Yes, this does make a difference. If they only did this with the "live" hive, then the results are suspect. If they did it with both, it may be OK, but not really. I assumed (poor Uma Thurman) that the phones were remotely powered on/off.
Why wouldn't they publish? I'd say that is just as worthy an article or paper than the one they published. A paper showing they found pretty strong evidence that cell phones don't disturb bees means everyone can stop investigating that avenue of research and looks for other things.
The preliminary test test *does* mean something. They confirmed that powering on a phone in a hive *may* cause issues. If the test had come out the opposite (in the non-powered-phone, the hive was effected), then they could drop it. But the inverse happened. Can't say it was the phone, but can't rule it out either.
Not really. Both hives had phones in them. In one of the hives, the phones were powered on for two, 15 minutes periods per day. In the hive with the active phone, the bees stopped producing honey and there was a "dramatic" decline in the bee population for that hive. That seems like something, not nothing and seems like it'd be worth further study. This is the first step. If nothing had happened, they could dicard the thesis, but something did happen. Maybe the next step is hive near cell towers and hives not near cell towers.
You don't get off that easily. You stated that we are living in an "age of appeasement". Please tell me how you can justify this statement.
Also: clarify what you meant by "another repeat of history is almost due". You seem to imply that a repeat of WWII is coming, but back it up with nothing.
I'm engaging you on your own terms and with your own statements and you ignore me. Coward.
Wait, what? Are you saying that because Facebook censored itself, that a war on the order of WWII is going to break out?
"Age of appeasement"? Seriously? You do know that the US is currently fighting two wars, one of which just became the longest US war on record? Maybe you think that because we're not bombing North Korea or Iran that we live in an age of appeasement? Douchebag.
Where is the opposition from the left to the celebratory mosque being built overlooking the 9/11 site?
celebratory? It is a mosque and a community center. Saying "celebratory" implies the people building the mosque are celebrating 9/11 and the death of over 3,000 Americans. This is untrue and needlessly inflammatory. It seriously weakens your otherwise solid post.
I'm married to a New York Times best-selling author.
I can tell this is simply appeal-to-authority as you don't state what the book is. I'm guessing it's this one: http://www.aprilynnepike.com/Wings , a Young Adult novel about real-life fairies. Not exactly a heavyweight. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you. I like a good young adult novel as much as anyone.
But pimping your wife's book on Slashdot to bolster your own ego? Aren't you ashamed of yourself?
Wow. You're really full of yourself. huh? You've studied, this. You're married to someone who write books. Appeal to authority is not a valid argumentative technique. And as a JD, you know this.
If you understand that things are complicated, why bother writing such simplistic pabulum then? Calculated hyperbole? No - just crap and you know it. Trying to sound smart and knowledgeable, that's all. I've read Persig, I've read Stanley Fish. If you think there are only two sides to the issue, you must be doing something wrong.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)
Boycotting (not really a call for a ban, I know) Sony because of, get this, how Xians are portrayed in "The DaVinci Code": http://www.christianboycott.org/
So bans, yes. Some Xians are very sensitive and call for bans all the time. Death, maybe not so much. (Unless you count the anti-abortion people...) There does seem to be a proto-Xian-al-quieda group in India though, called the National Liberation Front of Tripura: http://www.christianaggression.org/features_nlft.php. Don't know anything about it though.
I know what blogs *you* read. I read the other ones. You're wrong. But then again so am I. It is not as simple as you say. Among some of the founding fathers, the principles of this country (and I assume you're talking about the USA here) may have been free market capitalism (say that douche-bag Hamilton), but others did not think so, (Jefferson, that handsome, intelligent. non-douchbag of a man! *swoon*). Your arguments are too narrow and do not accurately reflect the totality of America. And they can't! The place is too big, too complicated, to say one thing about it. If you think you know what's wrong - it's you. it is always more complex. In the 30's there was a large political party that thought that everyone should share what they have with others, that things should be fair, that selfish people should be asked to give up what they don't need. (Sermon on the mount type stuff, you know?) Now there is not. I find this highly disturbing. And I'm just. As. Wrong. As. You. But at least I admit it.
I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph, but apathy and lack of empathy go hand-in-hand in the United States. As you correctly pointed out, it's mostly about getting as much money doing as little work as possible. To participate in a lynch mob would mean having to crowbar oneself out of their La-Z-Boy chair.
No it's not. You want to think that - but it is not true. The vast majority of Americans are good people, work hard, love there families, and try to be good. Some people are lazy and self centered, sure. But your sweeping statements are just utter crap and you know that. Think about people you know, actual, physical people, aren't they for the most part good people? Don't they try to be good people? Those are Americans - not the straw man "Americans" you're talking about above. You do yourself a dis-service with such piss-poor generalizations. They may feel good, but they do no one *any* good. So stop it.
Besides, we prefer to keep our government-sanctioned lynch mobs in others' countries. That way we can cheer 'em on from our sofas, as if our military were our favorite sports team at an away game.
you (the west) hold up crack dealers and gangsters as heroes (50cent et al), corporate psychopaths are held up as examples of "successful business leaders" and have TV shows (the apprentice) where people are expected to emulate these leaders in "ruthless business decisions", where kids see a class of people rip off their savings and retirements (bankers) and have 0 consequences, where a celebrity class are held up as models of behaviour where you dont work but shop on your working husbands/wifes credit cards or your rich dads inheritance
This is a very narrow picture of "the west" (if there is such a thing). We hold up others as heroes as well: Presidents, firemen, teachers, etc. Using pop culture as a prism in which to view "the west", gives a very slanted, unrealistic picture of an "society". I look at Eastern pop culture, and I can say, and I'm speaking with authority here, that "the east" is all teenage girls in school uniforms, middle aged men who like to sniff panties, and people who like really gory movies. Oh and everyone - and I mean *everyone* - knows hand to hand combat really well. And those wacky Indians! Always breaking into song at the drop of a sari. It's so annoying! And bad. Or something.
You are seeing what you want to see. It is not that way. It is always more complex that you think. Your "analysis" is pabulum and does nothing for anyone. Apparently the mods thinks it's "insightful" though. I suppose 'cause people like easy answers - esp. those that make themselves feel superior. *sigh*
What is comparatively new (only a few hundred years old) is (small-l) liberalism, in which minority viewpoints race from vilified, to tolerated, to accepted, to embraced. There is a huge section of adult society that basically worships any cause that claims to be tearing down some other, more established cause--an attitude once expected only of adolescents and madmen.....
Wow. Strawman much? I could as easily say that what is comparatively new is (big-C) Conservativism, in which minority viewpoints race from vilified, to tolerated, to accepted, to embraced. There is huge section of adult society that wants so badly to believe in a time not so long ago that was perfect, at least for people like themselves, that they'll stop at nothing to tear down legitimate and beneficial (to themselves and others) change instead of look around and see the world as it is.
You want to know why people don't care about anything? Most of them don't have anything to care about.
*sigh*. Yes - most people have nothing to care about. At all. Nothing. At. All. The vast majority of people care about nothing. It. Is. So. Sad! Why does this platitudinous shit get modded up at Slashdot? I guess because the mods just don't care. About anything. Like *most* other people. Lemme guess, you're what? 18? Early 20's? It is always more complicated. If you think you have it figured out - you're wrong. I suppose that is a bit of platitudinous shit as well. See? Even that is too simple.
Is it just me or is the entire world going into a period of reduced freedom and increased state control? Every developed nation appears to be banning violent games, porn and free speech in general and they're doing it for no logical reasons.
Straw man and slippery slope. I'm not refuting or agreeing, just pointing out that the argument is weak.
I've had hearing aids for 25 years. My insurance plan (a good one) has never covered a single penny of any hearing aid I've ever bought. The last one I got, ~$3500USD, the insurance said they would cover it, but the audiologist did not. (I only found out about this after I'd bought the thing.) The audiologist had no contract with *any* insurance company, I suspect because they did not want to give up the nice, fat profit. I also cannot buy this type of aid directly from the manufacturer. I don't know of anyone that has not paid out of pocket for an aid.
Yes it's dangerous, but only because launch_missles is actually a #define: #define launch_missles() \
fprintf(stdout, "I'm launching the missles now!\n"); \
really_launch_missles ();
[cain@glory]$ kill -9 car bash: kill: car: arguments must be process or job IDs
I think you meant pkill -9 car or for p in $(pgrep car); do kill -9 ${p}; done; or for p in $(ps aux | grep " car" | awk ' { print $2 } '); do kill -9 ${p}; done; if you're not into that whole brevity thing and you want to kill *all* the cars. (And hey - who doesn't?)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but not celebrating 9/11 and the death of 3,000+ people as the OP implied you twit.
No, it does not. The motive is only clear in your fevered little imagination. Little being the operative work there.
Yes, this does make a difference. If they only did this with the "live" hive, then the results are suspect. If they did it with both, it may be OK, but not really. I assumed (poor Uma Thurman) that the phones were remotely powered on/off.
I am a researcher. And thankfully not as cynical as you.
Why wouldn't they publish? I'd say that is just as worthy an article or paper than the one they published. A paper showing they found pretty strong evidence that cell phones don't disturb bees means everyone can stop investigating that avenue of research and looks for other things.
The preliminary test test *does* mean something. They confirmed that powering on a phone in a hive *may* cause issues. If the test had come out the opposite (in the non-powered-phone, the hive was effected), then they could drop it. But the inverse happened. Can't say it was the phone, but can't rule it out either.
Not really. Both hives had phones in them. In one of the hives, the phones were powered on for two, 15 minutes periods per day. In the hive with the active phone, the bees stopped producing honey and there was a "dramatic" decline in the bee population for that hive. That seems like something, not nothing and seems like it'd be worth further study. This is the first step. If nothing had happened, they could dicard the thesis, but something did happen. Maybe the next step is hive near cell towers and hives not near cell towers.
You don't get off that easily. You stated that we are living in an "age of appeasement". Please tell me how you can justify this statement.
Also: clarify what you meant by "another repeat of history is almost due". You seem to imply that a repeat of WWII is coming, but back it up with nothing.
I'm engaging you on your own terms and with your own statements and you ignore me. Coward.
Wait, what? Are you saying that because Facebook censored itself, that a war on the order of WWII is going to break out?
"Age of appeasement"? Seriously? You do know that the US is currently fighting two wars, one of which just became the longest US war on record? Maybe you think that because we're not bombing North Korea or Iran that we live in an age of appeasement? Douchebag.
You were doing fine up until this:
celebratory? It is a mosque and a community center. Saying "celebratory" implies the people building the mosque are celebrating 9/11 and the death of over 3,000 Americans. This is untrue and needlessly inflammatory. It seriously weakens your otherwise solid post.
Ha! I haven't seen the capitial-Q quality for a long time. Was your BA in Philosophy on that? Send me your thesis, I'd love to read it.
I can tell this is simply appeal-to-authority as you don't state what the book is. I'm guessing it's this one:
http://www.aprilynnepike.com/Wings , a Young Adult novel about real-life fairies. Not exactly a heavyweight. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you. I like a good young adult novel as much as anyone.
But pimping your wife's book on Slashdot to bolster your own ego? Aren't you ashamed of yourself?
Wow. You're really full of yourself. huh? You've studied, this. You're married to someone who write books. Appeal to authority is not a valid argumentative technique. And as a JD, you know this.
If you understand that things are complicated, why bother writing such simplistic pabulum then? Calculated hyperbole? No - just crap and you know it. Trying to sound smart and knowledgeable, that's all. I've read Persig, I've read Stanley Fish. If you think there are only two sides to the issue, you must be doing something wrong.
Jesus calls for violence:
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)
Quite a few Xians called for bans of Andres Serrano and defunding of the NEA during the "Piss Christ" controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Arts#1989_objections
College group bans Gays and people who have pre-martial sex:
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/19/christian-college-group-bans-gays-and-people-who-have-premarital-sex-is-it-a-set-up/
Boycotting (not really a call for a ban, I know) Sony because of, get this, how Xians are portrayed in "The DaVinci Code": http://www.christianboycott.org/
Xian call for banning the game "Modern Warfare 2" because of violence and the "well established cause and effect relationshop between video games and violence": http://mainefamilypolicycouncil.com/artman/publish/Opinion_5/Ban_this_Game.shtml
Xians calling for ban on Muslims in the military: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/conservative-christian-group-calls-no-more-muslims-military
So bans, yes. Some Xians are very sensitive and call for bans all the time. Death, maybe not so much. (Unless you count the anti-abortion people...) There does seem to be a proto-Xian-al-quieda group in India though, called the National Liberation Front of Tripura: http://www.christianaggression.org/features_nlft.php. Don't know anything about it though.
I know what blogs *you* read. I read the other ones. You're wrong. But then again so am I. It is not as simple as you say. Among some of the founding fathers, the principles of this country (and I assume you're talking about the USA here) may have been free market capitalism (say that douche-bag Hamilton), but others did not think so, (Jefferson, that handsome, intelligent. non-douchbag of a man! *swoon*). Your arguments are too narrow and do not accurately reflect the totality of America. And they can't! The place is too big, too complicated, to say one thing about it. If you think you know what's wrong - it's you. it is always more complex. In the 30's there was a large political party that thought that everyone should share what they have with others, that things should be fair, that selfish people should be asked to give up what they don't need. (Sermon on the mount type stuff, you know?) Now there is not. I find this highly disturbing. And I'm just. As. Wrong. As. You. But at least I admit it.
Straw man. Look at things as they are, not as you think they are. Grow up.
No it's not. You want to think that - but it is not true. The vast majority of Americans are good people, work hard, love there families, and try to be good. Some people are lazy and self centered, sure. But your sweeping statements are just utter crap and you know that. Think about people you know, actual, physical people, aren't they for the most part good people? Don't they try to be good people? Those are Americans - not the straw man "Americans" you're talking about above. You do yourself a dis-service with such piss-poor generalizations. They may feel good, but they do no one *any* good. So stop it.
Well, yeah. *That's* totally true. Duh.
This is a very narrow picture of "the west" (if there is such a thing). We hold up others as heroes as well: Presidents, firemen, teachers, etc. Using pop culture as a prism in which to view "the west", gives a very slanted, unrealistic picture of an "society". I look at Eastern pop culture, and I can say, and I'm speaking with authority here, that "the east" is all teenage girls in school uniforms, middle aged men who like to sniff panties, and people who like really gory movies. Oh and everyone - and I mean *everyone* - knows hand to hand combat really well. And those wacky Indians! Always breaking into song at the drop of a sari. It's so annoying! And bad. Or something.
You are seeing what you want to see. It is not that way. It is always more complex that you think. Your "analysis" is pabulum and does nothing for anyone. Apparently the mods thinks it's "insightful" though. I suppose 'cause people like easy answers - esp. those that make themselves feel superior. *sigh*
Wow. Strawman much? I could as easily say that what is comparatively new is (big-C) Conservativism, in which minority viewpoints race from vilified, to tolerated, to accepted, to embraced. There is huge section of adult society that wants so badly to believe in a time not so long ago that was perfect, at least for people like themselves, that they'll stop at nothing to tear down legitimate and beneficial (to themselves and others) change instead of look around and see the world as it is.
*sigh*. Yes - most people have nothing to care about. At all. Nothing. At. All. The vast majority of people care about nothing. It. Is. So. Sad! Why does this platitudinous shit get modded up at Slashdot? I guess because the mods just don't care. About anything. Like *most* other people. Lemme guess, you're what? 18? Early 20's? It is always more complicated. If you think you have it figured out - you're wrong. I suppose that is a bit of platitudinous shit as well. See? Even that is too simple.
Is it just me or is the entire world going into a period of reduced freedom and increased state control? Every developed nation appears to be banning violent games, porn and free speech in general and they're doing it for no logical reasons.
Straw man and slippery slope. I'm not refuting or agreeing, just pointing out that the argument is weak.
I've had hearing aids for 25 years. My insurance plan (a good one) has never covered a single penny of any hearing aid I've ever bought. The last one I got, ~$3500USD, the insurance said they would cover it, but the audiologist did not. (I only found out about this after I'd bought the thing.) The audiologist had no contract with *any* insurance company, I suspect because they did not want to give up the nice, fat profit. I also cannot buy this type of aid directly from the manufacturer. I don't know of anyone that has not paid out of pocket for an aid.
Yes it's dangerous, but only because launch_missles is actually a #define:
#define launch_missles() \
fprintf(stdout, "I'm launching the missles now!\n"); \
really_launch_missles ();
Heh.
[cain@glory]$ kill -9 car
bash: kill: car: arguments must be process or job IDs
I think you meant
pkill -9 car
or
for p in $(pgrep car); do kill -9 ${p}; done;
or
for p in $(ps aux | grep " car" | awk ' { print $2 } '); do kill -9 ${p}; done;
if you're not into that whole brevity thing and you want to kill *all* the cars. (And hey - who doesn't?)
No dice. Less space than Monopoly. Lame.