Although in legend casks of liquor were strapped around the dogs' collars to warm up travelers, no historical records exist that document this practice.
As much as I grieve for one and hope for the recovery of the other, I don't see how they're connected.
C'mon, it's not that much of a stretch, is it?
Actually, yes it is.
One survived a plane crash after falling over 10,000 m.
The other developed a medical condition while on a routine transatlantic flight.
As others in your thread have pointed out, the death of Vesna Vulovic is newsworthy, but not connected to Carrie Fisher. It deserves a separate story on this site.
And there you are, eschewing reason for your team of choice. Requiring citations of others but only requiring your own feelings to prove your views, and ignoring what you hate in conservatives.
You are confused. Reason demands an implicit evenness of culpability in the absence of other evidence. The OP provided no evidence that liberals were solely to blame for "parking." As for citations, I provided them, and the OP did not.
Perhaps the reason why you do not see the criticisms presented are the same reasons why Neo-Nazis think they are making the world a better place.
When you Godwinize the thread, you have lost the argument.
The definition of "enemy" is "a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war". Exactly how is Russia "hostile" to the US? Not hostile to batshit-crazy figures in the US, mind you, but to the US.
Maybe you don't know what hostile is. You want hostile, how about a theocracy of geriatric warped crazies whipping up Iran against the Great Satan?
My point is that treason is an exceptionally serious crime -- the only crime defined in the US Constitution -- and as such, there must be a high bar for charging and convicting someone of it. That means you cannot just throw around the idea of who is an "enemy." There must be a crystal-clear definition of that term. And that is provided by a congressional declaration of war against said enemy.
In US constitutional terms, an enemy is someone you are formally at war against. It isn't just someone you don't like.
Slashdot is driven by content submitted by users. If you think it's conservative, then it must be because you think you're "winning." I prefer to think that nobody is winning, we're just all here for a spirited discussion.
I'll be surprising nobody but the most staunch biased people, that Wikipedia has plenty of great articles but you NEVER go to the "dark side" of Wikipedia... which is anything hardcore liberals might find interesting and worthy of "parking"--sitting on an article, watching any changes, and ferociously fighting any changes you don't like. As long as the parking-person is more willing to fight than you are to see the truth (almost always), then they win. And Wikipedia becomes this world of dicks fighting turf wars over control of mere words.
I'm not sure why you're calling out "hardcore liberals" here. I have no doubt that hardcore conservatives also "park" in the way you describe.
I'll never forget reading the article on "Political Correctness." It was horrific. Like entering a completely different (hence "dark") Wikipedia. It called PC a "pejorative" word (you know, like a hate word used to hurt someone). It argued that PC didn't actually exist AND that it was actually a good thing at the same time. It didn't even try to be rational and in the the talk pages? They "ruled" that any professor, article, or idea they didn't like was "violating Wikipedia's rules". Rules they didn't apply to their own links to radical blogs with readers in the dozens.
I just did a quick read of the Wikipedia article on Political Correctness. It's an exhaustive (exhausting?) historical and academic treatment of the term, but I don't see that it's "horrific." The supposed inconsistencies are easily seen as the various contradictory uses of the term in various historical contexts. I didn't see anything about the supposed controversies in the talk pages. Care to enlighten us with links?
The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of disloyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution.
There are plenty of other examples. To commit treason, there must be an Enemy. For an Enemy to exist, war must be declared.
No. Whatever you want to call him, he is not a traitor.
As a matter of definition, a US citizen or person can only commit treason by giving aid or comfort to an enemy at a time of war declared by Congress. The US Congress has not declared war on anyone since 1942.
Anti-science? It's an Engadget blog post. Engadget is peer-reviewed as fuck. I think the blogger who posted it has 9 PhDs.
The author's bio, from TFA:
After training to be an Intellectual Property lawyer, Dan abandoned a promising career in financial services to sit at home and play with gadgets. He lives in Norwich with his wife, his books and far too many opinions on British TV comedy. One day, if he's very, very lucky, he'll live out his dream to become the Executive Producer of Doctor Who before retiring to Radio 4.
So, apparently not even one PhD. Perhaps an undergraduate degree in a science field to prepare him for an IP law career, but that's just speculation.
The point is that the blogger does not appear to have any significant science pedigree. He's just a dude at home with a keyboard and "far too many opinions."
Yes, I'm afraid I have to agree on this. It's a nice quip, but the oceans are not going to boil.
Look, global warming guys, global warming is real, the science is well established, but scaremongering hyperbole is not helping you. I know you think it's funny, and you know that nobody really believes that there is a possibility that the oceans are going to boil, but you are just giving ammunition to the deniers.
Stop it. Stick to facts-- the kind that are real.
Scientists generally do stick to the facts. But they have no control over some of the breathless hyperbole (on both sides of the issue) that comes from click-hungry journalists. It's important to know when one is talking and the other is not.
how can the President pass an executive action that could not be reversed by another executive action ?
TFA explains that Obama is using the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Presidents from both parties have used the Act in the past.
Trump can't just take office and reverse it. In fact, it's not clear just how he could, because there is no legal precedent. The Act contains no prevision for reversals, so presumably Trump would have to go to court. And that could take years to play out.
After a federal grand jury indictment? Probably not...
The federal grand jury was RIGGED! Brian Brundage bumped into me the other day and you know what he said? PARDON ME...
The EPA will need a Deputy Director, folks, and who's more tremendous than the president of EnviroGreen? Here's a JOB CREATOR, let me tell you. He built a HUGE business exporting American products and what does he get? The liberals want to put him in prison! And believe me, folks, "hazardous amounts of lead" is a hoax started by guys like Ralph Nader. Jimmy Page and Robert Plant are doing great, they voted for me by the way, almost 50 years of pure Led and they're almost as healthy as I am.
Well Donald, I'd rather you build a wall made of recycled electronics around this guy, and make him pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
St. Bernard dogs are often seen with a flask strapped to its neck because It's a therapy dog for rummies.
Nice snark, but consider the following quote:
Although in legend casks of liquor were strapped around the dogs' collars to warm up travelers, no historical records exist that document this practice.
As much as I grieve for one and hope for the recovery of the other, I don't see how they're connected.
C'mon, it's not that much of a stretch, is it?
Actually, yes it is.
One survived a plane crash after falling over 10,000 m.
The other developed a medical condition while on a routine transatlantic flight.
As others in your thread have pointed out, the death of Vesna Vulovic is newsworthy, but not connected to Carrie Fisher. It deserves a separate story on this site.
Meanwhile, the real C-3PO (actor Anthony Daniels) had this to say:
At last I know what I want for Christmas. The galaxy's beloved Princess, fully functional once more. And soon.
As much as I grieve for one and hope for the recovery of the other, I don't see how they're connected.
What's a therapy dog?
It's a dog that is trained to assist someone with a physical or mental disorder. Carrie Fisher is a self-confessed addict and alcoholic. Her therapy dog helps her to deal with stress and anxiety.
Apologies. I failed to see that she may have had her choice of which questions to answer.
She didn't "ignore" that question. She wasn't asked it.
She should move to North Carolina and run there.
I saw what you did there.
She'd have to go to the bathroom in South Carolina.
She's been mass deleting tweets
Citation? I tried googling "brianna wu deleting tweets" and mostly I get a deluge of sites devoted to hating her.
You can get a hot-air popper for less than $20 that will last for years.
USB-powered, FTW.
'Course, at 2.5 W, it takes a while to heat up.
What exactly is she going to do for tech, other than force companies to hire more women and minorities, and pay them all equal regardless of talent?
I guess we'll just have to wait and hear what her platform is. You, on the other had, appear to have decided what it is already.
If Russia and the USA are going to war, the winner will be cockroaches.
FTFY.
Lets make war great again
People who think war can be great never fought in one.
And there you are, eschewing reason for your team of choice. Requiring citations of others but only requiring your own feelings to prove your views, and ignoring what you hate in conservatives.
You are confused. Reason demands an implicit evenness of culpability in the absence of other evidence. The OP provided no evidence that liberals were solely to blame for "parking." As for citations, I provided them, and the OP did not.
Perhaps the reason why you do not see the criticisms presented are the same reasons why Neo-Nazis think they are making the world a better place.
When you Godwinize the thread, you have lost the argument.
The definition of "enemy" is "a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war". Exactly how is Russia "hostile" to the US? Not hostile to batshit-crazy figures in the US, mind you, but to the US.
Maybe you don't know what hostile is. You want hostile, how about a theocracy of geriatric warped crazies whipping up Iran against the Great Satan?
My point is that treason is an exceptionally serious crime -- the only crime defined in the US Constitution -- and as such, there must be a high bar for charging and convicting someone of it. That means you cannot just throw around the idea of who is an "enemy." There must be a crystal-clear definition of that term. And that is provided by a congressional declaration of war against said enemy.
In US constitutional terms, an enemy is someone you are formally at war against. It isn't just someone you don't like.
Slashdot is a conservative site
Says who?
Slashdot is driven by content submitted by users. If you think it's conservative, then it must be because you think you're "winning." I prefer to think that nobody is winning, we're just all here for a spirited discussion.
I'll be surprising nobody but the most staunch biased people, that Wikipedia has plenty of great articles but you NEVER go to the "dark side" of Wikipedia... which is anything hardcore liberals might find interesting and worthy of "parking"--sitting on an article, watching any changes, and ferociously fighting any changes you don't like. As long as the parking-person is more willing to fight than you are to see the truth (almost always), then they win. And Wikipedia becomes this world of dicks fighting turf wars over control of mere words.
I'm not sure why you're calling out "hardcore liberals" here. I have no doubt that hardcore conservatives also "park" in the way you describe.
I'll never forget reading the article on "Political Correctness." It was horrific. Like entering a completely different (hence "dark") Wikipedia. It called PC a "pejorative" word (you know, like a hate word used to hurt someone). It argued that PC didn't actually exist AND that it was actually a good thing at the same time. It didn't even try to be rational and in the the talk pages? They "ruled" that any professor, article, or idea they didn't like was "violating Wikipedia's rules". Rules they didn't apply to their own links to radical blogs with readers in the dozens.
I just did a quick read of the Wikipedia article on Political Correctness. It's an exhaustive (exhausting?) historical and academic treatment of the term, but I don't see that it's "horrific." The supposed inconsistencies are easily seen as the various contradictory uses of the term in various historical contexts. I didn't see anything about the supposed controversies in the talk pages. Care to enlighten us with links?
From this link:
The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of disloyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution.
There are plenty of other examples. To commit treason, there must be an Enemy. For an Enemy to exist, war must be declared.
Actually, he's a traitor.
No. Whatever you want to call him, he is not a traitor.
As a matter of definition, a US citizen or person can only commit treason by giving aid or comfort to an enemy at a time of war declared by Congress. The US Congress has not declared war on anyone since 1942.
Anti-science? It's an Engadget blog post. Engadget is peer-reviewed as fuck. I think the blogger who posted it has 9 PhDs.
The author's bio, from TFA:
After training to be an Intellectual Property lawyer, Dan abandoned a promising career in financial services to sit at home and play with gadgets. He lives in Norwich with his wife, his books and far too many opinions on British TV comedy. One day, if he's very, very lucky, he'll live out his dream to become the Executive Producer of Doctor Who before retiring to Radio 4.
So, apparently not even one PhD. Perhaps an undergraduate degree in a science field to prepare him for an IP law career, but that's just speculation.
The point is that the blogger does not appear to have any significant science pedigree. He's just a dude at home with a keyboard and "far too many opinions."
Yes, I'm afraid I have to agree on this. It's a nice quip, but the oceans are not going to boil.
Look, global warming guys, global warming is real, the science is well established, but scaremongering hyperbole is not helping you . I know you think it's funny, and you know that nobody really believes that there is a possibility that the oceans are going to boil, but you are just giving ammunition to the deniers.
Stop it. Stick to facts-- the kind that are real.
Scientists generally do stick to the facts. But they have no control over some of the breathless hyperbole (on both sides of the issue) that comes from click-hungry journalists. It's important to know when one is talking and the other is not.
how can the President pass an executive action that could not be reversed by another executive action ?
TFA explains that Obama is using the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Presidents from both parties have used the Act in the past.
Trump can't just take office and reverse it. In fact, it's not clear just how he could, because there is no legal precedent. The Act contains no prevision for reversals, so presumably Trump would have to go to court. And that could take years to play out.
After a federal grand jury indictment? Probably not...
The federal grand jury was RIGGED! Brian Brundage bumped into me the other day and you know what he said? PARDON ME...
The EPA will need a Deputy Director, folks, and who's more tremendous than the president of EnviroGreen? Here's a JOB CREATOR, let me tell you. He built a HUGE business exporting American products and what does he get? The liberals want to put him in prison! And believe me, folks, "hazardous amounts of lead" is a hoax started by guys like Ralph Nader. Jimmy Page and Robert Plant are doing great, they voted for me by the way, almost 50 years of pure Led and they're almost as healthy as I am.
Well Donald, I'd rather you build a wall made of recycled electronics around this guy, and make him pay for it.
Because this isn't a /. story. It's basically entertainment news, no one wants that here.
A.I. plus Morgan Freeman? That belongs here.
Gilbert Gottrfried FTW.