...says the Anonymous Coward who has even less to contribute than I do.
Besides, I don't care. Look at my user number. I know first-hand how Slashdot has gone to hell over the last several years. There are plenty of whacked-out echo chambers on the 'Net, but this place is a pioneer in the field. The only reasons I still check here at all are a) force of habit and b) to laugh bitterly at you all.
It should be interesting to see how much (or little, more likely) our comments add to the conversation, since TFA presents the same basic position that most Slashdot readers already hold and it's presented with far more legal knowledge and in-depth analysis than most Slashdot readers are capable of.
That's the one email you're going to rest your case on, out of the entire data dump?
Silly me, you made up your mind early and you've completely ignored all of the other news that's come out since the initial announcement. Sort of like the AGW advocates themselves...
It's not that the article isn't true. It's that the article is more than four years old. Citing it here and now, to blame the evil Booooooosh yet again for all the woes of the world, is a textbook example of trolling.
The Huffington Post has become an icon because it very quickly grew from nothing, and it very quickly grew from nothing because it has a MASSIVE bankroll behind it.
I could understand citing the political blogosphere as a whole, but to specifically mention the Huffington Post is just creepy. It's neither revolutionary nor reputable.
If I'm reading that study correctly, the list of potential respondents was drawn only from academic institutions and government agencies, and from that list, the actual respondents essentially self-selected.
And you think that's an accurate reflection of reality?
The argument all along has been that the scientists with the most to gain from government action -- through grants or regulation or whatever -- are the ones most likely to agree on anthropogenic climate change. In that much, the study seems right on target...
EDIT: If other users can keep posting the same study, then I can keep posting the same reply. Bite me, asinine Slashcode spam blocker.
If I'm reading that study correctly, the list of potential respondents was drawn only from academic institutions and government agencies, and from that list, the actual respondents essentially self-selected.
And you think that's an accurate reflection of reality?
The argument all along has been that the scientists with the most to gain from government action -- through grants or regulation or whatever -- are the ones most likely to agree on anthropogenic climate change. In that much, the study seems right on target...
I'm willing to concede that Obama did not associate with Ayers because he was involved in the Weather Underground. The "Chicago machine" is its own world. And regardless of the seriousness of the crimes, they did happen forty years ago and the courts have made their ruling. To keep dwelling on those crimes is to second-guess due process, and I'm not willing to do that just yet.
The problem that serious, forward-looking conservatives have with Ayers -- and with Obama's decision to associate with Ayers -- is this bogus, ideologically driven education "reform". Actually teaching children to think critically and develop basic skills is rather low on their list of priorities.
It's the process of negotiation: to get something (other legislators' votes), you must give something (earmarks, amendments).
It sucks in principle, but it's a fact of life.
"Three months into his $10.50-an-hour internship, he left the tapes in his car overnight -- unencrypted -- and they were stolen, and his 1990 Yugo mysteriously replaced with a new Ferrari."
Who the hell would buy a Ferrari with gas prices the way they are?
...but how much of this outrage is due to the fact that the subject of the bit was Condoleezza Rice, a member of the Bush administration, and Opie and Anthony's target demographic feels that anything involving Bush is fair game?
If it's a condition of his probation to which he agreed in order to stay out of prison, then he has no standing on which to object now. End of discussion.
On the other hand, if the requirement of blood (to the exclusion of other types of samples) is a generalized statute that was enacted after his probation was handed down, then he may have a case. TFA is unclear on the timeline.
75 cents might not be worth it to you, but what about the guy in china?
If a person in China has high-speed 'Net access and is proficient enough in English to do these tasks, not even they are going to waste their time like this. They already have jobs in international shipping, banking, marketing, manufacturing, journalism, government, etc.
After a quick review of the available tasks, I must say this looks like a huge scam. Most of the tasks are marketing oriented (e.g. copywriting, photo manipulation), for which experienced contractors get paid $30 to $50 per hour.
Only 75 cents to research and write a complete automotive product description? Are they kidding? Sure, they say I can copy the description from the manufacturer's Web site, but my time is still worth more than that. Besides, I think it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to make sure their Amazon listing is correct. That's how they do it on IMDB.
I can only hope the program will make more sense as they add more requesters and more tasks.
Slashdot Mirror
How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?
...says the Anonymous Coward who has even less to contribute than I do.
Besides, I don't care. Look at my user number. I know first-hand how Slashdot has gone to hell over the last several years. There are plenty of whacked-out echo chambers on the 'Net, but this place is a pioneer in the field. The only reasons I still check here at all are a) force of habit and b) to laugh bitterly at you all.
It should be interesting to see how much (or little, more likely) our comments add to the conversation, since TFA presents the same basic position that most Slashdot readers already hold and it's presented with far more legal knowledge and in-depth analysis than most Slashdot readers are capable of.
Except that the EU parliament has no real power (much like the British House of Lords). All real power in the EU is held by the bureaucracy.
That's the one email you're going to rest your case on, out of the entire data dump? Silly me, you made up your mind early and you've completely ignored all of the other news that's come out since the initial announcement. Sort of like the AGW advocates themselves...
Thank you for missing the point and, in your own way, thereby proving it.
It's not that the article isn't true. It's that the article is more than four years old. Citing it here and now, to blame the evil Booooooosh yet again for all the woes of the world, is a textbook example of trolling.
The Huffington Post has become an icon because it very quickly grew from nothing, and it very quickly grew from nothing because it has a MASSIVE bankroll behind it.
That's not something to be applauded.
I could understand citing the political blogosphere as a whole, but to specifically mention the Huffington Post is just creepy. It's neither revolutionary nor reputable.
If I'm reading that study correctly, the list of potential respondents was drawn only from academic institutions and government agencies, and from that list, the actual respondents essentially self-selected.
And you think that's an accurate reflection of reality?
The argument all along has been that the scientists with the most to gain from government action -- through grants or regulation or whatever -- are the ones most likely to agree on anthropogenic climate change. In that much, the study seems right on target...
EDIT: If other users can keep posting the same study, then I can keep posting the same reply. Bite me, asinine Slashcode spam blocker.
If I'm reading that study correctly, the list of potential respondents was drawn only from academic institutions and government agencies, and from that list, the actual respondents essentially self-selected.
And you think that's an accurate reflection of reality?
The argument all along has been that the scientists with the most to gain from government action -- through grants or regulation or whatever -- are the ones most likely to agree on anthropogenic climate change. In that much, the study seems right on target...
I'm willing to concede that Obama did not associate with Ayers because he was involved in the Weather Underground. The "Chicago machine" is its own world. And regardless of the seriousness of the crimes, they did happen forty years ago and the courts have made their ruling. To keep dwelling on those crimes is to second-guess due process, and I'm not willing to do that just yet.
The problem that serious, forward-looking conservatives have with Ayers -- and with Obama's decision to associate with Ayers -- is this bogus, ideologically driven education "reform". Actually teaching children to think critically and develop basic skills is rather low on their list of priorities.
...after the following sentence in the first paragraph:
And you wonder why conservatives don't like Ayers?
"Why is this tagged 'Republicans' when it's a Democrat doing the deed?"
Hi, you must be new here...
It's the process of negotiation: to get something (other legislators' votes), you must give something (earmarks, amendments). It sucks in principle, but it's a fact of life.
And this sort of hyperventilation is why I don't come to Slashdot for politics.
The parent said:
Who the hell would buy a Ferrari with gas prices the way they are?
...but how much of this outrage is due to the fact that the subject of the bit was Condoleezza Rice, a member of the Bush administration, and Opie and Anthony's target demographic feels that anything involving Bush is fair game?
That matters because....?
Because this is pseudo-socialist Slashdot, where money is evil, corporations are evil, Republicans are evil...
Are you new here or what?
If it's a condition of his probation to which he agreed in order to stay out of prison, then he has no standing on which to object now. End of discussion.
On the other hand, if the requirement of blood (to the exclusion of other types of samples) is a generalized statute that was enacted after his probation was handed down, then he may have a case. TFA is unclear on the timeline.
In order to completely understand the joke, it helps to watch this first.
75 cents might not be worth it to you, but what about the guy in china?
If a person in China has high-speed 'Net access and is proficient enough in English to do these tasks, not even they are going to waste their time like this. They already have jobs in international shipping, banking, marketing, manufacturing, journalism, government, etc.
After a quick review of the available tasks, I must say this looks like a huge scam. Most of the tasks are marketing oriented (e.g. copywriting, photo manipulation), for which experienced contractors get paid $30 to $50 per hour.
Only 75 cents to research and write a complete automotive product description? Are they kidding? Sure, they say I can copy the description from the manufacturer's Web site, but my time is still worth more than that. Besides, I think it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to make sure their Amazon listing is correct. That's how they do it on IMDB.
I can only hope the program will make more sense as they add more requesters and more tasks.
Uh, your memory engrams may be downloadable, but your consciousness and soul will die right along with your body.
And yes, I misspelled his name. Oops.