Creationists maintain there is a difference between bacteria, fruit flies, and mice undergoing observable evolution and humans evolving. They call one "microevolution" and the other "macroevolution."
It's impossible to deny that evolution happens. You can watch it happen, bacteria on antibiotic plates. It is possible to claim that has nothing to do with how humans came to be, all it requires is extreme stupidity and insistence that a holy book is the best way to understand facts.
What's the insightful point here? This sentiment has been historically been raised in conversations about HIV as an excuse to not care about a disease that primarily affects homosexuals. It's far rarer that people say "Oh, well everyone has to go sometime" when discussing cancer research. So apologies if you're not being callous towards homosexuals with HIV, and are instead just making a trite observation that everyone dies.
If in 100 years, I have my male body detach my head, put it on a shelf, and have sex with my female body, while I'm watching and simultaneously connected to both of them via wireless something or other, does that count as masturbation and/or cheating on my wife?
"Either you adapt or you will be another victim of the steamroller of progress"
Or don't adapt (otherwise translated as "conform") and just get out of the way of the steamroller. I know many people who live just fine without the Internet at all. Last I checked my biology text book, the Internet was not one of the requirements for life.
GP was obviously talking about businesses. That was the context there, in case you missed it. So if you're reading a biology text book to understand what is going to happen to journalism or other industries, then a few things about your post start to make sense.
Those are problems with javascript being used on the websites, not being on by default in the browser. Firefox having JS obligatory doesn't mean someone else's braille reader is broken.
Judging by how many websites don't work at all until I start allowing scripts in noscript, the battle has been lost, firefox is just admitting that it's a reality.
The teachers are ruled by unions. Do they work 40 hour weeks?
No.
Define "work." Prepping for classes, grading, and meetings can and do easily get them over 40 hours. And, you don't work 100% of the time you're "on the clock." You're on slashdot for one thing. You're slacking off. I think you'd find it's near impossible to post on slashdot if you're in front of 30 students teaching. Teachers work harder than most of us do.
And Twinkies.
demise was caused by ridiculous mismanagement and private equity firms using hostess as a credit card, running up 800 million in debt, then telling the workers to pay for it with 30% pay cuts.
If the unions can be blamed there, it's for two reasons. One, they failed to point out to the idiot public exactly what was going on and two, they failed to strangle the thieves on wall street, allowing them to live another day and rob more Americans.
From my understanding, the LEDs in question are infrared, invisible to the eye. They're meant to foil infrared cameras "night vision." Wearing them in the day would be pointless, and at night, you still wouldn't see the LED light.
The idea is similar to a zebra's stripes: one individual using such measures highlights that individual, which is counterproductive, however MANY individuals using it makes it hard to target a single individual. If everyone on the street is wearing the hip new hoodies, law enforcement would have to, I dunno, get a proper warrant with evidence to keep tabs on a suspect rather than just keeping tabs on everyone at all times.
This isn't really against law enforcement anymore than the bill of rights is opposing law enforcement.
That's not unique to this goal though. Almost anything I see touted as "fashion" looks fucking ridiculous. Maybe that's a sampling error, as someone who ignores fashion intentionally, I maybe only see the weird shit.
As far as job interviews, that's a weird standard. You wear a suit and tie or whatever it is women wear to job interviews. You hand someone a piece of paper with most of your identifying information on it. Stealth is not the goal there. You'd wear this stuff walking down the street to avoid targeted advertising like in minority report, not into a job interview, obviously.
It still seems so recent that I overheard someone say they were going to "have to search for that on google" and thinking "What, is that like altavista?"
the public invariably crucifies them for failing to follow up on the warning signs
Do they really? I see exponentially more outrage at the war on drugs, the patriot act, PRISM and TSA than I do at law enforcement letting the odd criminal slip by. Law enforcement seems to withstand YEARS of complaints about racial profiling and jail for nonviolent offenders, yet they have to utterly destroy this teenager because they might be questioned if he were to have done something?
Lets not make excuses for them. They crushed him like a bug for a trifling offense because they could.
Uh, pretty sure we have bona-fide WMDs and know about it. I mean, we have a lot of nukes.
Anyway, it's all well and clever to point out that the US has WMD and denied Iraq them, but do you honestly think had there been WMDs that we should have allowed Saddam to have them too? That seems childish. I'd prefer no one have WMDs the US included, but we do, they're not going anywhere. The US having them while telling others not to gain them isn't the best scenario, but is preferable to every little ceasar having them too.
keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
One wonders why it took politicians so long to come up with this "War on terrorists, not a nation" excuse. Plenty of them have been pretty brilliant, and I gather that we've always been this stupid, I can't imagine anyone objecting to a "war on communism" during the McCarthy trials.
onyl cheeper if you consider all the appeals and extra bullshit that most on death row push for. In a clear cut case like this, just hang him and be done with it.
"Liberty and justice for all... unless I have to pay for it in taxes. In that case, kill em all, let God sort em out."
I kind of suspect this is just a PR move by local politicians, the prosecutors, the district attorney or whoever (not familiar with goverment structure).
"We at the Boston city government are going to charge this guy with SO MANY laws that his head will explode. Yeah, we have a shit-ton of laws to use on him. So you, the citizen, taxpayer, and voter are WICKED safe: we put the bad guys away in terrorist jails for a billion years. You don't need to vote for someone else promising to keep you safe from random violence that you for some reason think is plaguing the country. "
Escalating crimes seems dangerous (dangerous as in real danger, not like the "danger" of terrorism). Today it's these idiots charged with WMD, the next national tragedy involving guns, someone is going to get the bright idea to declare guns WMD, and then every gang member found with a gun on his person is going away for life at supermax prison, at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayer.
I guess the thing to do would be to ask the FBI how it is that they let "terrorists" who knew how to make "weapons of mass destruction" into the country after Russia warned us about the two.
I'm not sure if it would though I want to make it clear I have zero experience with the military, so this is 1100% complete and utter conjecture.
Seems possible to me that troops might not be fighting for whatever the official justification for the war was "To bring democracy to Iraq" or "Keep Saddam from launching WMDs." Seems to me their fighting to defend their fellow servicemen and women, and because they follow orders. Seems to me that the "We're spreading democracy" doesn't hold up for most people when you get shot at.
Again, just guessing. The Army command may have a better idea of what affects morale better, so maybe that is it, but I suspect it's actually just following idiotic procedures idiotically.
Classified information is not declassified just because it is made public!
Well that seems a bit like saying "Horses are officially not out of the barn until they have been categorized as 'out of the barn,' and they're not yet." That may be the official policy, but it's fucking ridiculous and should be changed to reflect reality.
That doesn't justify anything. That's basically "The army responded idiotically in the past, so they should respond idiotically now." Classification should depend on how you got it for reasons that should be obvious. If it's printed in a newspaper worldwide, how the hell are you supposed to know it's classified information? And then there is the obvious "It's not secret at this point so the damage has been done."
Fox chose to frame it as a battle between gay marriage and whoever rather than "Unconstitutional law found unconstitutional."
I agree with your point though, it's not "bias" so much as it is "Shitty journalism from a shitty entertainment channel." Fox is trying to rile people up to watch, not motivate them to be more conservative. That's just a side effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Creationists maintain there is a difference between bacteria, fruit flies, and mice undergoing observable evolution and humans evolving. They call one "microevolution" and the other "macroevolution."
It's impossible to deny that evolution happens. You can watch it happen, bacteria on antibiotic plates. It is possible to claim that has nothing to do with how humans came to be, all it requires is extreme stupidity and insistence that a holy book is the best way to understand facts.
"One state and most other industrialized countries" you mean.
What's the insightful point here? This sentiment has been historically been raised in conversations about HIV as an excuse to not care about a disease that primarily affects homosexuals. It's far rarer that people say "Oh, well everyone has to go sometime" when discussing cancer research. So apologies if you're not being callous towards homosexuals with HIV, and are instead just making a trite observation that everyone dies.
If in 100 years, I have my male body detach my head, put it on a shelf, and have sex with my female body, while I'm watching and simultaneously connected to both of them via wireless something or other, does that count as masturbation and/or cheating on my wife?
"Either you adapt or you will be another victim of the steamroller of progress"
Or don't adapt (otherwise translated as "conform") and just get out of the way of the steamroller. I know many people who live just fine without the Internet at all. Last I checked my biology text book, the Internet was not one of the requirements for life.
GP was obviously talking about businesses. That was the context there, in case you missed it. So if you're reading a biology text book to understand what is going to happen to journalism or other industries, then a few things about your post start to make sense.
Ah, so we're doing nothing and that means we approve of the NSA spying. Tell us, what are we supposed to do?
Just to be clear, it's not that I distrust javascript. It's that I distrust YOU.
Those are problems with javascript being used on the websites, not being on by default in the browser. Firefox having JS obligatory doesn't mean someone else's braille reader is broken.
Judging by how many websites don't work at all until I start allowing scripts in noscript, the battle has been lost, firefox is just admitting that it's a reality.
The teachers are ruled by unions. Do they work 40 hour weeks? No.
Define "work." Prepping for classes, grading, and meetings can and do easily get them over 40 hours. And, you don't work 100% of the time you're "on the clock." You're on slashdot for one thing. You're slacking off. I think you'd find it's near impossible to post on slashdot if you're in front of 30 students teaching. Teachers work harder than most of us do.
And Twinkies.
demise was caused by ridiculous mismanagement and private equity firms using hostess as a credit card, running up 800 million in debt, then telling the workers to pay for it with 30% pay cuts.
If the unions can be blamed there, it's for two reasons. One, they failed to point out to the idiot public exactly what was going on and two, they failed to strangle the thieves on wall street, allowing them to live another day and rob more Americans.
What's your point? I didn't see any masks in TFA.
From my understanding, the LEDs in question are infrared, invisible to the eye. They're meant to foil infrared cameras "night vision." Wearing them in the day would be pointless, and at night, you still wouldn't see the LED light.
The idea is similar to a zebra's stripes: one individual using such measures highlights that individual, which is counterproductive, however MANY individuals using it makes it hard to target a single individual. If everyone on the street is wearing the hip new hoodies, law enforcement would have to, I dunno, get a proper warrant with evidence to keep tabs on a suspect rather than just keeping tabs on everyone at all times.
This isn't really against law enforcement anymore than the bill of rights is opposing law enforcement.
That's not unique to this goal though. Almost anything I see touted as "fashion" looks fucking ridiculous. Maybe that's a sampling error, as someone who ignores fashion intentionally, I maybe only see the weird shit.
As far as job interviews, that's a weird standard. You wear a suit and tie or whatever it is women wear to job interviews. You hand someone a piece of paper with most of your identifying information on it. Stealth is not the goal there. You'd wear this stuff walking down the street to avoid targeted advertising like in minority report, not into a job interview, obviously.
It still seems so recent that I overheard someone say they were going to "have to search for that on google" and thinking "What, is that like altavista?"
the public invariably crucifies them for failing to follow up on the warning signs
Do they really? I see exponentially more outrage at the war on drugs, the patriot act, PRISM and TSA than I do at law enforcement letting the odd criminal slip by. Law enforcement seems to withstand YEARS of complaints about racial profiling and jail for nonviolent offenders, yet they have to utterly destroy this teenager because they might be questioned if he were to have done something?
Lets not make excuses for them. They crushed him like a bug for a trifling offense because they could.
Uh, pretty sure we have bona-fide WMDs and know about it. I mean, we have a lot of nukes.
Anyway, it's all well and clever to point out that the US has WMD and denied Iraq them, but do you honestly think had there been WMDs that we should have allowed Saddam to have them too? That seems childish. I'd prefer no one have WMDs the US included, but we do, they're not going anywhere. The US having them while telling others not to gain them isn't the best scenario, but is preferable to every little ceasar having them too.
keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
One wonders why it took politicians so long to come up with this "War on terrorists, not a nation" excuse. Plenty of them have been pretty brilliant, and I gather that we've always been this stupid, I can't imagine anyone objecting to a "war on communism" during the McCarthy trials.
onyl cheeper if you consider all the appeals and extra bullshit that most on death row push for. In a clear cut case like this, just hang him and be done with it.
"Liberty and justice for all... unless I have to pay for it in taxes. In that case, kill em all, let God sort em out."
I kind of suspect this is just a PR move by local politicians, the prosecutors, the district attorney or whoever (not familiar with goverment structure).
"We at the Boston city government are going to charge this guy with SO MANY laws that his head will explode. Yeah, we have a shit-ton of laws to use on him. So you, the citizen, taxpayer, and voter are WICKED safe: we put the bad guys away in terrorist jails for a billion years. You don't need to vote for someone else promising to keep you safe from random violence that you for some reason think is plaguing the country. "
Escalating crimes seems dangerous (dangerous as in real danger, not like the "danger" of terrorism). Today it's these idiots charged with WMD, the next national tragedy involving guns, someone is going to get the bright idea to declare guns WMD, and then every gang member found with a gun on his person is going away for life at supermax prison, at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayer.
I guess the thing to do would be to ask the FBI how it is that they let "terrorists" who knew how to make "weapons of mass destruction" into the country after Russia warned us about the two.
I'm not sure if it would though I want to make it clear I have zero experience with the military, so this is 1100% complete and utter conjecture.
Seems possible to me that troops might not be fighting for whatever the official justification for the war was "To bring democracy to Iraq" or "Keep Saddam from launching WMDs." Seems to me their fighting to defend their fellow servicemen and women, and because they follow orders. Seems to me that the "We're spreading democracy" doesn't hold up for most people when you get shot at.
Again, just guessing. The Army command may have a better idea of what affects morale better, so maybe that is it, but I suspect it's actually just following idiotic procedures idiotically.
Classified information is not declassified just because it is made public!
Well that seems a bit like saying "Horses are officially not out of the barn until they have been categorized as 'out of the barn,' and they're not yet." That may be the official policy, but it's fucking ridiculous and should be changed to reflect reality.
That doesn't justify anything. That's basically "The army responded idiotically in the past, so they should respond idiotically now." Classification should depend on how you got it for reasons that should be obvious. If it's printed in a newspaper worldwide, how the hell are you supposed to know it's classified information? And then there is the obvious "It's not secret at this point so the damage has been done."
Microsoft may have backpedaled, but that was the right thing to do.
As a consumer, why would you care if it's backpedaling? No one in the world suffers under the illusion that MS' word is infallible.
You miss my point: they're selling it as a fight, not reporting the news.
Fox chose to frame it as a battle between gay marriage and whoever rather than "Unconstitutional law found unconstitutional."
I agree with your point though, it's not "bias" so much as it is "Shitty journalism from a shitty entertainment channel." Fox is trying to rile people up to watch, not motivate them to be more conservative. That's just a side effect.
Also works for criminals who have served their time. "No voting if you're a felon" or "No living within 2 miles of a school if you're a sex offender"?