Didn't the phone companies get a lot of help from the government in building their infrastructure? Such as being able to put lines across people's property and in public right of ways, etc?
What if, during the public comments period, I wrote a letter to the DOJ years ago regarding the suit against a large software company who was later found guilty of illegally abusing their monopoly. And the DOJ put all the comments on the Internet and now when someone Google's my name, it comes up. The company I now work for recently became a strategic partner with that very company, which could make things uncomfortable.
You gave information to the government, you should expect that it would be part of public record.
What if I gave money to a politician running for president, and as part of a fundraiser, my name was attached with another two dozen people to an invitation. Then someone not associated with the campaign spammed a mailing list with that invitation, and it was posted on a public site as an example of spamming. Now when you Google my name, my name shows up as supporting that candidate. Not to mention looking in places like opensecrets.org.
Political campaign contributions should be public record and open; how else will we know who is buying seats in Congress?
Oh, and NASA has an exemption from the Freon restrictions anyway.
While they might have initially switched to the freon-free foam for environmental reasons, there was nothing to prevent them from switching back once they found out it was less safe.
Trivia time: Which president issued the executive order to stop use of CFCs?
Great, so now we'll people on both sides of the argument spewing out canned arguments that they have no idea how they were formed or the reasoning behind them.
I guess that's pretty much how the debate is at Slashdot's level anyway.
Most schools in the United States used to teach religion and creationism in school. Then some science teachers started teaching evolution, and eventually we got religion out of school all together. The two aren't really necessarily even related. Getting religion out of school and evolution into school were two separate processes.
Now we've got people who want to get religion back into school, and they're using "science" to try to do it.
They used to try to get Bible classes back into school, but realized that didn't work. So they see this as the best way to get religion back into school.
Really I think they're not very smart with these sorts of things. We learned a long time ago that when you mix religion and government you get a real big nasty mess. Religion has no business telling governments what to do, and governments have no business telling religion what to do.
The verse you cite is simply stating that if you do something in private you probably are more sincere about it.
There's a similar verse in regards to philanthropy. (If you have to tell everyone you gave money to charity, did you give money to charity for your own benefit or for the charity's?)
The verse certainly doesn't say not to proselytize, or command one to keep quiet about their faith.
A few chapters later in Matthew we see the following:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:19-20.
As evolution is not random, but directed by selection, why can't Intelligent Design be achived through evolution?
You're confusing Creationism in general with Intelligent Design.
Creationism is the belief that something else created the universe, it did not just come into being on its own.
Intelligent Design is the belief that there is evidence in the world around us that demonstrates a level of complexity that could only have been created by a higher being.
There is a key difference here.
I believe the universe was created. I do not believe that I can prove that it was created by dissecting a frog.
Intelligent Design proponents believe the universe was created, and that it can be proven by dissecting a frog.
"Christian" religious extremists have killed many times more people than "Islamic" religious extremists.
How about some context with your overly broad statement? If you would like to add "Since both religions existed," your statement is true. However, if you take something more relevant to the discussion, perhaps "in the last 20 years," your statement is false.
The thing about the ACLU is that they don't ask who you voted for, what your religion is, or what color your skin is before they work to protect your rights.
Does it surprise you that a majority of ACLU members are religious? Most of them are Christians, with many Jews and Muslims and other religions.
The problem is that they don't waste their energy fighting off people who try to define them as something they are not. They let their own actions define who they are. Which is evidenced by their repeated defenses of the civil liberties of all members of society.
Maybe you should visit the ACLU's website for yourself and learn about them from THEM instead of Limbaugh.
I don't think it is at all likely that this type of rule would ever come to IT. The industry does not have a history of organizing
I think the main reason for that is that at least up until recently, IT workers were seen as a valuable resource, and therefore treated pretty well compared to other workers in other areas.
As companies begin to squeeze their margins tighter, labor is the first place to feel the squeeze, and as this gets worse and worse, I think you will begin to see more organization efforts in the IT field.
The other alternative is that we will see a large labor movement in the countries where our jobs are currently being outsourced to. At which point, domestic labor might become cheaper than international labor. (The question then becomes the cost of the transition there or back rather than the cost of the labor itself.)
The only reason certain goods and services are so cheap right now is because we're able to use cheap labor in other parts of the world. I think it is naive to believe that labor in those parts of the world will always be cheap, or that there is an endless supply out there.
It's already easy to fire people that don't have a contract in most "at-will" states. You don't even need a reason, so long as your reason isn't discriminatory.
I'll have to agree with you on this one, the site clearly states, "On Mighty Mouse, the entire top shell is the actual button. As with previous versions of the Apple mouse, simply press on the upper surface to click -- the body pivots up and down to actuate the clever click mechanism."
Which tells me it is exactly like their traditional mice. I always had trouble with clicking them, as I would grip the side of the mouse in such a way that pressing down with my fingers wouldn't click the button.
However, as far as the audio feedback is concerned, "Mighty Mouse even sounds as good as it feels. The audio feedback built into Mighty Mouse provides an aural sensation that responds to your movements. When you scroll or click, Mighty Mouse produces subtle sound effects based on your actions."
Note that it says "Mighty Mouse produces subtle sound effects." I would agrue that does make it sound like there is something more to it than just your standard mouse click. Since the wording is that the mouse is producing the sound, I think it is not an unreasonable conclusion that there would be a speaker involved. Of course, it's also not a very logical approach.
First, my post was not a troll. A troll is someone who posts a stupid comment hoping someone will take the bait and reply, thinking it was a serious comment. These "trolls" are almost always rehashed from previous ones, and rarely contain any new data. My post was a response to the troll, but certainly was not seeking any such response or hoping to snag people in with my own post into thinking I actually believed what I said.
The statute that the person I replied to cited has nothing to do with establishing a corporation known as the United States, and everything to do with defining for the purposes of that section that whereever you see the term "United States" you should read it as though it said all of those other things.
An example of "a federal corporation" would be the FDIC. Therefore, those laws in that section that refer to the United States, also apply to the FDIC.
I don't need to cite things out of context to prove my point, logic does it just fine for me.
USC TITLE 28, 3002
15, "United States" means
(a) a Federal corporation
I shall never feed this troll again. I promise.
Read the context of the statute you cite. Treat it like a #define statement.
#define UNITED_STATES a federal corporation an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or an instrumentality of the United States.
So, where ever you see "UNITED_STATES" in a sentence, you replace it with what follows in the #define statement for that statute.
In other words, when a statute in that section refers to the United States, it is at the same time referring to any and all government agencies, federal corporations, etc. Thus, the law applies to all of those groups.
Go ahead though, keep your tin foil hat, but stop with this nonsensical troll.
Re:Whatever happened to single-stage-to-orbit?
on
NASA's Shuttle Plans
·
· Score: 1
Given: The cost of Burt Rotans WORKING solution, why not go in that direction?
Working? He managed to go up really high and come back down while strapped to the front of a rocket. Big deal.
It's a common literary device, I don't understand the confusion.
Just becuase they didn't add the redundant "respectively" at the end of the sentence doesn't mean that "engines and debris" applies to both "Challenger" and "Columbia."
Especially when they reader knows the context, the sentence makes perfect sense.
For example: In the business of making planes and cars, Boeing and GM are doing well.
Slashdot Mirror
Most things nowadays are set to GMT; the only thing that DST affects is what is displayed to the end-user.
Are you arguing that such information should be available to the public, but only if they work hard at it?
I'm confused.
Didn't the phone companies get a lot of help from the government in building their infrastructure? Such as being able to put lines across people's property and in public right of ways, etc?
What if, during the public comments period, I wrote a letter to the DOJ years ago regarding the suit against a large software company who was later found guilty of illegally abusing their monopoly. And the DOJ put all the comments on the Internet and now when someone Google's my name, it comes up. The company I now work for recently became a strategic partner with that very company, which could make things uncomfortable.
You gave information to the government, you should expect that it would be part of public record.
What if I gave money to a politician running for president, and as part of a fundraiser, my name was attached with another two dozen people to an invitation. Then someone not associated with the campaign spammed a mailing list with that invitation, and it was posted on a public site as an example of spamming. Now when you Google my name, my name shows up as supporting that candidate. Not to mention looking in places like opensecrets.org.
Political campaign contributions should be public record and open; how else will we know who is buying seats in Congress?
I think they might be using the "personal information" as a guise for what really upset them about the article.
It exposed the fact that they collect enormous amounts of personal information from their users, and all we can do is trust them and their employees.
Reassuring isn't it?
The article does point out that Google is not alone in this practice.
The shuttles still use freon for other cooling systems; in fact, Columbia had issues with its cooling system.
Oh, and NASA has an exemption from the Freon restrictions anyway.
While they might have initially switched to the freon-free foam for environmental reasons, there was nothing to prevent them from switching back once they found out it was less safe.
Trivia time: Which president issued the executive order to stop use of CFCs?
Of course, the real problem they are going to run into is which intelligent design concepts they are going to teach.
You're confusing Creationism with ID.
ID = there is evidence in the world that demonstrates it is too complex to happen by accident -> therefore something created it.
Creationism = something created the world.
There is really only one type of ID, there are are many variations on Creationism though.
ID doesn't get into who or what created the world, or what it was created, merely that there is evidence that suggest it was created.
Great, so now we'll people on both sides of the argument spewing out canned arguments that they have no idea how they were formed or the reasoning behind them.
I guess that's pretty much how the debate is at Slashdot's level anyway.
You've kind of got it backwards there.
Most schools in the United States used to teach religion and creationism in school. Then some science teachers started teaching evolution, and eventually we got religion out of school all together. The two aren't really necessarily even related. Getting religion out of school and evolution into school were two separate processes.
Now we've got people who want to get religion back into school, and they're using "science" to try to do it.
They used to try to get Bible classes back into school, but realized that didn't work. So they see this as the best way to get religion back into school.
Really I think they're not very smart with these sorts of things. We learned a long time ago that when you mix religion and government you get a real big nasty mess. Religion has no business telling governments what to do, and governments have no business telling religion what to do.
Creationism != ID.
It's like saying that someone who says "I believe in teaching the use of a computer in schools," is endorsing Microsoft Windows.
The verse you cite is simply stating that if you do something in private you probably are more sincere about it.
There's a similar verse in regards to philanthropy. (If you have to tell everyone you gave money to charity, did you give money to charity for your own benefit or for the charity's?)
The verse certainly doesn't say not to proselytize, or command one to keep quiet about their faith.
A few chapters later in Matthew we see the following:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:19-20.
As evolution is not random, but directed by selection, why can't Intelligent Design be achived through evolution?
You're confusing Creationism in general with Intelligent Design.
Creationism is the belief that something else created the universe, it did not just come into being on its own.
Intelligent Design is the belief that there is evidence in the world around us that demonstrates a level of complexity that could only have been created by a higher being.
There is a key difference here.
I believe the universe was created. I do not believe that I can prove that it was created by dissecting a frog.
Intelligent Design proponents believe the universe was created, and that it can be proven by dissecting a frog.
"Christian" religious extremists have killed many times more people than "Islamic" religious extremists.
How about some context with your overly broad statement? If you would like to add "Since both religions existed," your statement is true. However, if you take something more relevant to the discussion, perhaps "in the last 20 years," your statement is false.
ACLU Intervenes on behalf of Christian Valedictorian.
The ACLU fought to stop a high school in Michigan from censoring religious yearbook entries made by students.
*GASP*
I don't believe it. You mean the ACLU actually defends Christians too?
The thing about the ACLU is that they don't ask who you voted for, what your religion is, or what color your skin is before they work to protect your rights.
Does it surprise you that a majority of ACLU members are religious? Most of them are Christians, with many Jews and Muslims and other religions.
The problem is that they don't waste their energy fighting off people who try to define them as something they are not. They let their own actions define who they are. Which is evidenced by their repeated defenses of the civil liberties of all members of society.
Maybe you should visit the ACLU's website for yourself and learn about them from THEM instead of Limbaugh.
I don't think it is at all likely that this type of rule would ever come to IT. The industry does not have a history of organizing
I think the main reason for that is that at least up until recently, IT workers were seen as a valuable resource, and therefore treated pretty well compared to other workers in other areas.
As companies begin to squeeze their margins tighter, labor is the first place to feel the squeeze, and as this gets worse and worse, I think you will begin to see more organization efforts in the IT field.
The other alternative is that we will see a large labor movement in the countries where our jobs are currently being outsourced to. At which point, domestic labor might become cheaper than international labor. (The question then becomes the cost of the transition there or back rather than the cost of the labor itself.)
The only reason certain goods and services are so cheap right now is because we're able to use cheap labor in other parts of the world. I think it is naive to believe that labor in those parts of the world will always be cheap, or that there is an endless supply out there.
It's already easy to fire people that don't have a contract in most "at-will" states. You don't even need a reason, so long as your reason isn't discriminatory.
appendicitis, a then-incurable ailment.
The first reported appendectomy took place in 1735. Lewis & Clark started their expedition in 1805.
I'll have to agree with you on this one, the site clearly states, "On Mighty Mouse, the entire top shell is the actual button. As with previous versions of the Apple mouse, simply press on the upper surface to click -- the body pivots up and down to actuate the clever click mechanism."
Which tells me it is exactly like their traditional mice. I always had trouble with clicking them, as I would grip the side of the mouse in such a way that pressing down with my fingers wouldn't click the button.
However, as far as the audio feedback is concerned, "Mighty Mouse even sounds as good as it feels. The audio feedback built into Mighty Mouse provides an aural sensation that responds to your movements. When you scroll or click, Mighty Mouse produces subtle sound effects based on your actions."
Note that it says "Mighty Mouse produces subtle sound effects." I would agrue that does make it sound like there is something more to it than just your standard mouse click. Since the wording is that the mouse is producing the sound, I think it is not an unreasonable conclusion that there would be a speaker involved. Of course, it's also not a very logical approach.
First, my post was not a troll. A troll is someone who posts a stupid comment hoping someone will take the bait and reply, thinking it was a serious comment. These "trolls" are almost always rehashed from previous ones, and rarely contain any new data. My post was a response to the troll, but certainly was not seeking any such response or hoping to snag people in with my own post into thinking I actually believed what I said.
The statute that the person I replied to cited has nothing to do with establishing a corporation known as the United States, and everything to do with defining for the purposes of that section that whereever you see the term "United States" you should read it as though it said all of those other things.
An example of "a federal corporation" would be the FDIC. Therefore, those laws in that section that refer to the United States, also apply to the FDIC.
I don't need to cite things out of context to prove my point, logic does it just fine for me.
USC TITLE 28, 3002
15, "United States" means
(a) a Federal corporation
I shall never feed this troll again. I promise.
Read the context of the statute you cite. Treat it like a #define statement.
#define UNITED_STATES a federal corporation an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or an instrumentality of the United States.
So, where ever you see "UNITED_STATES" in a sentence, you replace it with what follows in the #define statement for that statute.
In other words, when a statute in that section refers to the United States, it is at the same time referring to any and all government agencies, federal corporations, etc. Thus, the law applies to all of those groups.
Go ahead though, keep your tin foil hat, but stop with this nonsensical troll.
Given: The cost of Burt Rotans WORKING solution, why not go in that direction?
Working? He managed to go up really high and come back down while strapped to the front of a rocket. Big deal.
The shuttle assembly building is 500 feet tall. From the pictures, they're about twice the height of the current shuttle, so they should fit fine.
The proper formula is KE = (1/2)mv^2.
Still a lot of energy, though.
It's a common literary device, I don't understand the confusion.
Just becuase they didn't add the redundant "respectively" at the end of the sentence doesn't mean that "engines and debris" applies to both "Challenger" and "Columbia."
Especially when they reader knows the context, the sentence makes perfect sense.
For example: In the business of making planes and cars, Boeing and GM are doing well.