He didn't have the courage to be honest and publically say, "this is terrible right now but I sincerely believe it is a necessary step towards a brighter future and therefore worth enduring, however unfortunate that will be". Instead of doing that, openly and honestly, he said what he thought people wanted to hear in public while saying what he really believes they should do in private. There's a word for that: hypocrisy.
No, there's another word for that: diplomacy. That's how diplomacy works.
It's going to be incredibly difficult to prove that Wikileaks resulted in a death, since in practice it's just going to be one contributing factor among others--you'll always have plausible deniability and be able to claim the death was caused by one of those other factors. It'll raise the probability of death and so some people will die who wouldn't die without it--but it's going to be hard to tell which ones.
Imagine that, for instance, some terrorist uses the leaked list of targets as targets for terrorism. It would always be possible to say "maybe he would have attacked this target anyway without Wikileaks". There would be no way to definitively prove Wikileaks was responsible--even if the terrorist actually admits to using Wikileaks, his defenders could always say "if Wikileaks wasn't around he would still have chosen targets by some means". You could never prove it.
The independence of India was immediately followed by a series of bloody wars between India and Pakistan (which were both part of British India), so I'm not sure it counts.
Actually, the source article's summary doesn't match the source article very well either. First of all, it says that Fox viewers *are* less informed, not that Fox *makes* them less informed. It could be that less educated viewers go to Fox in the first place, and in fact this is pretty likely considering the image Fox cultivates. Second, it says that "CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases". It's not really specifically about Fox.
Finally, some of the questions seem a bit odd. It is of course literally true that TARP and the GM bailout began under Bush, but it's also true that Obama heavily lent his support to both of those and was the president or president-elect during most of the time period covered by them; TARP was just a month before the election and the bailout a month *after*. Pointing out that Bush was president at the time is barely better than a Trivial Pursuit question, not a factual error on the same order of believing that Bush caused 9/11. Likewise, yes, the stimulus contained tax cuts, but the tax cuts are a tiny part of it; mistakenly believing it didn't contain any, when it in fact just didn't contain any that matter, is an error, but hardly the kind of error we really ought to care about.
Go up against the powerful, and nothing on you remains out of the public eye.
I don't think that gets to the heart of the matter. It's more like "make a career out of making sure that nothing about your enemies remains out of the public eye, and you'll find that not much about yourself will stay out of the public eye either".
If you can dish it it out, you'd better be willing to take it.
What happened to the arcades is that home systems got good enough that people could get everything they wanted from the arcade at home. That's why the last arcade machines were things like driving simulators and Dance Dance Revolution which had big pieces of hardware that people couldn't easily keep at home. It's also why arcades still exist in Japan--Tokyo is really crowded and filling your home with gaming stuff is hard.
Fighting games actually helped the arcades because competition against another player was also something it was hard to get at home (until online gaming).
I'm sure you would like to think that he is a monster for the damage inflicted on the 'computing world', but the there is much more to life than just computers. By many standards he is a pretty average human being.
I don't agree. The damage done by Facebook to privacy, or by Microsoft to the computing world, is smaller than, say, the damage done to someone by stabbing them--but it's being done over and over and over and over, billions of times. One act of greed isn't as bad as one stabbing, but the damage adds up--is a billion acts of greed worse than one stabbing? If you're going to put any reasonable cost at all on the damage these people did, they end up being worse than normal criminals simply because although they're not doing things which are as bad, they make up for it in volume.
This is no more ironic or hypocritical than it would be ironic to hold a human rights day right after a prominent anti-abortion organization claims the US is violating human rights by performing abortions. Or to have a conference dedicated to the family even though you support gay marriages, which gay marriage opponents claim are destructive to the family.
Or, in short: Publicly favoring X isn't wrong just because people who don't like you accuse you being anti-X.
You are not obligated to treat accusations by your opponents as truth.
You WERE insubordinate and your religion isn't an excuse not to do the job you were hired to do any more than it was for those fuckers that refused to fill birth control or morning after pill prescriptions because they don't agree with the practice. If you can't do your job because of your religion, then it's not the job for you (and in your case, obviously it wasn't, hence your quitting.)
So what do you think about doctors who refuse to participate in death penalty executions (which actually happens)? Should they be fired?
Righthaven takes copyright of an article, and licenses it back to the newspaper. At that point, the economic value of the article to Righthaven is exhausted. There is no further "ad revenue" coming in to them.
I wouldn't think that matters. Wouldn't the payment they can get for licensing it back to the newspaper depend on the ad revenue it could get? If it can't get much ad revenue, they can't license it for much.
Of course the newspaper already paid them for *this particular* article, and they can't lose this preexisting payment, only future payments for future articles, but that would be like a situation where the newspaper did own the article and you tried to claim that the advertisers already paid them for the ads and they only lose revenue for future ads.
Over 50% of US soldier deaths in Afghanistan/Iraq are caused by friendly fire.
How does this qualify as "occasionally" is beyond me.
The better we are at protecting soldiers from hostile fire, the larger the percentage of the deaths that are going to be caused by friendly fire. The fact that the friendly fire percentage is large doesn't mean anything unless the number is large.
As an aside, I'm a little confused about how the lost time and the litigation process "ended" his career as a yield engineer. Have other people refused to hire him? Does the field change so fast that he truly doesn't know anything useful anymore and may as well have switched jobs?
Employers tend not to give much of a career to people who sued their former employer, even if the suit is legitimate. Also, having large gaps on your resume makes you look bad as an employment prospect even without a lawsuit. I can easily believe he's now unemployable.
If we haven't done this already, which we almost certainly have, we will, at some point, know for a fact that we murdered an innocent person. At that point, we are all murders. And we, in turn, deserve to die.
By that reasoning, we know that there are innocent people in jail. We even know that there are innocent people in jail who will never get exonerated (because only a percentage of them ever get exonerated). Therefore we're all kidnappers and deserve to rot in jail forever.
First of all, doing good things in science takes a lot of time and experience, so most good ones will be older. It's not like being an athlete.
Second, most scientists do things whose significance is hard to explain to kids. We're long past the point where someone could invent the electric lightbulb or the airplane. Nor does the scientist have millions of dollars or his own TV show. (Someone suggested the Mythbusters, who do have their own TV show, but they're only marginally scientists. But at least some third graders will respect them.)
Third, scientists tend to work with others. There's no single scientist responsible for many things--there isn't one person who invented, say, the cell phone. That makes them much less famous unless you've got an Einstein.
Fourth, being an athlete or an entertainer inherently means being a larger than life personality who is publicized to lots of people. Science and related professions aren't like that. Finding scientists that kids can appreciate will therefore be hard.
Barring unusual coincidences (i.e. the street you live on just happens to be named after someone famous, or your kid had an operation which saved his life and was invented by one person), I don't think it's possible. The best you can do is find out what the kid already is interested in with respect to science and pick someone who is famous in that exact area, but that won't be someone who's important in the big picture. And he certainly won't be respected by third graders nationwide.
(And I didn't even know that kids still respect astronauts. What exactly do astronauts do nowadays that makes them famous? There's no first man in space, first man in orbit, first man on the moon, etc. any more., and they certainly don't make the news much.)
Humans are emotional beings. This is wrong in the same way that them walking over to the grave and literally shitting on it would be. It really wouldn't make sense to argue that the body is dead and beyond being affected by human excrement. For that matter, by this reasoning the government could steal the bodies and eat them. Again, the body doesn't care.
In fact, we don't need to limit it to bodies. Why can't the government start putting out press releases consisting of nothing other than insults about the dead worker? The dead worker doesn't care, and even if the family reads it it's just words, right? There's no actual harm being done.
For quite a while I used a terminal emulator on an Atari 800 computer which gave an 80x24 fixed-width font. Atari 800 resolution is normally 320x192 making the characters 4 by 8 pixels including spacing. Since it was fixed width, it didn't get to make the i 2 pixels wide or the t 3 pixels wide, so taking that into account it was the same size as this font.
Small businesses aren't hiring because big businesses have effectively muscled them out of most markets....
Yeah, and this will make it worse.
Having more government regulations is great for big businesses. Making their website compliant (or following most other regulations) costs money, but that amount of money is peanuts compared to the overall profits of the business. Meanwhile, any small businesses that want to compete find themselves having to pay a sum of money that is a good chunk of (or even more than) their profit in order to ensure compliance. Net result: big business wins. The conservatives are actually opposing big business here.
The way the technical definition of clearing the neighborhood is set up, Neptune does.
The real problem is that picking clearing the neighborhood in the first place is completely arbitrary. They could have picked "has an atmosphere" and ended up with Mercury being disqualified as a planet. They could have defined Jupiter as a failed star and disqualified Jupiter as a planet. They could have picked a size limit at Pluto's size and we'd have had 10 planets.
It's not a misclassification. It's not as if they had a definition of a planet and then suddenly figured out that Pluto didn't fit it--that would be a misclassification. Pluto is no longer classified as a planet because they wrote the definition just now specifically to exclude it.
My definition for a planet would be "big enough that scientifically interesting things happen on it that only happen on big objects".
So if it's got an atmosphere, different types of surface, weather, tectonic activity, etc. it's more planetlike. It's a sliding scale rather than a yes or no idea, and you'll probably need to come up with some size threshhold that roughly approximates this (since it's hard to tell if some newly discovered object, that you don't know anything about yet, has anything interesting on it), but I can't imagine Pluto failing this definition.
That really doesn't prove much because if they were a real threat, we'd still leave them in charge of checking bags. Firing them for being Somali would be racial profiling at a minimum, and probably illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
No, there's another word for that: diplomacy. That's how diplomacy works.
It's going to be incredibly difficult to prove that Wikileaks resulted in a death, since in practice it's just going to be one contributing factor among others--you'll always have plausible deniability and be able to claim the death was caused by one of those other factors. It'll raise the probability of death and so some people will die who wouldn't die without it--but it's going to be hard to tell which ones.
Imagine that, for instance, some terrorist uses the leaked list of targets as targets for terrorism. It would always be possible to say "maybe he would have attacked this target anyway without Wikileaks". There would be no way to definitively prove Wikileaks was responsible--even if the terrorist actually admits to using Wikileaks, his defenders could always say "if Wikileaks wasn't around he would still have chosen targets by some means". You could never prove it.
The independence of India was immediately followed by a series of bloody wars between India and Pakistan (which were both part of British India), so I'm not sure it counts.
Actually, the source article's summary doesn't match the source article very well either. First of all, it says that Fox viewers *are* less informed, not that Fox *makes* them less informed. It could be that less educated viewers go to Fox in the first place, and in fact this is pretty likely considering the image Fox cultivates. Second, it says that "CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases". It's not really specifically about Fox.
Finally, some of the questions seem a bit odd. It is of course literally true that TARP and the GM bailout began under Bush, but it's also true that Obama heavily lent his support to both of those and was the president or president-elect during most of the time period covered by them; TARP was just a month before the election and the bailout a month *after*. Pointing out that Bush was president at the time is barely better than a Trivial Pursuit question, not a factual error on the same order of believing that Bush caused 9/11. Likewise, yes, the stimulus contained tax cuts, but the tax cuts are a tiny part of it; mistakenly believing it didn't contain any, when it in fact just didn't contain any that matter, is an error, but hardly the kind of error we really ought to care about.
I don't think that gets to the heart of the matter. It's more like "make a career out of making sure that nothing about your enemies remains out of the public eye, and you'll find that not much about yourself will stay out of the public eye either".
If you can dish it it out, you'd better be willing to take it.
What happened to the arcades is that home systems got good enough that people could get everything they wanted from the arcade at home. That's why the last arcade machines were things like driving simulators and Dance Dance Revolution which had big pieces of hardware that people couldn't easily keep at home. It's also why arcades still exist in Japan--Tokyo is really crowded and filling your home with gaming stuff is hard.
Fighting games actually helped the arcades because competition against another player was also something it was hard to get at home (until online gaming).
I don't agree. The damage done by Facebook to privacy, or by Microsoft to the computing world, is smaller than, say, the damage done to someone by stabbing them--but it's being done over and over and over and over, billions of times. One act of greed isn't as bad as one stabbing, but the damage adds up--is a billion acts of greed worse than one stabbing? If you're going to put any reasonable cost at all on the damage these people did, they end up being worse than normal criminals simply because although they're not doing things which are as bad, they make up for it in volume.
This is no more ironic or hypocritical than it would be ironic to hold a human rights day right after a prominent anti-abortion organization claims the US is violating human rights by performing abortions. Or to have a conference dedicated to the family even though you support gay marriages, which gay marriage opponents claim are destructive to the family.
Or, in short: Publicly favoring X isn't wrong just because people who don't like you accuse you being anti-X.
You are not obligated to treat accusations by your opponents as truth.
So what do you think about doctors who refuse to participate in death penalty executions (which actually happens)? Should they be fired?
"This is how capitalism works" and taxes don't go together. Taxes are not capitalism, they are government intervention.
They caught Al Capone for tax evasion.
It was obviously not the charge that he was really being arrested for, but it did provide a way to get a very dangerous person off the streets.
I wouldn't think that matters. Wouldn't the payment they can get for licensing it back to the newspaper depend on the ad revenue it could get? If it can't get much ad revenue, they can't license it for much.
Of course the newspaper already paid them for *this particular* article, and they can't lose this preexisting payment, only future payments for future articles, but that would be like a situation where the newspaper did own the article and you tried to claim that the advertisers already paid them for the ads and they only lose revenue for future ads.
The better we are at protecting soldiers from hostile fire, the larger the percentage of the deaths that are going to be caused by friendly fire. The fact that the friendly fire percentage is large doesn't mean anything unless the number is large.
Employers tend not to give much of a career to people who sued their former employer, even if the suit is legitimate. Also, having large gaps on your resume makes you look bad as an employment prospect even without a lawsuit. I can easily believe he's now unemployable.
By that reasoning, we know that there are innocent people in jail. We even know that there are innocent people in jail who will never get exonerated (because only a percentage of them ever get exonerated). Therefore we're all kidnappers and deserve to rot in jail forever.
First of all, doing good things in science takes a lot of time and experience, so most good ones will be older. It's not like being an athlete.
Second, most scientists do things whose significance is hard to explain to kids. We're long past the point where someone could invent the electric lightbulb or the airplane. Nor does the scientist have millions of dollars or his own TV show. (Someone suggested the Mythbusters, who do have their own TV show, but they're only marginally scientists. But at least some third graders will respect them.)
Third, scientists tend to work with others. There's no single scientist responsible for many things--there isn't one person who invented, say, the cell phone. That makes them much less famous unless you've got an Einstein.
Fourth, being an athlete or an entertainer inherently means being a larger than life personality who is publicized to lots of people. Science and related professions aren't like that. Finding scientists that kids can appreciate will therefore be hard.
Barring unusual coincidences (i.e. the street you live on just happens to be named after someone famous, or your kid had an operation which saved his life and was invented by one person), I don't think it's possible. The best you can do is find out what the kid already is interested in with respect to science and pick someone who is famous in that exact area, but that won't be someone who's important in the big picture. And he certainly won't be respected by third graders nationwide.
(And I didn't even know that kids still respect astronauts. What exactly do astronauts do nowadays that makes them famous? There's no first man in space, first man in orbit, first man on the moon, etc. any more., and they certainly don't make the news much.)
Is there some rule that you should be exempted from permit laws if you're young enough to be cute?
Humans are emotional beings. This is wrong in the same way that them walking over to the grave and literally shitting on it would be. It really wouldn't make sense to argue that the body is dead and beyond being affected by human excrement. For that matter, by this reasoning the government could steal the bodies and eat them. Again, the body doesn't care.
In fact, we don't need to limit it to bodies. Why can't the government start putting out press releases consisting of nothing other than insults about the dead worker? The dead worker doesn't care, and even if the family reads it it's just words, right? There's no actual harm being done.
For quite a while I used a terminal emulator on an Atari 800 computer which gave an 80x24 fixed-width font. Atari 800 resolution is normally 320x192 making the characters 4 by 8 pixels including spacing. Since it was fixed width, it didn't get to make the i 2 pixels wide or the t 3 pixels wide, so taking that into account it was the same size as this font.
Yeah, and this will make it worse.
Having more government regulations is great for big businesses. Making their website compliant (or following most other regulations) costs money, but that amount of money is peanuts compared to the overall profits of the business. Meanwhile, any small businesses that want to compete find themselves having to pay a sum of money that is a good chunk of (or even more than) their profit in order to ensure compliance. Net result: big business wins. The conservatives are actually opposing big business here.
The way the technical definition of clearing the neighborhood is set up, Neptune does.
The real problem is that picking clearing the neighborhood in the first place is completely arbitrary. They could have picked "has an atmosphere" and ended up with Mercury being disqualified as a planet. They could have defined Jupiter as a failed star and disqualified Jupiter as a planet. They could have picked a size limit at Pluto's size and we'd have had 10 planets.
It's not a misclassification. It's not as if they had a definition of a planet and then suddenly figured out that Pluto didn't fit it--that would be a misclassification. Pluto is no longer classified as a planet because they wrote the definition just now specifically to exclude it.
My definition for a planet would be "big enough that scientifically interesting things happen on it that only happen on big objects".
So if it's got an atmosphere, different types of surface, weather, tectonic activity, etc. it's more planetlike. It's a sliding scale rather than a yes or no idea, and you'll probably need to come up with some size threshhold that roughly approximates this (since it's hard to tell if some newly discovered object, that you don't know anything about yet, has anything interesting on it), but I can't imagine Pluto failing this definition.
Obama is also in favor of increased wiretapping and specifically Internet wiretaps. Would it then be okay to break into Obama's accounts?
That really doesn't prove much because if they were a real threat, we'd still leave them in charge of checking bags. Firing them for being Somali would be racial profiling at a minimum, and probably illegal.