of innocent people caught in the crossfire as well. That scene may not have been an example but even if it had been, it has nothing to do with the involvement of the military--just consider that superheroes tend to do warrantless searches, use gratuitous violence against suspects (and maybe even threaten them with physical harm to get information), gratuitously destroy property, etc. which would be really disastrous if performed by real-life law enforcement officials (and sometimes are when they are).
That's not a fair response because not only has the government built things using tax money, it has distorted the market and prevented those things from being built without tax money. He can avoid using those things, but he can't avoid *not* using the things that the government's presence drove out.
Furthermore, even most libertarians believe that the government has a role in national defense, so border patrol isn't objectionable anyway.
In modern times the "loudness war" can actually make the vinyl version better, when the studio doesn't compress the range on the vinyl version.
According to TFA, the government refused to say whether the Icelandic parliament member was violating the law or could be jailed. Perhaps we haven't snatched any Icelanders yet, but the government is still reserving the right to do so in the future and specifically is reserving the right to snatch this particular person.
Of course, the government probably wouldn't snatch any Icelanders, but that would be because of selective prosecution--the law lets them snatch anyone. If the law lets them snatch anyone, then anyone should have standing.
Paying farmers not to grow food has been a joke and an attack on the government far more recently than the 1970's.
Exchanging services is barter, which is subject to taxes. Did you pay your taxes?
Manage your Facebook password with a password management application, so you can legitimately tell them you "don't know" any Facebook passwords
"Well, I guess you're not hired then".
Geeks have this idea that if you just answer a question in a way that is literally accurate but not what the other guy wants, that's the way to win. The real world doesn't work that way except in a very small number of cases, of which this is not one. If the employer asks for your Facebook password, as far as he's concerned, either you provide it or you don't. "Honestly, I rigged up some system where I can log into my Facebook account but truthfully say I don't know the password" counts as not providing it. The fact that the statement "I don't know the password" is truthful makes no difference whatsoever.
As some people have said (amidst all the trolls deliberately recommending age-inappropriate comics), modern comics are aimed at either teens, or adults who used to read comics when they were a kid. There's just about no comic book that's actually intended for children.
Since he likes Spider-Man anyway, Marvel has been reprinting Spider-Man starting at the beginning, and those were suitable for 1960's kids.
Essential Spider-Man #1 ($20 for over 500 pages, but in black and white)
Paperback Spider-Man Masterworks #1 (272 pages, in color): should be $20, for some reason it is overpriced on Amazon--try a book store)
Does this count as doing evil?
That especially bothered me because in "Turn Left" we saw what actually would happen if the Doctor ceases to exist. Each problem he wasn't there to fix just made things worse and worse. But now suddenly he ceases to exist and everything's fine?
This is a case of feature creep.
In Fury from the Deep it was used to open things--exactly how you'd expect a futuristic, but single purpose, device to work. He uses it to weld in the Dominators, which is the start of it getting extra properties. The War Games again uses it to open things, but it became an out of control plot device soon after that.
That's why they destroyed it in the Visitation. The new series brought it back and it seemed to have been an out of control plot device from the very start.
Too bad they can't follow up by changing the law about swastikas. This has caused censorship of American media because the companies want to sell them in Germany--there's a reason that the only swastika in the Captain America movie is a one second scene that could be easily cut for foreign distribution.
No human being in existence can remember all the passwords you'll need if you used a different password for each site that demands a password.
Money is fungible. If you provide "peaceful activities" such as translation for terrorists, that's money the terrorists can use for terrorism instead of spending so much on the peaceful activities themselves.
Why is it that when I search for jobs, I find a lot more C++ than C jobs, and when I do find a C job,
1) either the job is actually "C/C++", or
2) depending on the site or employer, some job postings mung punctuation, thus causing C# or C++ jobs to show up as C.
That's like saying that locking your door is getting on the wrong foot with people on the street because it assumes they may want to break into your house. Or that checking to see if someone can program before hiring them is assuming that they're lying about their ability to program.
Or for that matter, like saying that telling your users not to reveal their passwords to other people is wrong because it assumes the other people would use the passwords to do bad things.
Precautions are not bad things.
That one's not too bad because it's not presented as a multiple choice question but as something for a teacher to grade. It's obviously asking the teacher to look for the student's knowledge that the banana is yellow because of the light it reflects. A student who gave an actual correct answer (that the banana reflects a part of the spectrum that looks yellow when combined) would then be marked as correct.
And to add another anecdote to the mix, I had an elementary schoolteacher who insisted that iodine is a liquid. She probably thought that bottles of "iodine" contain pure iodine rather than this being short for "iodine solution".
The stupid boss is likely to interpret anything the employee does through of the lens of "he's probably up to something because the computer says so" without directly confronting him over the issue.
There was some excellent research showing that when researchers submitted resumes with identical credentials to firms, but one with a white sounding name and one with an Asian sounding name, the white sounding names had a significantly hire success rate in getting calls. ... and as a result, people of Asian descent have had a hard time getting jobs in software engineering, accounting for the near complete lack of Asians in the industry? Whatever you say.