I'm not the one who has done any stereotyping here -- you are. You painted both the news media and business schools with your broad stereotyping brush. In fact, feeling like you're being stereotyped may be part of your potential persecution complex!
I said if you believe x, then you are y. If you think that the reason that the only presidents who have willfully ignored wiretapping laws are both Republican and not Democratic is the result of leftward media bias, then you are not very bright nor logical.
If that result is because of media bias, you are not only implicating that the Democratic presidents in the same time period have willfully ignored wiretapping laws, but that this information is fairly easily available to the lefty media outlets, and being covered up by them, while simultaneously being difficult to impossible to find for rightward-biased media outlets. If you really believe the shit you typed in your first reply to our foreign friend, then you think that three terms worth of Democratic presidents were willfully ignoring the law AND it's being hidden by their lefty media puppets.
You're a fucking moron if you think that. Even with a huge media bias, something of that magnitude is not likely to be covered up for long, especially not after TWO former Presidents were indicated in doing the same behavior. Let alone because of the lack of political-right journalists! You're a fucking moron.
The reason two Republican presidents and no Democratic presidents have been indicated is because of small sample size. Stop injecting your media bias diatribe into situations where it is irrelevant in addition to having a spurious foundation in truth.
That is probably part of the intent. It simultaneously signals a willingness to back up the "peace" talk while still maintaining a threat. It actually increases the threat on a few particular countries, Iran and North Korea, by singling them out as legitimate nuclear targets because of their own budding nuclear programs. This increases the pressure on them to stop without increasing the actual overall threat of US nuclear weapon use -- increasing the threat to N. Korea and Iran while lowering it to everybody else.
It could also change in a heartbeat. The original threat of using nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states was very low, only to be used in the most dire of circumstances, and even then, it would probably have been against a few specific targets. This seems to explicitly threaten those states with nuclear strikes under certain circumstances, whereas before it was an ambiguous threat so as not to undermine diplomatic efforts.
who cares if you're a Republican or not if you "self-identify" as "right-leaning"? You feel persecuted, and it's fun to believe, but it's a fucked up complex of yours that the rest of us don't care to deal with. I mean really, you try to point out that journalists are trying to dig up dirt on the political right in order to prove the point that the stereotype of Presidents with a disregard for law aren't likely to be Republicans. What kind of idiotic logic is that? If you're going to judge entire groups of people based on such small amounts of fact, then you should probably go ahead and think that Republicans "always are" the ones who disregard the law. Instead you use it as some kind of justification that not only are they not the ones who tend to disregard the law, but it also stands as proof that the Jew-controlled and lefty-biased media is out to get you. WTF?
I see people talk about the leftward political bias of the news media all the time, and then they back it up with stuff like "i know it's true, i watched cnn for 5 minutes before changing back to fox!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or pretending that there are entire Libraries of Congress' worth of poll data showing a self-identified bias. I've never seen a good poll showing that, and I wouldn't be likely to hold them in high regard even if they did due to the nature of polling.
Seriously, now. Even if "something in the range of 80%" (what is your error margin on that, +/- 100%?), there would still be plenty of "right-biased" journalists who would figuratively kill for the opportunity to scoop a story like that on a Democratic President. No, sir, your whole "they're out to get me!!!!!!" spiel is dumb and unentertaining for those of us not living under the pretense. The reason they "always seem" to be Republican is because there have been two P's OTUS found to have done it, and only 44 total. As the reply above yours says, it's just about as surprising as flipping a donkey/elephant coin and getting the elephant twice in a row.
As for your suggestion, I will now self-identify as fucking myself. Take that as you will.
No, it's just that with a press corps that overwhelmingly identifies with the Democratic party, the excesses of Republicans are more likely to be investigated and reported on.
Not quite. It's fun to believe in, but really, you're just an idiot with a persecution complex for doing so.
They "always seem" to be Republicans because there's a terribly small sample size. There's only been 44 P's OTUS, and 2 of them have now been indicated as having "corrupted and subverted existing [wiretapping] laws", so it's not surprising at all that they are both affiliated with the same party.
(1) is obviously worse, because it assumes that (2) is not a subset of (1). The citizens believing what is "fed to them as 'truth'" can exist with or without outright government censorship.
You are falsely illustrating the choice between government censorship with the citizens knowing exactly what is censored, versus no government censorship with the citizens unknowingly ignorant. Citizens can be unknowingly ignorant with or without government censorship, so it is crazy to say that the censorship is beneficial.
If you think Americans believe what is "fed" to them as "truth", then you are crazy! Part of the reasoning behind the first amendment and the strong freedoms of speech in the USA is that it allows anyone, no matter how crazy or stupid, to speak their mind. When everyone in the country knows that anyone could be saying anything, no matter how dumb it is, there is an innate distrust of the media.
If you already bought an iphone or itouch, you already handed over control - you decided at that time that your "best interest" was to dispense with some control. I don't care a fig about Apple, but they're not EXTORTING anything.
People buy them under certain premises only for Apple to renege on (some of) them later. While most of us here may know that Apple's one rule is "we can do whatever we want", that's not exactly what they advertise.
You don't want to be in a closed garden, then don't buy a fucking iphone. You don't want to pay for apps, then don't pay for them, you stupid consumer. You're not forced to buy anything, you stupid fucking twat, so there's no coercion or force being exerted by anyone.
It's streets from what Microsoft did, since MS actually DID coerce and extort other companies to make sure IE was the only browser shipped with company X PCs, or more recently, they "coerced" other manufacturers to make sure Windows was the only O/S shipped on the "netbooks".
You don't want to use MSIE, don't buy fucking Windows, you fucking twat consumer.
By the way, in a "boolean" world, either something is, or isn't, at least that's what boolean meant when I went to school. Maybe universities these days teach that boolean now encompasses: "totally, utterly, completely false", "really false", "sort of false", "a little false", "a little true", "kind of true", "true-ish", "pepsi true", and now "totally, utterly completely Apple true".
I'm not the one who tried to portray it as being black-and-white, the post I replied to did. I responded by showing him that if you choose to pigeonhole it into binary values, then Apple most certainly is "totally, utterly, completely" evil, because that's the only kind of evil you can be in that system of judgment. Those are his words, not mine. Apple's behavior is most definitely somewhat evil, ergo, it's completely evil. That's why you don't try to do stupid things like you and he are doing -- and doing wrong -- by pigeonholing Apple into a certain type of behavior and then whitewashing it as if it's perfectly fine when it is patently obvious that it is not perfectly fine.
I expect your reply in a few years when you've worked on your reading comprehension a little bit and have a better system of values. Thanks for the nice talk!
Your analogy is dumb. The app store is the only store that exists in this case. Nobody cares all that much if Starbucks carries the NYT as its only newspaper, because you can go just about anywhere else you want to buy any other kind of newspaper. If Starbucks were the only place in the world you could buy newspapers, and they refused to carry certain ones -- especially with spurious reasoning as to why some are rejected and others are not -- it would be evil.
Apple is leveraging its position to extort money and control from users and developers at the expense of the best interests of people who have bought iphones and itouches. It's not very much different from Microsoft's IE maneuvers in the late 90s and early 2000s.
It's not genocide evil, but if you're going to judge evil in a boolean manner, it's totally, utterly, completely evil. The only way it is by being pedantic about what is or is not evil and defining it so as to only includes things you decide, which is pretty ironic, given the content of your post.
Whatever the case may be, he certainly wasn't overwhelmingly elected. If anything that may make it more legitimate, but it also makes the post you're replying to accurate.
My grandfather spent part of his 20s traveling around Europe killing fascists with a belt-fed machine gun. When I was little, less than 10 years old, I pointed some toy gun at him, a pop-gun or something -- you know, one of those toy guns with a cork in the barrel attached to a string or whatever.
He took me aside and calmly told me "don't ever point a gun at someone unless you plan to shoot them."
Some lessons you learn and never forget, and I'm glad I learned that particular lesson in that particular way. Some things just aren't worth messing around with, no matter how small a chance it is to go wrong.
This story is simply awful, and it has nothing to do with how realistic the Wii gun looks. Guns are fascinating to people of all ages, even three year olds, even with objects that may only vaguely or symbolically resemble guns. I wish there were more emphasis among gun owners in America on the "well-regulated" part of the second amendment, and not in a banning-every-gun kind of way.
As long as Nature* (or Science*, or *) are not infinite in length, there will have to be decisions made as to what is published and when. If they can fit x papers, and have x+1 candidates, all of equal "value", then one of those candidates cannot be published. Which one?
Well, this one looks good, but this other one...
It is inevitable and unavoidable. And that is even before considering human folly in judgment!
just because every science article like this has a high number of posts saying "correlation is not causation" does not mean that science articles cause "correlation is not causation" posts. Correlation is not causation.
I agree, I was speculating on what the parent (to my reply) was referring to. That post used the word genocide and later referred to Israel's nuclear arsenal, saying that Iran needed nuclear weapons in order to fix the imbalance causing a genocide.
My point was that there is no genocide being caused by nuclear weapons, so to use it as a justification for Iranian production of nuclear material is wrong. If an imbalance in power is causing anything, that anything is caused mostly by a far superior conventional military.
You undermine your own argument with this statement:
Imbalances in that part of the world usually lead to genocide.
Israel has allegedly had nuclear weapons capability for decades, decades, which, you may have noticed, have gone by without the use of nuclear weapons. If imbalances lead to genocide, and there has been no nuclear genocide, then it seems to be balanced. Iran acquiring nuclear weapons may shift the geopolitical situation into a position of imbalance.
Any impartial observer should be able to look at the situation and see that the risk of a nuclear-ized war can only increase or remain the same if Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
if you're talking about genocide of Palestinians, that may be due to a huge imbalance in conventional weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not the one who has done any stereotyping here -- you are. You painted both the news media and business schools with your broad stereotyping brush. In fact, feeling like you're being stereotyped may be part of your potential persecution complex!
I said if you believe x, then you are y. If you think that the reason that the only presidents who have willfully ignored wiretapping laws are both Republican and not Democratic is the result of leftward media bias, then you are not very bright nor logical.
If that result is because of media bias, you are not only implicating that the Democratic presidents in the same time period have willfully ignored wiretapping laws, but that this information is fairly easily available to the lefty media outlets, and being covered up by them, while simultaneously being difficult to impossible to find for rightward-biased media outlets. If you really believe the shit you typed in your first reply to our foreign friend, then you think that three terms worth of Democratic presidents were willfully ignoring the law AND it's being hidden by their lefty media puppets.
You're a fucking moron if you think that. Even with a huge media bias, something of that magnitude is not likely to be covered up for long, especially not after TWO former Presidents were indicated in doing the same behavior. Let alone because of the lack of political-right journalists! You're a fucking moron.
The reason two Republican presidents and no Democratic presidents have been indicated is because of small sample size. Stop injecting your media bias diatribe into situations where it is irrelevant in addition to having a spurious foundation in truth.
Russia is a declared nuclear state, and as such, is still a potential target for US nuclear strikes.
That is probably part of the intent. It simultaneously signals a willingness to back up the "peace" talk while still maintaining a threat. It actually increases the threat on a few particular countries, Iran and North Korea, by singling them out as legitimate nuclear targets because of their own budding nuclear programs. This increases the pressure on them to stop without increasing the actual overall threat of US nuclear weapon use -- increasing the threat to N. Korea and Iran while lowering it to everybody else.
It could also change in a heartbeat. The original threat of using nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states was very low, only to be used in the most dire of circumstances, and even then, it would probably have been against a few specific targets. This seems to explicitly threaten those states with nuclear strikes under certain circumstances, whereas before it was an ambiguous threat so as not to undermine diplomatic efforts.
who cares if you're a Republican or not if you "self-identify" as "right-leaning"? You feel persecuted, and it's fun to believe, but it's a fucked up complex of yours that the rest of us don't care to deal with. I mean really, you try to point out that journalists are trying to dig up dirt on the political right in order to prove the point that the stereotype of Presidents with a disregard for law aren't likely to be Republicans. What kind of idiotic logic is that? If you're going to judge entire groups of people based on such small amounts of fact, then you should probably go ahead and think that Republicans "always are" the ones who disregard the law. Instead you use it as some kind of justification that not only are they not the ones who tend to disregard the law, but it also stands as proof that the Jew-controlled and lefty-biased media is out to get you. WTF?
I see people talk about the leftward political bias of the news media all the time, and then they back it up with stuff like "i know it's true, i watched cnn for 5 minutes before changing back to fox!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or pretending that there are entire Libraries of Congress' worth of poll data showing a self-identified bias. I've never seen a good poll showing that, and I wouldn't be likely to hold them in high regard even if they did due to the nature of polling.
Seriously, now. Even if "something in the range of 80%" (what is your error margin on that, +/- 100%?), there would still be plenty of "right-biased" journalists who would figuratively kill for the opportunity to scoop a story like that on a Democratic President. No, sir, your whole "they're out to get me!!!!!!" spiel is dumb and unentertaining for those of us not living under the pretense. The reason they "always seem" to be Republican is because there have been two P's OTUS found to have done it, and only 44 total. As the reply above yours says, it's just about as surprising as flipping a donkey/elephant coin and getting the elephant twice in a row.
As for your suggestion, I will now self-identify as fucking myself. Take that as you will.
No, it's just that with a press corps that overwhelmingly identifies with the Democratic party, the excesses of Republicans are more likely to be investigated and reported on.
Not quite. It's fun to believe in, but really, you're just an idiot with a persecution complex for doing so.
They "always seem" to be Republicans because there's a terribly small sample size. There's only been 44 P's OTUS, and 2 of them have now been indicated as having "corrupted and subverted existing [wiretapping] laws", so it's not surprising at all that they are both affiliated with the same party.
(1) is obviously worse, because it assumes that (2) is not a subset of (1). The citizens believing what is "fed to them as 'truth'" can exist with or without outright government censorship.
You are falsely illustrating the choice between government censorship with the citizens knowing exactly what is censored, versus no government censorship with the citizens unknowingly ignorant. Citizens can be unknowingly ignorant with or without government censorship, so it is crazy to say that the censorship is beneficial.
If you think Americans believe what is "fed" to them as "truth", then you are crazy! Part of the reasoning behind the first amendment and the strong freedoms of speech in the USA is that it allows anyone, no matter how crazy or stupid, to speak their mind. When everyone in the country knows that anyone could be saying anything, no matter how dumb it is, there is an innate distrust of the media.
were you taught to type "would of" in school?
People buy them under certain premises only for Apple to renege on (some of) them later. While most of us here may know that Apple's one rule is "we can do whatever we want", that's not exactly what they advertise.
You don't want to use MSIE, don't buy fucking Windows, you fucking twat consumer.
I'm not the one who tried to portray it as being black-and-white, the post I replied to did. I responded by showing him that if you choose to pigeonhole it into binary values, then Apple most certainly is "totally, utterly, completely" evil, because that's the only kind of evil you can be in that system of judgment. Those are his words, not mine. Apple's behavior is most definitely somewhat evil, ergo, it's completely evil. That's why you don't try to do stupid things like you and he are doing -- and doing wrong -- by pigeonholing Apple into a certain type of behavior and then whitewashing it as if it's perfectly fine when it is patently obvious that it is not perfectly fine.
I expect your reply in a few years when you've worked on your reading comprehension a little bit and have a better system of values. Thanks for the nice talk!
Your analogy is dumb. The app store is the only store that exists in this case. Nobody cares all that much if Starbucks carries the NYT as its only newspaper, because you can go just about anywhere else you want to buy any other kind of newspaper. If Starbucks were the only place in the world you could buy newspapers, and they refused to carry certain ones -- especially with spurious reasoning as to why some are rejected and others are not -- it would be evil.
Apple is leveraging its position to extort money and control from users and developers at the expense of the best interests of people who have bought iphones and itouches. It's not very much different from Microsoft's IE maneuvers in the late 90s and early 2000s.
It's not genocide evil, but if you're going to judge evil in a boolean manner, it's totally, utterly, completely evil. The only way it is by being pedantic about what is or is not evil and defining it so as to only includes things you decide, which is pretty ironic, given the content of your post.
Whatever the case may be, he certainly wasn't overwhelmingly elected. If anything that may make it more legitimate, but it also makes the post you're replying to accurate.
My grandfather spent part of his 20s traveling around Europe killing fascists with a belt-fed machine gun. When I was little, less than 10 years old, I pointed some toy gun at him, a pop-gun or something -- you know, one of those toy guns with a cork in the barrel attached to a string or whatever.
He took me aside and calmly told me "don't ever point a gun at someone unless you plan to shoot them."
Some lessons you learn and never forget, and I'm glad I learned that particular lesson in that particular way. Some things just aren't worth messing around with, no matter how small a chance it is to go wrong.
This story is simply awful, and it has nothing to do with how realistic the Wii gun looks. Guns are fascinating to people of all ages, even three year olds, even with objects that may only vaguely or symbolically resemble guns. I wish there were more emphasis among gun owners in America on the "well-regulated" part of the second amendment, and not in a banning-every-gun kind of way.
The fat changes the physicochemical properties of the milk, you say? you mean like its taste?
I'm sure that's why the X that closes Windows' windows is on the far right side, because it is "slightly better"
I believe those are called taikoturfers.
same as the old world!
http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/03RelatedStories/03.03shortstories/03.03.10contss.htm
health-care and national security all in one! it's perfect.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_is_the_government
Those women and children aren't innocent, they knew what was coming to them when they signed up for the UK or Canadian armed forces.
how do you expect it to be otherwise?
As long as Nature* (or Science*, or *) are not infinite in length, there will have to be decisions made as to what is published and when. If they can fit x papers, and have x+1 candidates, all of equal "value", then one of those candidates cannot be published. Which one?
Well, this one looks good, but this other one...
It is inevitable and unavoidable. And that is even before considering human folly in judgment!
just because every science article like this has a high number of posts saying "correlation is not causation" does not mean that science articles cause "correlation is not causation" posts. Correlation is not causation.
on that note, they are actually "raindrop" shaped if they land on, say, a window, and begin to slide down it slowly. Sometimes.
I hereby change the name from raindrops to raindroppeds.
One of the limitations of this interface is it doesn't allow random people to download 9 terabytes of mostly useless information. Each.
Search for what you want, and then use it?
I agree, I was speculating on what the parent (to my reply) was referring to. That post used the word genocide and later referred to Israel's nuclear arsenal, saying that Iran needed nuclear weapons in order to fix the imbalance causing a genocide.
My point was that there is no genocide being caused by nuclear weapons, so to use it as a justification for Iranian production of nuclear material is wrong. If an imbalance in power is causing anything, that anything is caused mostly by a far superior conventional military.
You undermine your own argument with this statement:
Israel has allegedly had nuclear weapons capability for decades, decades, which, you may have noticed, have gone by without the use of nuclear weapons. If imbalances lead to genocide, and there has been no nuclear genocide, then it seems to be balanced. Iran acquiring nuclear weapons may shift the geopolitical situation into a position of imbalance.
Any impartial observer should be able to look at the situation and see that the risk of a nuclear-ized war can only increase or remain the same if Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
if you're talking about genocide of Palestinians, that may be due to a huge imbalance in conventional weapons.
Isn't a fourth-party just another third-party?
I think they might want to add semtex to the prohibited items list. That would be a good idea!