You mean "agenda that I personally disagree with." For almost a decade, the white house administrations and both parties have been putting out propaganda in favor of the war. You're okay with that but not someone pointing out that it hasn't all been roses and smiles?
Well, fine. The war is going perfectly, nothing is hopeless or unjust. Don't worry, be happy. In fact, the war was over 3 minutes after we got there, everyone realized it was just a big miscommunication, and then our soldiers came home.
So you're saying the highest taxes in the nation just aren't high enough?
For what was being spent, no, it wasn't. While that's an issue that -should have been- sorted out, it's a separate issue that -wasn't- sorted out. Being unable to cushion the shortfall with increased taxes of -any- type (not just income taxes) meant that it had to pretty much all come down to budget cuts. And, not surprisingly, the cuts were based off who had the strongest lobbyists, not which programs needed the money.
Now I'm in California, and its roads, schools, and hospitals are just the same, but it somehow a 9% income tax isn't enough, and the state is bankrupt?
They are just the same in the sense that they're still standing, but they themselves have undergone similar budget cuts which reflect special interests rather than general interest. At the education level, for example, many of the smaller programs, such as dropout recovery programs, got huge cuts. You don't see the effects of that unless you've noticed an increase in the number of adults without their GEDs. At the university level, tuitions were raised, making college unaffordable to many students, while wasteful construction projects continued.
Are we sure all 5 of these are actually attempts to -preserve- privacy? Because if not, some of them might survive. "Regulation" to me doesn't mean "protection," skimming TFA didn't really clarify things any, and the bill is incomprehensible to me.
I think you are, because I personally claim what's wrong with California is not the number of liberals, but the number of dumb and crazy people of any political leaning. We might have more dumb liberals, but I maintain that's because we have more liberals period. The conservatives who decided it should be all but impossible to raise taxes ever, that was also pretty short sighted.
Anyway, liberals can make cars in theory, just as conservatives can, in theory, be funny comedians.
Sure, but compared to the frippery that the pope and the nobles of europe wore, it's at least fairly toned down, if not always temperature appropriate.
I see that, but again, this is the RIAA and MPAA. Their stupidity and influence are not to be underestimated. The arm that would be leaning on the government to shoot it down would not necessarily be smart enough to talk to the arms which were smart enough to realize that you couldn't just shoot out a satellite without causing gigantic problems. And it's too much to hope that any lawmaker with enough power to make this happen would be smart enough to know that either.
Is that the type of thing that would have to be in the court documents in order to have any effect on the punishment? If he had, for example, simply used facebook to see when a classmate of his with a nice motorcycle was going to be on vacation so he could steal it, that would normally be part of the court documents you mentioned?
Yes, and a good chunk of them are rallying on the streets every day to try and keep it that way.
To be fair, they are saying what the elites are coaching them to say, and they don't realize it only because they only get their news from the elites. When you change "religious leaders" or "royalty" to "rich people and corporations" you realize that this is nothing new. At least elites today don't wear as much ridiculous clothing.
Because sometimes, the truth needs to be repeated many, many, many times for it to finally sink in.
How many times were you told as a kid that candy rots your teeth and makes you fat? How many of you, despite that, would have eaten candy until you were sick as a kid?
Granted, with the slashdot crowd, some of you may have come back with "correlation is not causation" and in depth critiques as to the statistical relevance of "4 out of 5 dentists say so." A good number of you probably just shouted "first post!" and dove in headfirst.
Well, testing of surface to LEO missiles will probably not happen - it endangers everything else up there with all the debris. And any explosions themselves will send pieces into new unpredictable orbits as well.
So you're saying that big content taking a heavy handed approach to piracy would be short-sighted, stupid, be a waste of money, and would just create more problems? Why does that sound familiar?
Why do people confuse the first amendment's prohibition against the government limiting free expression with somehow mandating that private people and/or the companies they form being obliged to provide a platform for everything that everyone wants to say
Times change. Today, more of my rights are threatened by private corporations than by the government.
I often find it ironic how conservative talking heads bash the ACLU as defending "commies and left wing nuts", but when *they* want free expression they're happy to get the ACLU involved to help.
You forgot "atheist" which is, somehow, an insult.
Who needs voter fraud, when you can have Voter [youtube.com] Intimidation [youtube.com]?
Since both of those links were to youtube videos of the same incident, one could conclude that one would want voter fraud because voter intimidation is not a significant factor nationwide.
Seriously, I can see how two black panthers outside one voting place in Philadelphia would be intimidating to voters, and since this would be the left, two guys in one location would be about the most organized voter intimidation conspiracy we could come up with, but you have to be badly deluded to equate the black panthers with the Democrats. That would be like equating the KKK voter intimidation with Republicans.
Religious societies that attack science don't deserve scientific assistance. Punishing them by abandonment is justice.
Well, no, since fighting ignorance with education and science is the only way ignorance goes away, and in the societies that actually have science, the ones you're talking about, it's a small minority of the population that is anti-science. Those people are found everywhere. Moving because they happened to gain power for a moment will really set you back, the people you're going to be "punishing" is primarily yourself, people who support science and need cures / technology second, and by far in last place, the proponents of ignorance. They're happy to stay stuck where they are and would rationalize unchecked global climate change as God punishing gay people or something.
We'll build a fucking nailgun. In what factory, you jingoist ignorant fuck?!
And, more importantly, are we talking about a real nail gun or about a machine gun style "kill space aliens" type of nail gun, and can I get a discount of some type?
and the confusing mess that is Facebook is long long overdue for a major reworking.
They've been "reworking" it too often, they need to either fix it or stop dicking around with it altogether, they keep hiding things behind different menus, and surprisingly, not the features you'd expect them to try to hide like "privacy controls." They seem to have recently moved their "create event" option on the iphone interface for example, I don't know yet where they moved it -to-, but it isn't where it used to be, which was under "events."
Would you prefer there to be some sort of draft for police officers?
For some police, it's not like we'd be doing worse, but no. I think the answer is instead to realize that most people going onto the police force have some tendencies that really need to be ironed out. Currently, they seem to be encouraged. If you've ever known someone who was going into the police force, you may have found that they weren't the nicest people before hand, but afterwards they're damn near intolerable. That has been my experience anyway.
Maybe make police repeat 100 times twice a day "I am NOT superior to the other citizens. Citizens do NOT owe me respect because I have a badge and a gun," or something like that.
Scientists ought to seek out other countries for funding. The brain drain can work in reverse.
Scientists, unlike some businesses, can't just change their roots as often as the political winds change. And scientists, like pretty much everyone, SHOULD stay and fight for what they believe rather than fleeing.
No coincidence that the Religious Right in the US, who compose the vast majority of the Tea Party, are funded by oil billionaires among others.
As opposed to the entire Left in the U.S., which is funded by the billionaires who played a significant role in the housing bubble and bust (the Sandlers) combined with a currency speculator billionaire (George Soros).
Well, anyone who says that one side is saints while the other side is demons clearly has their heads up their arses, but they don't always have the -exact same- sins.
In this case, the right being funded by oil and the left being funded by housing and currency speculators suggest we be more skeptical of the right when they talk about climate change, and we be more skeptical of the left when they talk about housing and currency.
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "follow the money"? How do you think scientists get paid? They get a salary from their university. There, I followed the money for you. Grants can only cover lab equipment, grad students (lab equipment), and experiments. You are not allowed to spend grant money on anything else.
Politicians get campaign contributions from interested parties. Even though they don't directly get that money to spend on hookers and blow, it does definitely influence politics. The same is true for scientists. Their grants aren't given to them to spend on themselves, but the grants are still their livelihood even at a university. No grants = you might have a job, but you're not doing much besides teaching, and that's if you're tenured. If you're not and you run out of grants, you are also out of a job.
Grants definitely have an influence on researchers, which is why disclosure of funding sources is a must.
Furthermore, it doesn't necessarily have to be grants corrupting scientists. If BP funds climate studies, those are going to be scientists who are concluding that global warming is bunk. Those scientists might be the worst climatologists out there, but thanks to BP's grants, they're artificially competitive and are given a megaphone. By amplifying those researchers who are finding things that agree with your goals, that can influence the debate.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course if you're only trying to get to first, a straight line might be advised.
Huh? You're trying to get to who?
Rather, who is only trying to make out? I'm always trying to have sex.
Wait... we weren't ACTUALLY talking about baseball, were we?
I'm far from unsuspecting, but I narrowly avoided a big female taking my ear off only a couple of months ago.
You misspelled "talking" there.
It's too bad Wikileaks has such an obvious agenda
You mean "agenda that I personally disagree with." For almost a decade, the white house administrations and both parties have been putting out propaganda in favor of the war. You're okay with that but not someone pointing out that it hasn't all been roses and smiles?
Well, fine. The war is going perfectly, nothing is hopeless or unjust. Don't worry, be happy. In fact, the war was over 3 minutes after we got there, everyone realized it was just a big miscommunication, and then our soldiers came home.
So you're saying the highest taxes in the nation just aren't high enough?
For what was being spent, no, it wasn't. While that's an issue that -should have been- sorted out, it's a separate issue that -wasn't- sorted out. Being unable to cushion the shortfall with increased taxes of -any- type (not just income taxes) meant that it had to pretty much all come down to budget cuts. And, not surprisingly, the cuts were based off who had the strongest lobbyists, not which programs needed the money.
Now I'm in California, and its roads, schools, and hospitals are just the same, but it somehow a 9% income tax isn't enough, and the state is bankrupt?
They are just the same in the sense that they're still standing, but they themselves have undergone similar budget cuts which reflect special interests rather than general interest. At the education level, for example, many of the smaller programs, such as dropout recovery programs, got huge cuts. You don't see the effects of that unless you've noticed an increase in the number of adults without their GEDs. At the university level, tuitions were raised, making college unaffordable to many students, while wasteful construction projects continued.
Are we sure all 5 of these are actually attempts to -preserve- privacy? Because if not, some of them might survive. "Regulation" to me doesn't mean "protection," skimming TFA didn't really clarify things any, and the bill is incomprehensible to me.
Too many liberals. And I am not even trolling...
I think you are, because I personally claim what's wrong with California is not the number of liberals, but the number of dumb and crazy people of any political leaning. We might have more dumb liberals, but I maintain that's because we have more liberals period. The conservatives who decided it should be all but impossible to raise taxes ever, that was also pretty short sighted.
Anyway, liberals can make cars in theory, just as conservatives can, in theory, be funny comedians.
Sure, but compared to the frippery that the pope and the nobles of europe wore, it's at least fairly toned down, if not always temperature appropriate.
edit: has happened one way or the other, I dispute that it was ever anything as noble as reducing the tax burden for the middle and lower classes.
Political movements often get hijacked. It happens, and in this case, has happened.
I see that, but again, this is the RIAA and MPAA. Their stupidity and influence are not to be underestimated. The arm that would be leaning on the government to shoot it down would not necessarily be smart enough to talk to the arms which were smart enough to realize that you couldn't just shoot out a satellite without causing gigantic problems. And it's too much to hope that any lawmaker with enough power to make this happen would be smart enough to know that either.
Is that the type of thing that would have to be in the court documents in order to have any effect on the punishment? If he had, for example, simply used facebook to see when a classmate of his with a nice motorcycle was going to be on vacation so he could steal it, that would normally be part of the court documents you mentioned?
(obviously IANAL)
Yes, and a good chunk of them are rallying on the streets every day to try and keep it that way.
To be fair, they are saying what the elites are coaching them to say, and they don't realize it only because they only get their news from the elites. When you change "religious leaders" or "royalty" to "rich people and corporations" you realize that this is nothing new. At least elites today don't wear as much ridiculous clothing.
Why is this news?
Because sometimes, the truth needs to be repeated many, many, many times for it to finally sink in.
How many times were you told as a kid that candy rots your teeth and makes you fat? How many of you, despite that, would have eaten candy until you were sick as a kid?
Granted, with the slashdot crowd, some of you may have come back with "correlation is not causation" and in depth critiques as to the statistical relevance of "4 out of 5 dentists say so." A good number of you probably just shouted "first post!" and dove in headfirst.
Well, testing of surface to LEO missiles will probably not happen - it endangers everything else up there with all the debris. And any explosions themselves will send pieces into new unpredictable orbits as well.
So you're saying that big content taking a heavy handed approach to piracy would be short-sighted, stupid, be a waste of money, and would just create more problems? Why does that sound familiar?
Why do people confuse the first amendment's prohibition against the government limiting free expression with somehow mandating that private people and/or the companies they form being obliged to provide a platform for everything that everyone wants to say
Times change. Today, more of my rights are threatened by private corporations than by the government.
I often find it ironic how conservative talking heads bash the ACLU as defending "commies and left wing nuts", but when *they* want free expression they're happy to get the ACLU involved to help.
You forgot "atheist" which is, somehow, an insult.
Who needs voter fraud, when you can have Voter [youtube.com] Intimidation [youtube.com]?
Since both of those links were to youtube videos of the same incident, one could conclude that one would want voter fraud because voter intimidation is not a significant factor nationwide.
Seriously, I can see how two black panthers outside one voting place in Philadelphia would be intimidating to voters, and since this would be the left, two guys in one location would be about the most organized voter intimidation conspiracy we could come up with, but you have to be badly deluded to equate the black panthers with the Democrats. That would be like equating the KKK voter intimidation with Republicans.
Religious societies that attack science don't deserve scientific assistance. Punishing them by abandonment is justice.
Well, no, since fighting ignorance with education and science is the only way ignorance goes away, and in the societies that actually have science, the ones you're talking about, it's a small minority of the population that is anti-science. Those people are found everywhere. Moving because they happened to gain power for a moment will really set you back, the people you're going to be "punishing" is primarily yourself, people who support science and need cures / technology second, and by far in last place, the proponents of ignorance. They're happy to stay stuck where they are and would rationalize unchecked global climate change as God punishing gay people or something.
This is america bitch.
We'll build a fucking nailgun.
In what factory, you jingoist ignorant fuck?!
And, more importantly, are we talking about a real nail gun or about a machine gun style "kill space aliens" type of nail gun, and can I get a discount of some type?
and the confusing mess that is Facebook is long long overdue for a major reworking.
They've been "reworking" it too often, they need to either fix it or stop dicking around with it altogether, they keep hiding things behind different menus, and surprisingly, not the features you'd expect them to try to hide like "privacy controls." They seem to have recently moved their "create event" option on the iphone interface for example, I don't know yet where they moved it -to-, but it isn't where it used to be, which was under "events."
Would you prefer there to be some sort of draft for police officers?
For some police, it's not like we'd be doing worse, but no. I think the answer is instead to realize that most people going onto the police force have some tendencies that really need to be ironed out. Currently, they seem to be encouraged. If you've ever known someone who was going into the police force, you may have found that they weren't the nicest people before hand, but afterwards they're damn near intolerable. That has been my experience anyway.
Maybe make police repeat 100 times twice a day "I am NOT superior to the other citizens. Citizens do NOT owe me respect because I have a badge and a gun," or something like that.
It always seems like it's the largest and most sucessful musicians that slam piracy and filesharing.
Oh... THAT Simmons. I got Gene Simmons and Richard Simmons confused. I bet he gets that a lot though.
Scientists ought to seek out other countries for funding. The brain drain can work in reverse.
Scientists, unlike some businesses, can't just change their roots as often as the political winds change. And scientists, like pretty much everyone, SHOULD stay and fight for what they believe rather than fleeing.
No coincidence that the Religious Right in the US, who compose the vast majority of the Tea Party, are funded by oil billionaires among others.
As opposed to the entire Left in the U.S., which is funded by the billionaires who played a significant role in the housing bubble and bust (the Sandlers) combined with a currency speculator billionaire (George Soros).
Well, anyone who says that one side is saints while the other side is demons clearly has their heads up their arses, but they don't always have the -exact same- sins.
In this case, the right being funded by oil and the left being funded by housing and currency speculators suggest we be more skeptical of the right when they talk about climate change, and we be more skeptical of the left when they talk about housing and currency.
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "follow the money"? How do you think scientists get paid? They get a salary from their university. There, I followed the money for you. Grants can only cover lab equipment, grad students (lab equipment), and experiments. You are not allowed to spend grant money on anything else.
Politicians get campaign contributions from interested parties. Even though they don't directly get that money to spend on hookers and blow, it does definitely influence politics. The same is true for scientists. Their grants aren't given to them to spend on themselves, but the grants are still their livelihood even at a university. No grants = you might have a job, but you're not doing much besides teaching, and that's if you're tenured. If you're not and you run out of grants, you are also out of a job.
Grants definitely have an influence on researchers, which is why disclosure of funding sources is a must.
Furthermore, it doesn't necessarily have to be grants corrupting scientists. If BP funds climate studies, those are going to be scientists who are concluding that global warming is bunk. Those scientists might be the worst climatologists out there, but thanks to BP's grants, they're artificially competitive and are given a megaphone. By amplifying those researchers who are finding things that agree with your goals, that can influence the debate.