Your mind is a closed door. You will believe what you want to believe. I'm sure you're just a troll, but it's always funny to hear the hypocrisy. My mind is open to the possibility that I may be wrong; Your mind is closed to the possibility that I may be right. I have tried to find a single piece of evidence that contradicts my viewpoint; You intentionally ignore all of the evidence in order to fool yourself into believing what you want to be true.
Of course you decide to declare victory by accusing me of doing what you're doing. My mind is wide open and I believe whatever I am forced by the evidence to conclude. I would love to believe in happy endings, life after death, justice for everyone, damnation for the wicked, and a master plan which organizes this apparently chaotic universe. Reality, however, does not always bend to my desires.
Oh, and let me end this with "I'm rubber, you're glue, what bounces off me sticks to you!"
Armageddon is coming on God's timetable, and no one else's. Actually, I'm afraid that it's coming on Man's timetable, since so many Christians are so eager to greet Armageddon and purge the earth of nonbelievers. Of course if they ever succeed it will be recorded in history books as proof that they were right all along. Ever heard the term "Self-fulfilling prophesy"?
As to your belief that the prophesies in Revelations, Daniel, and Isaiah point to a time that uniquely matches our own, there are enough sufficiently vague references to keep us perpetually living in the end times for another 10,000 years. It seems quite clear that these books are intentionally vague given how remarkably accurate and specific a timeline should be when written by an all-knowing being.
Oh well, I guess I still have room to lower my opinion of Christians a bit further. Hiding behind scripture, ignoring valid points, unwillingness to think and self-satisfaction are among the reasons I rejected Christianity.
Assuming you are a programmer or scientist or engineer or someone in general familiar with logic, I would highly recommend considering Pascal's Wager, at the very least...
Assuming you are familiar with logic, I highly recommend considering The End of Pascal's Wager by Richard Carrier, at the very least...
However, that is completely contradictory to the 4th Amendment Right protecting us against Search & Seizure. Or, is it that when we are pulled over for a traffic violation, we are immediately suspects and that right is waived? Most people already waive the right regularly when asked "You don't have any drugs on you, right? So you wouldn't mind if I searched your vehicle." A previous poster was correct, though. This is more akin to the dog being allowed to sniff around the car.
Having said this, it's probably still important to avoid any truly innovative ideas that MS owns. Litigating based on these seems like less of a risk for MS. I don't think that will be very difficult. Can you think of anything truly innovative in Windows that wasn't already done somewhere else?
Again, you are confusing being among the top with being #1. Actually, the US isn't even among the top out of the developed nations.
You complain about the price you pay for 5MB/s? You JUST CAN'T GET 5MB/s ANYWHERE IN THE WHOLE SOUTH AMERICAN CONTINENT!!! It's really hard to get in the US too, but I wasn't complaining about getting 5MB/s in the US. I was comparing my crappy urban cable service in the US to my awesome fiber in Japan.
Few countries get a better deal than the US when it comes to broadband. Very few. Once again, if you include the developing nations the US is extremely good. If you compare the US to the other developed nations, like Canada, Australia, Britain, South Korea, and Japan, you will find that the US is below average. I'm not saying "boohoo the US sucks" or that the US inherently must be #1 because it's the best, I'm saying the US can, and should, do better. The US should be leading the world in IT, instead it's "better than Peru". I challenge the US to improve its services and go all-out instead of sitting back and bragging about how good they have it compared to poorer countries.
Your understanding of the Phillippines, the school system, government, and media is incorrect. No, he's partially correct.
Anyone who as spent more than 2 weeks in the PI would know that English is the second national language of the Phillippines. You mean the RP? I guess you were in the military. Clark or Subic?
Tagalog is the national language, and there are over 400 dialects. Tagalog and English are both equally official national languages. I couldn't even guess the number of dialects, but there are over 70 distinct LANGUAGES in the Philippines.
Tagalog is spoken in school as is English. Newpapers are printed primarily in Tagalog and also include English. Yes, you were definitely in the Central Luzon area. Tagalog is spoken in schools in the Tagalog region. We're talking maybe a 100-mile radius around Manila. Newspapers in THIS region are printed in Tagalog+English, as well as the national newspapers. This is because the government is operated in, and primarily controlled by, Manila. If you go to Mindanao you'll find the local newspapers in different languages, and you'll definitely see a huge difference in Visaya. Many Tagalog speakers have to use English to communicate in these areas because more people there know English than Tagalog.
Tagalog is taught, to an extent, in every school. However, they start teaching English in the 1st or 2nd grade and generally switch to English entirely for higher level classes. All of the university textbooks are in English. All good schools teach nearly entirely in English.
Television is primarily Tagalog although there are many shows in English (primarily American TV shows rebroadcasts). Manila is the "Hollywood of the Philippines". Since the actors are generally all from Manila, and produce with Manila in mind, the movies are in Tagalog and/or English.
In short, English is more of a common, unifying language than Tagalog is. There are, or at least were, more Visayan speakers than Tagalog speakers in the Philippines. You can imagine how unhappy non-tagalogs were when Tagalog was chosen as a national language. To attempt to smooth things over, they officially threw a few more words into the language and called it Pilipino.
With the huge American media, pop culture, and military influence over the last century Filipinos have learned to speak English very well and act American in many ways, particularly in the large urban centers. As far as accents go, the RP is probably the best developing nation for a call center. People are extremely well-paid if they get $5-10/day, and most speak in easily understood English. It would also do a lot for many of the prostitutes in the Philippines, who are going to be fighting over the chance to work in a call center.
Back on topic, though, I think the original point was about the technical abilities rather than the accents. I am eerily reminded of staying in a hotel in the Philippines and asking their business center to tell me what settings I needed to enable internet access in my room. They promptly sent a very helpful young man (their engineer) to my room, who proceeded to attempt to follow the simple directions in his binder for "Opening Internet Explorer, Going to Tools - Options,... Entering Proxy Server Settings". After five minutes of struggling, he had to ask me "Where my internet was". Of course I don't have an IE icon on my desktop! Anecdotal? Yes, but still fairly representative of the computer skills of the majority of the population. You're still going to be dealing script readers who don't really understand computers, and it's going to be even more frustrating when they don't understand your obscure cultural references that you make when you're frustrated, annoyed, and angry.
I'm in the UK.
Every time I've gotten an American English speaking rep from Texas.
At the very least I expect them to speak understandable English. I think I see the confusion you two are having. You see, you're asking for someone to speak English that you can understand, and you're a Brit. The GP is an American, and has no problem understanding American Texan English.
It is quite likely that you actually are being connected to their call center in Texas. Next time you call, ask to be transfered to somebody in India. It will be a lot easier for you to understand, especially if you ask the rep to drop his fake American accent.
I always thought quantum leaps had something to do with traveling through time to occupy another person's body. Damn you for shattering my dreams!
There's nothing much we can do to control the public's (or the media's) misuse of scientific terminology. Perhaps we could send people who are actually qualified to teach science to high schools? I mean we can't make people any smarter, but we can make them understand terminology, and good teachers can make a difference...
nevermind, i read an article about it. apparently one of the mechanics was a chronic masterbater and smeared some vasoline on the engine. that's against the rules, i guess. Thanks, you saved me from having to go read nascar-related news.
The country wasn't realy settled until the 20th century.
... to the great surprise of already large cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. Maybe you mean the western USA. To the great surprise of already large cities such as Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Maybe you mean the middle USA?
To be honest, I think they already were settled before the 20th century, we just didn't have to hear from them until the internet came to them.
(Yes, Seattle is a somewhat bad example, but it was already becoming a major city before 1900)
If the US had one of the world's lowest broadband penetration it would be surprising. Yeah, it would amaze me if the country that laid the groundwork for the internet, had the best head start, is home to the largest IT and internet-based businesses in the world, and is leading the way in researching new technologies to increase bandwidth over existing fiber was anywhere near the most penetrated with broadband. I'd expect them to be about average.
This isn't about America wanting to be #1 at everything. This is about Americans asking why they don't have good broadband access when they pay more for broadband than other developed nations. Why is it I get 5MB/s downstream when I'm in Japan and have never seen more than 500KB/s in the US when I pay more for access in the US? For all of the reasons I mentioned above, America should be leading the way in broadband access, at least in urban environments. Instead, it's worse than average.
...and not some macho man "MUST BE 1ST" need. This isn't about machismo, either. If anything, it's about nerd bragging rights and American nerds being short-changed.
effect -verb (used with object) 10. to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen: The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring. Yes, effect is also a verb. You should note, however, that its meaning is entirely different as a verb. Look at what you said: "The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring." Note that they didn't affect the transition. They're not talking about the effect of the new machines on the transition. They're saying that the new machines made the transition happen. They effected it.
When you're talking about cause and effect, the cause is affecting what's happening.
Very well written, but you missed a few important points.
The DA is granted the right to select which cases are prosecuted and which are not.
Yes, he/she can. But only when it's a matter of whether or not they have a case or not; whether the law is just as it applies to a particular case is not up to a DA to decide. It's up to a judge or jury to decide if the law should be changed. Wrong. It's not just that the DA can decide whether to charge somebody, it's that the system was designed exactly that way to attempt to avoid mistakes like this! There is supposed to be a human factor that decides whether or not it is in the best interests of the people to prosecute. Of course that human factor is elected, and is unlikely to be re-elected when mistakes like this are made.
Here's a list of the various court officers' functions:
Defense attorney - represents the defendant to the best of his/her ability. Does not decide for him/herself whether or not the defendant is actually guilty.
District attorney - represents the state (the law, as it currently stands) to the best of his/her ability. Also does not decide for him/herself whether or not the defendant is actually guilty. They represent THE LAW, even if they personally don't believe in it. They chose their own career. (I know I switched pronouns.)
They also decide whether or not to prosecute.
Judge/Jury - decides whether or not the defendant is guilty.
In many states the jury also judges the law. Search through other posts in this article for "nullification" and you'll get a few great explanations. Regardless, they certainly are both intended to be humans, not some binary decision switch that automatically locks anyone away who technically violated a law.
The DA does not get to decide who to prosecute based on his/her interpretation of the law, just as a defense attorney doesn't get to decide who to defend. (I understand that in our system, private attorneys do get to decide, but if all we had were public defenders, they would be two sides of the same coin.) Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The entire purpose of the DA is to decide whether or not to prosecute based on the evidence and the interests of the people. In every jurisdiction I know of, the DA also has the right to drop the charges throughout the trial. Like it or not, DAs decide whether individuals should be prosecuted all the time.
Selective enforcement is worse than full enforcement or zero enforcement. It opens the door to racism, sexism, all sorts of other -isms on the part of the state, and turns DAs into the judge and jury. (Extortion, too. Think about it.) Right. It's better to persecute anyone than risk people being selectively less persecuted. That has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've heard. Yes, the bad laws should be changed, but no, the DA should not intentionally press charges against anyone and everything that technically violates the letter of the law just to avoid the risk of possibly discriminating based on race.
Think the law is unjust? Change it! Take it to the Supreme Court, or petition your lawmakers. I know that it's a very imperfect system, but it's better than the alternative. I'm not cynical yet. You mean the alternative where the juries decide whether or not a law is valid and District Attorneys decide whether or not it's really worth it to prosecute/persecute someone? It sounds like YOU are the one presenting an alternative, and your alternative is certainly worse than our current legal system where people are allowed to interpret the law, the evidence, and the situation before locking people up.
It was a three-person jury. 2 in favor of prosecution, 1 against. No, it was a court of appeals. The decision was a majority decision (2 out of 3). The article didn't mention whether the original trial was decided by a judge or jury.
Should kids get a criminal record for every dumb thing they do? Since criminal records get expunged when you turn 18, these kids won't get one. What is your point? I'll respond, even though that's an idiotic thing to say. Even if these kids don't have to register as sex offenders, and their records get "expunged", the records still actually exist. If they ever try to get a security clearance, which is required for a lot of cool jobs, they will have to explain their convictions of child porn peddling.
Of course, even if there wasn't a single reason for them not to get a criminal record your argument of "Why shouldn't they?" would not give any credence to the idea that they should.
Now take into account how many astronauts are willing to take the next leap into being someone who will be trapped in a can for months I doubt there are many astronauts who would turn down the first trip to mars. Even if they did, you'd have a million more volunteers. Perhaps they could select some submariners instead of fighter jockeys this time?
with two other roommates and CANNOT be voted off the island no matter how berserk they get, and no contact with other humans for months. Oh, I see your perception of reality has been shaped by watching television shows. Shows like survivor intentionally place entertaining combinations of personalities in the room. Let me say this again: They pick overly emotional, irrational people, and prod them into becoming entertainment that sells to the masses. This does not mean that the typical group of astronauts, boxers, survivalists, or any other section of society is going to break down into whining babies within an hour of living together. Many humans deal with, and even enjoy, this sort of environment. The US Navy has a lot of great examples, submariners in particular, but so do the merchant marines, fishermen, cruise ship crews, and many other jobs within the military.
I say that whoever is going to go on this mission needs to be a complete introvert who does not need constant human interaction and can while away their time on experiments and reading. A bunch of people with mild Asperger's might fit the mold. I can't think of a worse candidate for a mission like this. I can tolerate living and working with the same people for years at a time, but I would probably lose it if I had to spend my time with people who actively avoid socializing.
It's free because they're getting advertising revenue, so they're being paid indirectly. I think you're taking this all the wrong way. The advertisers are their customers. Their advertisers are paying them to bring eyeballs to ads. The user is not the customer; the user is the product. Sometimes, you get a defective product and need to discard it. Reading the blog, it should be obvious that this product was defective and repairs were going to cost more than disposal. The product was, however, given the opportunity to become a customer instead.
My hotmail account is still used a lot but not much important stuff happens there So you're saying you still make them at least as much money because you're still being a good product, but in retribution for them treating you poorly you don't really get anything useful out of them anymore? With so many people thinking like that, I'm amazed that companies act as responsibly as they do.
Ahh, that's where you're mistaken. The "no girlfriends" rule only applies to UIDs below 100,000. Those of us with higher numbers are doomed to suffer eternal harassment over the number of digits in our UIDs, so we're allowed to have girlfriends as compensation.
Sadly, I'm not allowed to share videos with friends anymore. I haven't specifically been forbidden from sharing them with strangers, but I think it might affect my ability to get nookie if it was discovered. Sorry.
Typical suburb near Los Angeles. Don't get me wrong, religious people are crazy no matter where you go. They've just amassed far too much power in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you decide to declare victory by accusing me of doing what you're doing. My mind is wide open and I believe whatever I am forced by the evidence to conclude. I would love to believe in happy endings, life after death, justice for everyone, damnation for the wicked, and a master plan which organizes this apparently chaotic universe. Reality, however, does not always bend to my desires.
Oh, and let me end this with "I'm rubber, you're glue, what bounces off me sticks to you!"
I had a really well-written reply for you, and then I got the joke. Please don't fool me again.
As to your belief that the prophesies in Revelations, Daniel, and Isaiah point to a time that uniquely matches our own, there are enough sufficiently vague references to keep us perpetually living in the end times for another 10,000 years. It seems quite clear that these books are intentionally vague given how remarkably accurate and specific a timeline should be when written by an all-knowing being.
Assuming you are familiar with logic, I highly recommend considering The End of Pascal's Wager by Richard Carrier, at the very least...Assuming you are a programmer or scientist or engineer or someone in general familiar with logic, I would highly recommend considering Pascal's Wager, at the very least...
You're right. I misread the "that MS owns" as "in Windows". I suppose it would take an army of volunteers to sort through all of the patents, though.
Tagalog is taught, to an extent, in every school. However, they start teaching English in the 1st or 2nd grade and generally switch to English entirely for higher level classes. All of the university textbooks are in English. All good schools teach nearly entirely in English. Television is primarily Tagalog although there are many shows in English (primarily American TV shows rebroadcasts). Manila is the "Hollywood of the Philippines". Since the actors are generally all from Manila, and produce with Manila in mind, the movies are in Tagalog and/or English.
In short, English is more of a common, unifying language than Tagalog is. There are, or at least were, more Visayan speakers than Tagalog speakers in the Philippines. You can imagine how unhappy non-tagalogs were when Tagalog was chosen as a national language. To attempt to smooth things over, they officially threw a few more words into the language and called it Pilipino.
With the huge American media, pop culture, and military influence over the last century Filipinos have learned to speak English very well and act American in many ways, particularly in the large urban centers. As far as accents go, the RP is probably the best developing nation for a call center. People are extremely well-paid if they get $5-10/day, and most speak in easily understood English. It would also do a lot for many of the prostitutes in the Philippines, who are going to be fighting over the chance to work in a call center.
Back on topic, though, I think the original point was about the technical abilities rather than the accents. I am eerily reminded of staying in a hotel in the Philippines and asking their business center to tell me what settings I needed to enable internet access in my room. They promptly sent a very helpful young man (their engineer) to my room, who proceeded to attempt to follow the simple directions in his binder for "Opening Internet Explorer, Going to Tools - Options,
It is quite likely that you actually are being connected to their call center in Texas. Next time you call, ask to be transfered to somebody in India. It will be a lot easier for you to understand, especially if you ask the rep to drop his fake American accent.
To be honest, I think they already were settled before the 20th century, we just didn't have to hear from them until the internet came to them.
(Yes, Seattle is a somewhat bad example, but it was already becoming a major city before 1900)
This isn't about America wanting to be #1 at everything. This is about Americans asking why they don't have good broadband access when they pay more for broadband than other developed nations. Why is it I get 5MB/s downstream when I'm in Japan and have never seen more than 500KB/s in the US when I pay more for access in the US? For all of the reasons I mentioned above, America should be leading the way in broadband access, at least in urban environments. Instead, it's worse than average.
...and not some macho man "MUST BE 1ST" need. This isn't about machismo, either. If anything, it's about nerd bragging rights and American nerds being short-changed.-verb (used with object)
10. to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen: The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring. Yes, effect is also a verb. You should note, however, that its meaning is entirely different as a verb. Look at what you said: "The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring." Note that they didn't affect the transition. They're not talking about the effect of the new machines on the transition. They're saying that the new machines made the transition happen. They effected it.
When you're talking about cause and effect, the cause is affecting what's happening.
Yes, he/she can. But only when it's a matter of whether or not they have a case or not; whether the law is just as it applies to a particular case is not up to a DA to decide. It's up to a judge or jury to decide if the law should be changed. Wrong. It's not just that the DA can decide whether to charge somebody, it's that the system was designed exactly that way to attempt to avoid mistakes like this! There is supposed to be a human factor that decides whether or not it is in the best interests of the people to prosecute. Of course that human factor is elected, and is unlikely to be re-elected when mistakes like this are made. Here's a list of the various court officers' functions:
- Defense attorney - represents the defendant to the best of his/her ability. Does not decide for him/herself whether or not the defendant is actually guilty.
- District attorney - represents the state (the law, as it currently stands) to the best of his/her ability. Also does not decide for him/herself whether or not the defendant is actually guilty. They represent THE LAW, even if they personally don't believe in it. They chose their own career. (I know I switched pronouns.)
They also decide whether or not to prosecute.- Judge/Jury - decides whether or not the defendant is guilty.
In many states the jury also judges the law. Search through other posts in this article for "nullification" and you'll get a few great explanations. Regardless, they certainly are both intended to be humans, not some binary decision switch that automatically locks anyone away who technically violated a law. The DA does not get to decide who to prosecute based on his/her interpretation of the law, just as a defense attorney doesn't get to decide who to defend. (I understand that in our system, private attorneys do get to decide, but if all we had were public defenders, they would be two sides of the same coin.) Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The entire purpose of the DA is to decide whether or not to prosecute based on the evidence and the interests of the people. In every jurisdiction I know of, the DA also has the right to drop the charges throughout the trial. Like it or not, DAs decide whether individuals should be prosecuted all the time. Selective enforcement is worse than full enforcement or zero enforcement. It opens the door to racism, sexism, all sorts of other -isms on the part of the state, and turns DAs into the judge and jury. (Extortion, too. Think about it.) Right. It's better to persecute anyone than risk people being selectively less persecuted. That has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've heard. Yes, the bad laws should be changed, but no, the DA should not intentionally press charges against anyone and everything that technically violates the letter of the law just to avoid the risk of possibly discriminating based on race. Think the law is unjust? Change it! Take it to the Supreme Court, or petition your lawmakers. I know that it's a very imperfect system, but it's better than the alternative. I'm not cynical yet. You mean the alternative where the juries decide whether or not a law is valid and District Attorneys decide whether or not it's really worth it to prosecute/persecute someone? It sounds like YOU are the one presenting an alternative, and your alternative is certainly worse than our current legal system where people are allowed to interpret the law, the evidence, and the situation before locking people up.Not necessarily true. I suppose it depends on the clearance?
Of course, even if there wasn't a single reason for them not to get a criminal record your argument of "Why shouldn't they?" would not give any credence to the idea that they should.
Ahh, that's where you're mistaken. The "no girlfriends" rule only applies to UIDs below 100,000. Those of us with higher numbers are doomed to suffer eternal harassment over the number of digits in our UIDs, so we're allowed to have girlfriends as compensation.
Sadly, I'm not allowed to share videos with friends anymore. I haven't specifically been forbidden from sharing them with strangers, but I think it might affect my ability to get nookie if it was discovered. Sorry.
Typical suburb near Los Angeles. Don't get me wrong, religious people are crazy no matter where you go. They've just amassed far too much power in the US.