Any guesses as to whether most individuals who participate/do/makeup/whatever anonymous individually support wikileaks though? It's all well and good that anonymous is mysterious and unknowable, but I'm more interested in whether or not Assange's issues are tiring the crowd or if this is some sort of smear campaign. Because I suspect it's the latter: that this reporter was lead to or ordered to say "Even his supporters are getting sick of him, don't pay attention to the stuff they're about to leak, just remember the spokesperson for wikileaks is doing... uh... something annoying."
I haven't heard anything particularly negative about the guy lately, so the timing is suspicious. On the other hand, if the talk on whatever medium anonymous exists on has turned lately to "Man, fuck wikileaks" then maybe my paranoia isn't completely justified.
Out of curiosity, what made you run third party rather than trying to fix things from within? There are obstacles either way of course, was there something that made you convinced whichever party you were closer to ideologically was irreparably damaged? Did you consider, or did you run in a republican or democratic party?
Except for research into cellular differentiation, where there is no substitute for ESC yet. You want to heal a sick person's liver, yeah, ESC were never the way to go. Unless you're cloning the patient, you'd never find a suitable harvest embryo that their body wouldn't reject. You want to study how a liver cell gets MADE, you should be studying ESC. Or aborted fetuses. But many more people have ethical qualms about that.
The distinction between "us" and "them" seems artificial. There are a lot of logical people over there who aren't interested in war and destruction to appease some strange cultish beliefs. There are a lot of violent religious fundamentalists over here who want to forcibly convert the rest of the world to appease their strange cultish beliefs. Maybe they have a higher portion of them, but if so, I suspect that has to do with ignorance and economics, not anything inherent to "them."
If so, it's not going to stop by ignoring "them." The innocent, sane people are going to get wiped out, more than they are now. And it will come back to bite us in the ass. We basically ignored Afghanistan, allowed the Taliban to set up shop. Look how that turned out. Large areas of the world cannot be left to fester without some of the rot affecting us too.
Did the recording industry go after IUMA? Honestly I wasn't paying attention. If not, maybe the record labels will laugh it off until such time they decide it's the reason the new Micky Minaje album didn't sell.
I'm guessing their masters got spooked and decided to do it slower and more quietly. Let the people forget about it so they think it was a one-time thing. It's not as if big content will have trouble anytime soon buying influence in government, they can wait and think of some other way to slip it in.
So yes, Having an armed and engaged populace is antithetical to anyone that would seek to rule them by force. This includes Australia.
I admire your knowledge of history, but in your zeal to show it I think you have missed GP's point. The question of "can you name a democracy where guns have helped a protest movement" is I think an important point. When you CAN vote, when you DO have free speech, skipping to using guns is a wonderful way to be counterproductive in your movement in a current western democracy. The media will focus on how crazy and violent your movement is, giving them cover to ignore the legitimate message that the other, non-violent people are urging for.
Even simply displaying your guns is a great way to turn the conversation from whatever it is you wanted to get across to "crazy gun-toting movement." Those rallies at Obama speeches where some guy carried some type of rifle? Anyone remember what those protests were about? I sure don't: the only thing that got reported on was there was a dude standing in one with a pretty mean-looking gun.
Forget that whole "We just consumed all the energy in the universe and collapsed into a blackhole business back there!"
There are two different quotes by the authors in the summary that pointed out they weren't trying to suggest ways that could be accomplished, only what would happen if it were. What more do you want, THREE different quotes from the authors saying "WE'RE NOT SAYING SUCH A THING IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE!!!"
You would? I think it's pretty obvious how it would go. If the moderator asked about it, Obama or Romney would make the same argument the administration made already. And the voters would continue to ignore the loss of civil rights. If pressed further, feet held to the fire as it were, they would repeat the argument the administration already made and the voters would continue to ignore the loss of civil rights. The media and voters would wonder what the stick up the moderator's butt was. The line "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you don't need to hide" would be brought up in some form or another, and the two would pat themselves on the back for wisely not caring about wiretapping when there are terrorists out there.
The voters swallowed the fear mongering from politicians, pundits, and people selling books and articles on how the world is out to get you. They cowered in fear and offered their rights up to a police state as payment for perceived security. Both parties are guilty, but they're giving the customers what they want. There's not a politician alive of any party who could get through to the voters and get them to stop sacrificing their rights in exchange for security. Ben Franklin would be completely ignored by the media today, aside from being the occasional punchline.
And this, children, is why creationists stand any ground against evolutionary theory: because some people take a reasonable unwillingness to overstate their point as being uncertain about their argument.
You're not a cynic, you're just bad at reading. No one's suggesting it's something worth mining today. The second sentence points out that it's probably a bit of the rover.
This kind of thing is truly getting ridiculous, and IP law will have fully jumped the shark.
This is pedantic, but I object to your statement implying that IP laws were not already ridiculous. That it could get worse is proof that anything can get worse, not that it wasn't already horribly fucked up beforehand.
Those are problems, yes, but I see no indication that they're CAUSED BY the two party system. Personally I blame the voters and their apathy and ignorance. There's nothing about the two party system which ensures any of those things, and there's nothing about a multiparty system that solves any of those things. Ron Paul, under a three party system, would still fail to be a significant part of a coalition.
Warmongering, for example. Israel fits the bill for me, the government ignores the settlers stealing Palestinian land. They don't have a two party system. Sold out to corporations, name for me a single country where corporate money does not buy undue influence in government. Italy is multiparty, yet they're ridiculously corrupt. To actual criminal organizations.
If the two parties are identical, it's the same reason that all TV channels and pop music seem the same: because the people they're catering to are pretty homogenous about what they want: crap. Blame the voters. They're easier to change anyway than the two party system.
No problem! We will solve the economic and climate problems the good old fashioned American way: denying the problem exists, exploiting some other group of people, involving the military in some shortsighted way, giving guns and money to people who we really shouldn't, and if all else fails, leave the problem to future generations.
I had a kid. Are the rest of you doing your duty in making a future generation to pass the buck onto?
Why are we taking it as a given that third parties are important? Our country has had two dominant parties for pretty much its entire history, I see nothing to suggest that all of a sudden, two is not enough. First past the post makes a multiparty election unlikely, that won't be changed by people simply voting for a third party.
Honestly, I don't know of any problems the two party system causes or that multiparty systems would solve, even if you DID change the constitution to give room for more than two.
Seriously, what's the attraction? Who is even a third party candidate worth voting for? Nader, Perot, Johnson... do people honestly think there's something special about them aside from "OOhh! A THIRD option!" To me they seemed like ordinary candidates, except they couldn't secure a nomination.
It is changing already. Younger generations of scientists see the value in submitting to open journals. However, the older generations control how tenures and grants are awarded of course, and they don't see as much value in it. They value journal name as a fast way to tell the value of an article. So it's not really in the younger generation's interests to value open access over impact factor, sadly. Wouldn't want to get passed over for a tenure track position because you took a stand. And besides, most journals worth getting access to already go open access after a while.
I recently published with elsevier. I wanted to boycott them, but first of all it wasn't my call where it got published, and second, it was either them or a lower impact factor, and potentially worse for my career. I tried submitting to several higher imact factor journal that weren't elsevier first, but that was just a waste of time.
What if any motivation to lie is there? Does samsung somehow lose money when one installs CM? Or is it just a case of "You're annoying me with your requests, fuck you."
since when did having a bad sense of uhmour become an arrestable offense?
Since always. Restraint is not the default for governments.
Not defending the government's actions here, by the way. Arresting people for bad jokes is stupid, a waste of time and money, and increases the likelihood that good jokes or valuable free speech will be prosecuted..
Slashdot Mirror
Any guesses as to whether most individuals who participate/do/makeup/whatever anonymous individually support wikileaks though? It's all well and good that anonymous is mysterious and unknowable, but I'm more interested in whether or not Assange's issues are tiring the crowd or if this is some sort of smear campaign. Because I suspect it's the latter: that this reporter was lead to or ordered to say "Even his supporters are getting sick of him, don't pay attention to the stuff they're about to leak, just remember the spokesperson for wikileaks is doing... uh... something annoying."
I haven't heard anything particularly negative about the guy lately, so the timing is suspicious. On the other hand, if the talk on whatever medium anonymous exists on has turned lately to "Man, fuck wikileaks" then maybe my paranoia isn't completely justified.
Out of curiosity, what made you run third party rather than trying to fix things from within? There are obstacles either way of course, was there something that made you convinced whichever party you were closer to ideologically was irreparably damaged? Did you consider, or did you run in a republican or democratic party?
Really, they'd be complete morons to try to trust unencrypted data once it's in someone else's physical control.
That would seem consistent with what I've observed with most copyright holders.
Except for research into cellular differentiation, where there is no substitute for ESC yet. You want to heal a sick person's liver, yeah, ESC were never the way to go. Unless you're cloning the patient, you'd never find a suitable harvest embryo that their body wouldn't reject. You want to study how a liver cell gets MADE, you should be studying ESC. Or aborted fetuses. But many more people have ethical qualms about that.
The distinction between "us" and "them" seems artificial. There are a lot of logical people over there who aren't interested in war and destruction to appease some strange cultish beliefs. There are a lot of violent religious fundamentalists over here who want to forcibly convert the rest of the world to appease their strange cultish beliefs. Maybe they have a higher portion of them, but if so, I suspect that has to do with ignorance and economics, not anything inherent to "them."
If so, it's not going to stop by ignoring "them." The innocent, sane people are going to get wiped out, more than they are now. And it will come back to bite us in the ass. We basically ignored Afghanistan, allowed the Taliban to set up shop. Look how that turned out. Large areas of the world cannot be left to fester without some of the rot affecting us too.
Did the recording industry go after IUMA? Honestly I wasn't paying attention. If not, maybe the record labels will laugh it off until such time they decide it's the reason the new Micky Minaje album didn't sell.
I'm guessing their masters got spooked and decided to do it slower and more quietly. Let the people forget about it so they think it was a one-time thing. It's not as if big content will have trouble anytime soon buying influence in government, they can wait and think of some other way to slip it in.
So yes, Having an armed and engaged populace is antithetical to anyone that would seek to rule them by force. This includes Australia.
I admire your knowledge of history, but in your zeal to show it I think you have missed GP's point. The question of "can you name a democracy where guns have helped a protest movement" is I think an important point. When you CAN vote, when you DO have free speech, skipping to using guns is a wonderful way to be counterproductive in your movement in a current western democracy. The media will focus on how crazy and violent your movement is, giving them cover to ignore the legitimate message that the other, non-violent people are urging for.
Even simply displaying your guns is a great way to turn the conversation from whatever it is you wanted to get across to "crazy gun-toting movement." Those rallies at Obama speeches where some guy carried some type of rifle? Anyone remember what those protests were about? I sure don't: the only thing that got reported on was there was a dude standing in one with a pretty mean-looking gun.
Forget that whole "We just consumed all the energy in the universe and collapsed into a blackhole business back there!"
There are two different quotes by the authors in the summary that pointed out they weren't trying to suggest ways that could be accomplished, only what would happen if it were. What more do you want, THREE different quotes from the authors saying "WE'RE NOT SAYING SUCH A THING IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE!!!"
There is no category for biology Nobel prize. It's either medicine, physiology, or chemistry for all nobel winners who were biologists.
I think they should establish one, but there's obviously quite a long tradition to consider there.
You would? I think it's pretty obvious how it would go. If the moderator asked about it, Obama or Romney would make the same argument the administration made already. And the voters would continue to ignore the loss of civil rights. If pressed further, feet held to the fire as it were, they would repeat the argument the administration already made and the voters would continue to ignore the loss of civil rights. The media and voters would wonder what the stick up the moderator's butt was. The line "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you don't need to hide" would be brought up in some form or another, and the two would pat themselves on the back for wisely not caring about wiretapping when there are terrorists out there.
The voters swallowed the fear mongering from politicians, pundits, and people selling books and articles on how the world is out to get you. They cowered in fear and offered their rights up to a police state as payment for perceived security. Both parties are guilty, but they're giving the customers what they want. There's not a politician alive of any party who could get through to the voters and get them to stop sacrificing their rights in exchange for security. Ben Franklin would be completely ignored by the media today, aside from being the occasional punchline.
It's not just you. I'm a little disappointed I haven't seen the uncensored images in the comments here yet.
Here you go Maybe TFA had images that were blocked by my browser. Either way, the photos are now far more visible than they were originally.
The people working on these papers expressing opinions like this are dangerous and should be locked up.
I think they would argue it's not opinion but data.
Facts are sometimes repugnant to our worldviews, but it must be our worldviews that are adjusted in response to facts, not denying the facts.
I have no idea whether or not the paper in question IS factual or whether it's flawed. Just pointing out that this is an incorrect response.
That's why you see all this astroturfing bullshit about how good HFT is -- it is all they really have to delay public opinion turning against them.
That and the fact that the public is too dumb to understand why HFT is nothing but a drain on the economy.
And this, children, is why creationists stand any ground against evolutionary theory: because some people take a reasonable unwillingness to overstate their point as being uncertain about their argument.
You're not a cynic, you're just bad at reading. No one's suggesting it's something worth mining today. The second sentence points out that it's probably a bit of the rover.
This kind of thing is truly getting ridiculous, and IP law will have fully jumped the shark.
This is pedantic, but I object to your statement implying that IP laws were not already ridiculous. That it could get worse is proof that anything can get worse, not that it wasn't already horribly fucked up beforehand.
Could you be a little clearer in what you mean?
Those are problems, yes, but I see no indication that they're CAUSED BY the two party system. Personally I blame the voters and their apathy and ignorance. There's nothing about the two party system which ensures any of those things, and there's nothing about a multiparty system that solves any of those things. Ron Paul, under a three party system, would still fail to be a significant part of a coalition.
Warmongering, for example. Israel fits the bill for me, the government ignores the settlers stealing Palestinian land. They don't have a two party system. Sold out to corporations, name for me a single country where corporate money does not buy undue influence in government. Italy is multiparty, yet they're ridiculously corrupt. To actual criminal organizations.
If the two parties are identical, it's the same reason that all TV channels and pop music seem the same: because the people they're catering to are pretty homogenous about what they want: crap. Blame the voters. They're easier to change anyway than the two party system.
No problem! We will solve the economic and climate problems the good old fashioned American way: denying the problem exists, exploiting some other group of people, involving the military in some shortsighted way, giving guns and money to people who we really shouldn't, and if all else fails, leave the problem to future generations.
I had a kid. Are the rest of you doing your duty in making a future generation to pass the buck onto?
Why are we taking it as a given that third parties are important? Our country has had two dominant parties for pretty much its entire history, I see nothing to suggest that all of a sudden, two is not enough. First past the post makes a multiparty election unlikely, that won't be changed by people simply voting for a third party.
Honestly, I don't know of any problems the two party system causes or that multiparty systems would solve, even if you DID change the constitution to give room for more than two.
Seriously, what's the attraction? Who is even a third party candidate worth voting for? Nader, Perot, Johnson... do people honestly think there's something special about them aside from "OOhh! A THIRD option!" To me they seemed like ordinary candidates, except they couldn't secure a nomination.
It is changing already. Younger generations of scientists see the value in submitting to open journals. However, the older generations control how tenures and grants are awarded of course, and they don't see as much value in it. They value journal name as a fast way to tell the value of an article. So it's not really in the younger generation's interests to value open access over impact factor, sadly. Wouldn't want to get passed over for a tenure track position because you took a stand. And besides, most journals worth getting access to already go open access after a while.
I recently published with elsevier. I wanted to boycott them, but first of all it wasn't my call where it got published, and second, it was either them or a lower impact factor, and potentially worse for my career. I tried submitting to several higher imact factor journal that weren't elsevier first, but that was just a waste of time.
What if any motivation to lie is there? Does samsung somehow lose money when one installs CM? Or is it just a case of "You're annoying me with your requests, fuck you."
since when did having a bad sense of uhmour become an arrestable offense?
Since always. Restraint is not the default for governments.
Not defending the government's actions here, by the way. Arresting people for bad jokes is stupid, a waste of time and money, and increases the likelihood that good jokes or valuable free speech will be prosecuted..
Wow, it's like you started reading my post and responded before you got to my point! It's okay, history will forgive you for that.