These prizes should go to people who contribute to the scientific community in such a way as to better humanity. no one gives 2 shits about why banana peels are slippery.
Somewhere right now, someone is posting an outraged message on Facebook about how scientists got a Nobel Peace Prize for research on banana peels, and suggesting that we cut all science funding.
I don't even think it's just the Kurds. The Sunni and Shia populations don't have a great record of getting along either. It sounds like each of them need their own country, instead of the European-drawn borders of Iraq and Syria. Those borders need to be re-drawn along religious lines instead of some arbitrary border. Break up the two countries and replace them with a Shia state, a Sunni state, and a Kurdish state and things might quiet down for a while. Sadly, countries like Iran and Turkey would not be happy about that, because their Kurdish populations would want some Iranian and Turkish territory to become Kurdish. There are a lot of different aspects to this thing, and everyone is looking out for number 1.
Jesus is quoting the priests' law and calling them hypocrites.
You sure about that? To me, it sounds a whole lot like Jesus is quoting God's law.
Jesus replied, "And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God? For instance, God says, 'Honor your father and mother,' and 'Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.' But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, 'Sorry, I can't help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.' In this way, you say they don't need to honor their parents. And so you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition. You hypocrites!"
That looks a whole lot to me like Jesus, the literal Son of God and Savior of all humanity, is quoting God, his father, the creator of everything, as saying "Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death." Are you reading that differently than I am? You're pretty quick to dismiss the criticism, so what do you know that I don't?
Let us not forget that there's nothing inherent to either Christianity or Islam when it comes to fundamentalism.
I think that both religions go a pretty long way to make sure their followers understand that the holy book is the literal word of God. The book itself says so, after all. That's fundamentalism right there. The bible doesn't say that you're allowed to follow the rules you want and ignore the others, they are all supposed to be followed.
By favorite part of the bible is how Eve got everyone evicted from paradise for eating forbidden fruit from the Tree Of Knowledge. It looks like ISIS is right on board with that. God doesn't want people to have knowledge, and ISIS is happy to lead the charge.
My maternal grandfather had a PhD in organic chemistry, was an inventor, a professional chemist, and taught at a university. He had a son, who would eventually go on to work for Apple and retire early. That son had a daughter early in life, although he never acknowledged her. She tracked him down decades later and that's when I even became aware of her. She, without any knowledge of her family, pursued a degree and career in aquatic biology, a science profession like her father and grandfather. She shares a lot of common interests and aptitudes without ever knowing her family history while making her academic or career decisions. For what it's worth, I'm a programmer and I'm also fascinated by a wide range of scientific fields.
Nonsense. Football announcers always have clear and lucid insights into the game. Like these:
"We've got two physical teams here." - insider information from Tommy Jackson
"The Giants will have to play physical football to beat the Panthers." - Daryl Johnson pointing out that a psychological strategy will probably not work
"You have to do well on third downs." - Joe Buck demonstrating his mastery of the nuances of the game
"The team that plays the best defense is going to win this one." - Mike Ditka pointing out that the team which allows the fewest points will generally win
If it wasn't for people like that, I wouldn't realize that the team that scores the most points wins (I've also heard an announcer helpfully point that out during a game).
In fact, the whole "i-Thingy" is probably dead now.
As someone who doesn't like the Apple Machine, I was a little disappointed when I heard that Apple's payment system was not called "iPay". It really would have fit their brand.
Because I had to worry about clients using XP SP2, I'm stuck using ROT-1.
You joke about that, but we just had to switch a major client's SSL certificate back to SHA-1 because their users in China couldn't use the new certificate since they were all on XP pre-SP3. We charged them something like a $500 stupidity tax for making us go through the process to install a less secure certificate.
What operator should the programmer use if he wants 1 to equal 1.0 but not '1', where integer numbers are equal to float numbers but strings aren't equal to either?
How about just checking if you're dealing with a string and casting it if necessary?
That was my experience. I opened the page, clicked Next past the intro slide, saw a picture of apples and oranges, some text talking about "+" in Javascript, clicked Next again, it faded out to show an ad that I blocked, and I closed the page. Bunch of crap.
Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah - need I go on?
Skip ahead a bit, brother.
How about Hawaii? It was a kingdom in the late 1800s, ruled by Queen Lili'uokalani. In 1893 she was overthrown and the government was replaced with a provisional government, led by an American lawyer. President Cleveland commissioned a report which found that the overthrow was illegal. The provisional government ended the following year and was replaced by the Republic of Hawaii. In 1898, despite opposition from a majority of native Hawaiians, and despite letters written by Queen Lili'uokalani also in opposition, the US passed a resolution which annexed Hawaii as a US territory. In 1959 it would become the 50th state. In 1993 the US Congress would pass a joint resolution signed by Clinton which apologized for overthrowing the government of Queen Lili'uokalani.
Or, how about Guantanamo Bay Naval Base? We invaded and captured that land in 1898 (good year for the US, I guess), refused to give it back, built a military installation on it (our only one in a country with which we do not have diplomatic relations), and Cuba has been protesting every year since 1959 that the occupation of it is illegal. But US interests.
That was the more interesting part of the article for me, I wasn't exactly shocked that there are government cell towers out there. With the phone mentioned in the article where they talk about endpoint-to-endpoint encryption, is that for any connection? It sounds like that type of communication would only work when the person on the other end supports and also uses the same encryption, that's true right? If I call my parents' land line, or some random iPhone, that call wouldn't be encrypted unless they had a phone that supports the key exchange and encryption, correct? If so, does that mean that encryption is only useful if basically everyone you're communicating with supports it?
Not forced into a corner exactly, but there are a lot of people who regard themselves as Russian living there and who he is expected to defend.
Why is Putin expected to defend people living in Ukraine? Isn't that the job of Ukrainians? There are Mexican nationals living in the US as citizens, is it the job of the Mexican government to protect and defend those people or is that the job of the US government?
Their government, whatever you think of it, was overthrown and they wanted to go back to Russian rule.
The solution for that problem is to move to Russia. That's where Russian rule is. If Ukraine is under Russian rule, then that's an obvious problem in itself.
"No more financial ties to Russia?" They're neighbors, it's like not all ties instantly evaporate. Gas still goes through Ukraine to get to Europe, right? It's not like Ukraine, regardless of leadership, will ever be completely and utterly separated from Russia, regardless of leadership. Both countries will continue to trade with each other because they're neighbors. Even North and South Korea have various economic agreements.
the new Mexican state is openly hostile to Americans and is threatening to exterminate them.
This is just a hypothetical, right? Not actually based on true events, correct?
What would I do? Well, I guess I would probably threaten to nuke Mexico. That clearly seems like the obvious and rational choice. That would most definitely move popular support in my favor, and people would not think that I am legitimately psychopathic. I would also send several thousand troops down to Mexico to bombard and lay siege to various towns while claiming that those soldiers are actually lost and/or on vacation with all of their military equipment, because that would allow me to both intervene militarily, and also let the world know that I am in no way in control of anything that my armed forces do. And of course I'll shoot down a civilian airliner, because it's not a party until someone shoots down a civilian airliner, but then I'll claim that I didn't do that and people will eventually forget it happened anyway. I'll also claim that Mexico was really always a part of the US, and so I would invade and annex the Yucatan peninsula, because why not? Then I'll meet the new democratically elected leader of Mexico and shake his hand while making a weasel face like this, and I'll have the leader of Canada stand behind me ready with the double-stink-eye.
Or I'll just tell everyone living in Mexico who would rather live in the US that they should probably just move here. I'd probably do one of those two though.
Am I for real? I'm not sure, as far as I know I'm sitting here at my desk posting on Slashdot while appearing to the casual observer to be working instead. But, for all I know, I could be in a mental institution screaming at a white wall about Russians (with apologies to Jim Jefferies).
Back the the actual point though, you think it might be possible that word could come down from on high for one commander to start talking about nukes, which would give the actual leadership plausible deniability? I don't know the answer to that, it may or may not be time for my alleged medication.
But, just out of curiosity, when a nuclear weapon is used, who do you think uses it? Do you think the president personally flies down there to deliver it? If commanders don't have access to the weapons, then who does, the privates? Also, like CrimsonAvenger points out, does the threat of a nuclear attack necessarily need to involve the person making the threat actually having the capability of carrying it out?
And AM I for real? Can anyone provide any evidence for that? I'm feeling pretty vulnerable right now, if you don't stop harassing me I'm going to nuke you. From orbit.
most of the First World countries are going to immediately join forces to invade and permanently occupy Russia.
Yeah, but by the time their biggest enemies attack, all of their military units will have gained a ton of experience points from skirmishing with their neighbors all those years. High-level modern armor is nothing to sniff at.
They mention non-official channels. That could be something as basic as one field commander threatening the use of tactical nukes unless the other field commander surrenders.
Slashdot Mirror
These prizes should go to people who contribute to the scientific community in such a way as to better humanity. no one gives 2 shits about why banana peels are slippery.
Somewhere right now, someone is posting an outraged message on Facebook about how scientists got a Nobel Peace Prize for research on banana peels, and suggesting that we cut all science funding.
The two do tend to contradict when religious teachings make incorrect claims about natural phenomena.
I don't even think it's just the Kurds. The Sunni and Shia populations don't have a great record of getting along either. It sounds like each of them need their own country, instead of the European-drawn borders of Iraq and Syria. Those borders need to be re-drawn along religious lines instead of some arbitrary border. Break up the two countries and replace them with a Shia state, a Sunni state, and a Kurdish state and things might quiet down for a while. Sadly, countries like Iran and Turkey would not be happy about that, because their Kurdish populations would want some Iranian and Turkish territory to become Kurdish. There are a lot of different aspects to this thing, and everyone is looking out for number 1.
Jesus is quoting the priests' law and calling them hypocrites.
You sure about that? To me, it sounds a whole lot like Jesus is quoting God's law.
Jesus replied, "And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God? For instance, God says, 'Honor your father and mother,' and 'Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.' But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, 'Sorry, I can't help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.' In this way, you say they don't need to honor their parents. And so you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition. You hypocrites!"
That looks a whole lot to me like Jesus, the literal Son of God and Savior of all humanity, is quoting God, his father, the creator of everything, as saying "Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death." Are you reading that differently than I am? You're pretty quick to dismiss the criticism, so what do you know that I don't?
Let us not forget that there's nothing inherent to either Christianity or Islam when it comes to fundamentalism.
I think that both religions go a pretty long way to make sure their followers understand that the holy book is the literal word of God. The book itself says so, after all. That's fundamentalism right there. The bible doesn't say that you're allowed to follow the rules you want and ignore the others, they are all supposed to be followed.
By favorite part of the bible is how Eve got everyone evicted from paradise for eating forbidden fruit from the Tree Of Knowledge. It looks like ISIS is right on board with that. God doesn't want people to have knowledge, and ISIS is happy to lead the charge.
No, I think the only option is to go in and kill every last one of them, like the vermin infestation that they are.
Congratulations, you thought of the same strategy as them.
Here's my own anecdote:
My maternal grandfather had a PhD in organic chemistry, was an inventor, a professional chemist, and taught at a university. He had a son, who would eventually go on to work for Apple and retire early. That son had a daughter early in life, although he never acknowledged her. She tracked him down decades later and that's when I even became aware of her. She, without any knowledge of her family, pursued a degree and career in aquatic biology, a science profession like her father and grandfather. She shares a lot of common interests and aptitudes without ever knowing her family history while making her academic or career decisions. For what it's worth, I'm a programmer and I'm also fascinated by a wide range of scientific fields.
Did they look at the CVs of those 100,000 people? How many where self-made *gasp* one-percenters?
I'd wager about 1,000 of them.
That account probably defaults to a rating of 2 because of higher karma in the past, people didn't necessarily moderate it up.
But me with my creationinst christian views gets a bad karma rating.
That does tend to happen.
Aspirin is a trademark or Bayer.
Heroin used to be also. They marketed it as a non-addictive substitute for morphine.
Nonsense. Football announcers always have clear and lucid insights into the game. Like these:
"We've got two physical teams here." - insider information from Tommy Jackson
"The Giants will have to play physical football to beat the Panthers." - Daryl Johnson pointing out that a psychological strategy will probably not work
"You have to do well on third downs." - Joe Buck demonstrating his mastery of the nuances of the game
"The team that plays the best defense is going to win this one." - Mike Ditka pointing out that the team which allows the fewest points will generally win
If it wasn't for people like that, I wouldn't realize that the team that scores the most points wins (I've also heard an announcer helpfully point that out during a game).
In fact, the whole "i-Thingy" is probably dead now.
As someone who doesn't like the Apple Machine, I was a little disappointed when I heard that Apple's payment system was not called "iPay". It really would have fit their brand.
Because I had to worry about clients using XP SP2, I'm stuck using ROT-1.
You joke about that, but we just had to switch a major client's SSL certificate back to SHA-1 because their users in China couldn't use the new certificate since they were all on XP pre-SP3. We charged them something like a $500 stupidity tax for making us go through the process to install a less secure certificate.
What operator should the programmer use if he wants 1 to equal 1.0 but not '1', where integer numbers are equal to float numbers but strings aren't equal to either?
How about just checking if you're dealing with a string and casting it if necessary?
That was my experience. I opened the page, clicked Next past the intro slide, saw a picture of apples and oranges, some text talking about "+" in Javascript, clicked Next again, it faded out to show an ad that I blocked, and I closed the page. Bunch of crap.
Since you bring that up, considering that Alaska used to be part of Russia, would you say that Russia has any claim to that territory today?
Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah - need I go on?
Skip ahead a bit, brother.
How about Hawaii? It was a kingdom in the late 1800s, ruled by Queen Lili'uokalani. In 1893 she was overthrown and the government was replaced with a provisional government, led by an American lawyer. President Cleveland commissioned a report which found that the overthrow was illegal. The provisional government ended the following year and was replaced by the Republic of Hawaii. In 1898, despite opposition from a majority of native Hawaiians, and despite letters written by Queen Lili'uokalani also in opposition, the US passed a resolution which annexed Hawaii as a US territory. In 1959 it would become the 50th state. In 1993 the US Congress would pass a joint resolution signed by Clinton which apologized for overthrowing the government of Queen Lili'uokalani.
Or, how about Guantanamo Bay Naval Base? We invaded and captured that land in 1898 (good year for the US, I guess), refused to give it back, built a military installation on it (our only one in a country with which we do not have diplomatic relations), and Cuba has been protesting every year since 1959 that the occupation of it is illegal. But US interests.
Why is that information only available there? If the letter is open, where is the original?
Learn to use encryption and quit your whining.
That was the more interesting part of the article for me, I wasn't exactly shocked that there are government cell towers out there. With the phone mentioned in the article where they talk about endpoint-to-endpoint encryption, is that for any connection? It sounds like that type of communication would only work when the person on the other end supports and also uses the same encryption, that's true right? If I call my parents' land line, or some random iPhone, that call wouldn't be encrypted unless they had a phone that supports the key exchange and encryption, correct? If so, does that mean that encryption is only useful if basically everyone you're communicating with supports it?
Not forced into a corner exactly, but there are a lot of people who regard themselves as Russian living there and who he is expected to defend.
Why is Putin expected to defend people living in Ukraine? Isn't that the job of Ukrainians? There are Mexican nationals living in the US as citizens, is it the job of the Mexican government to protect and defend those people or is that the job of the US government?
Their government, whatever you think of it, was overthrown and they wanted to go back to Russian rule.
The solution for that problem is to move to Russia. That's where Russian rule is. If Ukraine is under Russian rule, then that's an obvious problem in itself.
"No more financial ties to Russia?" They're neighbors, it's like not all ties instantly evaporate. Gas still goes through Ukraine to get to Europe, right? It's not like Ukraine, regardless of leadership, will ever be completely and utterly separated from Russia, regardless of leadership. Both countries will continue to trade with each other because they're neighbors. Even North and South Korea have various economic agreements.
the new Mexican state is openly hostile to Americans and is threatening to exterminate them.
This is just a hypothetical, right? Not actually based on true events, correct?
What would I do? Well, I guess I would probably threaten to nuke Mexico. That clearly seems like the obvious and rational choice. That would most definitely move popular support in my favor, and people would not think that I am legitimately psychopathic. I would also send several thousand troops down to Mexico to bombard and lay siege to various towns while claiming that those soldiers are actually lost and/or on vacation with all of their military equipment, because that would allow me to both intervene militarily, and also let the world know that I am in no way in control of anything that my armed forces do. And of course I'll shoot down a civilian airliner, because it's not a party until someone shoots down a civilian airliner, but then I'll claim that I didn't do that and people will eventually forget it happened anyway. I'll also claim that Mexico was really always a part of the US, and so I would invade and annex the Yucatan peninsula, because why not? Then I'll meet the new democratically elected leader of Mexico and shake his hand while making a weasel face like this, and I'll have the leader of Canada stand behind me ready with the double-stink-eye.
Or I'll just tell everyone living in Mexico who would rather live in the US that they should probably just move here. I'd probably do one of those two though.
Am I for real? I'm not sure, as far as I know I'm sitting here at my desk posting on Slashdot while appearing to the casual observer to be working instead. But, for all I know, I could be in a mental institution screaming at a white wall about Russians (with apologies to Jim Jefferies).
Back the the actual point though, you think it might be possible that word could come down from on high for one commander to start talking about nukes, which would give the actual leadership plausible deniability? I don't know the answer to that, it may or may not be time for my alleged medication.
But, just out of curiosity, when a nuclear weapon is used, who do you think uses it? Do you think the president personally flies down there to deliver it? If commanders don't have access to the weapons, then who does, the privates? Also, like CrimsonAvenger points out, does the threat of a nuclear attack necessarily need to involve the person making the threat actually having the capability of carrying it out?
And AM I for real? Can anyone provide any evidence for that? I'm feeling pretty vulnerable right now, if you don't stop harassing me I'm going to nuke you. From orbit.
most of the First World countries are going to immediately join forces to invade and permanently occupy Russia.
Yeah, but by the time their biggest enemies attack, all of their military units will have gained a ton of experience points from skirmishing with their neighbors all those years. High-level modern armor is nothing to sniff at.
They mention non-official channels. That could be something as basic as one field commander threatening the use of tactical nukes unless the other field commander surrenders.