Everyone in the region also seems to hate everyone else in the region though. And Iran's economy is in shambles much like most of the rest of the economies in the regions are in shambles (excluding oil tycoons that is).
Don't get me wrong, I think Iran is behaving extremely stupidly. You're right that hate is holding them back probably, just let's acknowledge that the US wouldn't exactly be pouring money into them if they'd hold hands at UN conferences.
I realize you and all your linux-using friends might know him as a heartless bastard, but if you think "history" will remember the greedy things he did to computing, I think you're being naive.
I'm wondering if most people today even remember that he started MS. "Bill Gates? He's that rich guy who runs a charity. Can't quite remember how he got his money. Did he invent computers?"
Islam is the religion of peace! Well, except for a few radicals, maybe 2 or 3 percent, which would only make about a million radicals. And, maybe except for their supporters, maybe 20 percent or so, which would make about 200 million.
I actually think you have those numbers closer to reversed. The financial supporters of terrorism seem to pretty much be limited to those loyal middle eastern friends of ours, Saud royal family.
I'd argue that nearly the entire defense industry is completely unnecessary to national defense. Fighting terrorism is not national defense. Keeping Iraq intact is not national defense. Supporting Israel is not national defense. Keeping friendly powers in OPEC to keep them from raising oil prices is not national defense. Being aggressive to Iran is not national defense.
Telling ourselves all of these things are important to somehow keep bad guys from boating over here and invading is a wonderful way of avoiding admitting that we're utterly incompetent at doing much more than making enemies to fight later. Also keeps the money flowing. I'd be okay with it mostly if we could 1. Admit that it's not "national defense" it's just being dicks and 2. If it wouldn't impinge on our freedoms.
The paper was not rejected because of one reviewer. It's standard to have THREE reviewers, this is one guy out of three. Additionally, it's the editor's call whether to accept or reject it. Typically that's based on the reviewers recommendation. However, the editor could and should have ignored that one reviewer and accepted it anyway. Actually, the AE should have deleted the review and said to the authors "Sorry, the third reviewer never turned in his review, sending it out for a different reviewer." The AE could have accepted it even if all three reviewers had insightful criticisms of the paper and said it was horrible.
In other words, the rejection for publication could have nothing to do with that one review, it was not rejected due to that review, it was rejected by the editor who showed poor judgement in accepting the sexist review.
Please cite an example. Be specific to peer review for academia. "Some woman said something sexist to me in college" is not comparing apples to apples.
That's not proving the specific hypothesis being tested in the paper. Anyone who was convinced that discrimination was not still an issue will probably find ways of explaining away this incident, just like they have with all the other things that indicate there is still a problem.
Honestly, how ARE they going to introduce him in a positive or even neutral manner?
I'm picturing him talking with a text box appearing beneath his picture: "Jack Thompson, Lawyer (former), publicity hound (failed), censor (failed), moral crusader (shunned by other moral crusaders), and expert on making (inaccurate) statements about videogames"?
BBC: "Mr. Thompson, you... have opinions on the grand theft auto series, don't you? You can accurately say that much at least, right? Can you tell us what they are without it somehow backfiring on you, pathetically and hilariously?"
He didn't say he read the books, so he only went at most half hipster.
For full hipster credit, he would had to 1. say he read the books before the show came out, 2. say that they were ruined by the TV show and 3. found a way to say the books were much better than the TV show he's supposedly never seen WITHOUT saying "because it's popular."
What?!? States where "small government" is a popular idea! That can't be right! Conservatives NEVER would regulate what responsible adults can put into their own bodies! You must be thinking of California, New York, Oregon, Washington, and the Third Reich.
The devil would be in the details. Companies would lobby hard for exceptions to be made and abused and nonsense. See the pasta sauce counting as a serving of vegetable for an example. Rules defining what is and is not a fruit, veggie, meat, and milk aren't very sexy, there's not going to be a lot of public oversight of the process until it gets ridiculous (see again pasta sauce as vegetable for an example.)
I'd like to see a pilot program where food stamps can only be used to purchase something like soylent. Nutritionally complete and defined, no ability for food megacorps to get much wiggle room, and healthy.
No one is disputing that there are pros to the spying, or that there are bad people out there. What I AM disputing is that in order to protect our way of life against ignorant fundamentalists, we need to have a massive electronic spying program, one we didn't have for the bulk of our two centuries as a country.
Ending the NSA would compromise our ability to prevent terrorism. Probably on American soil. I'm okay with that risk! I will take the increased chances of bad people doing bad things to me and my family in exchange for the government not spying on me. Deal! I won't even demand my taxes be reduced, just put the money towards paying down the debt or research or infrastructure!
I'd rather err on the side of too little spying and play it safe. I see little in history to convince me that governments can ever successfully spy only on the bad guys and never for political reasons. If you allow the NSA to listen into only one phone call a day, I suspect they'll spend each phone call listening in on people who they identify as responsible for putting that limit on them. Dismantle the whole thing and there won't be a question of "are they still spying on us even though we told them they couldn't."
What's your point exactly? "Other states and a president 22 years ago are bad too?"
CONGRATULATIONS! You have proven that Indiana's actions are NOT UNPRECEDENTED! You MIGHT have even proven that Bill Clinton is not the paragon of liberalism that... let's see here... NO ONE is claiming he is!
Speaking as someone who wants to see the NSA dismantled, I hope these shooters died painfully if they were doing it as a political statement. This will only garner sympathy for the NSA, will make NSA staff more certain that they're the "good guys" in a world full of bad guys, and will distract from valid criticisms against global spying. Violence is the last refuge of desperate men, and there's no reason for those opposed to big brother to be desperate. Public paranoia about terrorism, which allowed them to justify the spying, is waning slowly. Political opposition to the spying is growing as the spying community makes missteps like spying on senators. And younger generations don't seem too fond of the war on privacy.
Going all Rambo is a good way to threaten to reverse that momentum.
How long does it take you to read? Because 300 pages is a lot, but not a lot to read in two weeks. Is there anything that you've come across that's objectionable or is this just FUD?
Do we have any indication that Martin would allow the books to be finished if he died? The only way I could see him allowing that in his will would be if A: it was a sticking point for a contract with HBO or B: if he trusted a writer enough.
Hey now! Press releases from the wireless industry and political bribery on the part of the wireless industry generates an additional forty thousand jobs a year! If you question these stats, that risks two hundred billion jobs!
Slashdot Mirror
Odd. I feel like pirates would be much more likely to have their booty buried in Panama.
About the infidelity? I agree, that's dumb.
About the hypocrisy of duggar? Yeah, it is pretty pointless, his politics are stupid even if he were to have abided by them.
About the security breach and responses to it? You're on the wrong website.
Everyone in the region also seems to hate everyone else in the region though. And Iran's economy is in shambles much like most of the rest of the economies in the regions are in shambles (excluding oil tycoons that is).
Don't get me wrong, I think Iran is behaving extremely stupidly. You're right that hate is holding them back probably, just let's acknowledge that the US wouldn't exactly be pouring money into them if they'd hold hands at UN conferences.
They also appear to be misusing the Streisand effect.
I realize you and all your linux-using friends might know him as a heartless bastard, but if you think "history" will remember the greedy things he did to computing, I think you're being naive.
I'm wondering if most people today even remember that he started MS. "Bill Gates? He's that rich guy who runs a charity. Can't quite remember how he got his money. Did he invent computers?"
Islam is the religion of peace! Well, except for a few radicals, maybe 2 or 3 percent, which would only make about a million radicals. And, maybe except for their supporters, maybe 20 percent or so, which would make about 200 million.
I actually think you have those numbers closer to reversed. The financial supporters of terrorism seem to pretty much be limited to those loyal middle eastern friends of ours, Saud royal family.
And a Russian thing. And a Mexican thing.
I'd argue that nearly the entire defense industry is completely unnecessary to national defense. Fighting terrorism is not national defense. Keeping Iraq intact is not national defense. Supporting Israel is not national defense. Keeping friendly powers in OPEC to keep them from raising oil prices is not national defense. Being aggressive to Iran is not national defense.
Telling ourselves all of these things are important to somehow keep bad guys from boating over here and invading is a wonderful way of avoiding admitting that we're utterly incompetent at doing much more than making enemies to fight later. Also keeps the money flowing. I'd be okay with it mostly if we could 1. Admit that it's not "national defense" it's just being dicks and 2. If it wouldn't impinge on our freedoms.
The paper was not rejected because of one reviewer. It's standard to have THREE reviewers, this is one guy out of three. Additionally, it's the editor's call whether to accept or reject it. Typically that's based on the reviewers recommendation. However, the editor could and should have ignored that one reviewer and accepted it anyway. Actually, the AE should have deleted the review and said to the authors "Sorry, the third reviewer never turned in his review, sending it out for a different reviewer." The AE could have accepted it even if all three reviewers had insightful criticisms of the paper and said it was horrible.
In other words, the rejection for publication could have nothing to do with that one review, it was not rejected due to that review, it was rejected by the editor who showed poor judgement in accepting the sexist review.
Please cite an example. Be specific to peer review for academia. "Some woman said something sexist to me in college" is not comparing apples to apples.
That was a four line run-on sentence with two parenthetical sets and four commas.
Maybe you should have had a woman read it before you hit post.
That's not proving the specific hypothesis being tested in the paper. Anyone who was convinced that discrimination was not still an issue will probably find ways of explaining away this incident, just like they have with all the other things that indicate there is still a problem.
I don't recall him saying anything about GTA I. He only started talking about them when they went 3D and got popular, which is GTA III.
Honestly, how ARE they going to introduce him in a positive or even neutral manner?
I'm picturing him talking with a text box appearing beneath his picture: "Jack Thompson, Lawyer (former), publicity hound (failed), censor (failed), moral crusader (shunned by other moral crusaders), and expert on making (inaccurate) statements about videogames"?
BBC: "Mr. Thompson, you... have opinions on the grand theft auto series, don't you? You can accurately say that much at least, right? Can you tell us what they are without it somehow backfiring on you, pathetically and hilariously?"
He didn't say he read the books, so he only went at most half hipster.
For full hipster credit, he would had to 1. say he read the books before the show came out, 2. say that they were ruined by the TV show and 3. found a way to say the books were much better than the TV show he's supposedly never seen WITHOUT saying "because it's popular."
OH SWEET JESUS NO!
Seriously? That's the worst case scenario you could come up with? Racists giving black people money in exchange for baked goods?
What?!? States where "small government" is a popular idea! That can't be right! Conservatives NEVER would regulate what responsible adults can put into their own bodies! You must be thinking of California, New York, Oregon, Washington, and the Third Reich.
The devil would be in the details. Companies would lobby hard for exceptions to be made and abused and nonsense. See the pasta sauce counting as a serving of vegetable for an example. Rules defining what is and is not a fruit, veggie, meat, and milk aren't very sexy, there's not going to be a lot of public oversight of the process until it gets ridiculous (see again pasta sauce as vegetable for an example.)
I'd like to see a pilot program where food stamps can only be used to purchase something like soylent. Nutritionally complete and defined, no ability for food megacorps to get much wiggle room, and healthy.
No one is disputing that there are pros to the spying, or that there are bad people out there. What I AM disputing is that in order to protect our way of life against ignorant fundamentalists, we need to have a massive electronic spying program, one we didn't have for the bulk of our two centuries as a country.
Ending the NSA would compromise our ability to prevent terrorism. Probably on American soil. I'm okay with that risk! I will take the increased chances of bad people doing bad things to me and my family in exchange for the government not spying on me. Deal! I won't even demand my taxes be reduced, just put the money towards paying down the debt or research or infrastructure!
I'd rather err on the side of too little spying and play it safe. I see little in history to convince me that governments can ever successfully spy only on the bad guys and never for political reasons. If you allow the NSA to listen into only one phone call a day, I suspect they'll spend each phone call listening in on people who they identify as responsible for putting that limit on them. Dismantle the whole thing and there won't be a question of "are they still spying on us even though we told them they couldn't."
What's your point exactly? "Other states and a president 22 years ago are bad too?"
CONGRATULATIONS! You have proven that Indiana's actions are NOT UNPRECEDENTED! You MIGHT have even proven that Bill Clinton is not the paragon of liberalism that... let's see here... NO ONE is claiming he is!
Speaking as someone who wants to see the NSA dismantled, I hope these shooters died painfully if they were doing it as a political statement. This will only garner sympathy for the NSA, will make NSA staff more certain that they're the "good guys" in a world full of bad guys, and will distract from valid criticisms against global spying. Violence is the last refuge of desperate men, and there's no reason for those opposed to big brother to be desperate. Public paranoia about terrorism, which allowed them to justify the spying, is waning slowly. Political opposition to the spying is growing as the spying community makes missteps like spying on senators. And younger generations don't seem too fond of the war on privacy.
Going all Rambo is a good way to threaten to reverse that momentum.
How long does it take you to read? Because 300 pages is a lot, but not a lot to read in two weeks. Is there anything that you've come across that's objectionable or is this just FUD?
Do we have any indication that Martin would allow the books to be finished if he died? The only way I could see him allowing that in his will would be if A: it was a sticking point for a contract with HBO or B: if he trusted a writer enough.
As you said, obviously the TV show wouldn't be as detailed,. But the TV show is good enough that I wouldn't throw myself off of a rope bridge if Martin died.
Hey now! Press releases from the wireless industry and political bribery on the part of the wireless industry generates an additional forty thousand jobs a year! If you question these stats, that risks two hundred billion jobs!