I would beg to differ - groupthink is a decidedly different beast than a group of people all crying out against the same problem: in the latter case, the majority of the group has come to the conclusion that behaviour x is unwanted on their own, based on their personal experiences; and not because a lot of their peers also have that opinion.
OK, but I'm pretty sure most of FreeRepublic didn't serve in the military with gays who weren't up to military standards.
Yeah. It mostly is. It's not the fault of conservatives or Republicans that Democrats don't call themselves liberal very often, though. As it turns out, Americans don't want to vote for liberals. This is why you saw Obama comparing himself to Reagan during the campaign. Reagan is only a little more popular among conservatives than Bill Clinton is among liberals, but you NEVER saw McCain comparing himself to Clinton. This occured despite the fact that Obama's policies aren't at all like Reagan's, whereas McCain and Clinton would have been fairly similar politically.
On the other hand, Americans seem to not want to vote for actual conservatives either, which is why Democrats have held majorities in the House for most of the time that the parties have had their current political alignment. This is also why there's so much mistrust of the Tea Party movement. (Well, that and the liberal media.)
This leads to the thoroughly confusing situation where apparently the most electable person is a liberal who claims to be a conservative. What the hell, America?
They should let the people know, via the liberated press, what is really going on behind closed doors. Just as the publishers did during the Watergate or McCarthy scandals.
If they were doing this in secret, you wouldn't be reading about it on Slashdot. As it stands, Fox has run at least two stories on it. CNN has another. This is all over the media.
So the military have only NOW realized that putting sensitive or mission-critical information over a public network is a Bad Idea? Pffft. Pull the other one. They're one of the key players IN the Internet 2 endeavor. I can understand them wanting to get power stations and other critical infrastructure onto it
To be fair, the military was one of the key players IN the Internet 1 endeavor too. They also run a special, non-Internet connected WAN called SIPRNet for classified information. (Which means that they understand why it's bad to put mission critical information on a public network.) It sounds like this guy is proposing making a version of SIPRNet (that is, a private, non-Internet WAN) with civilians agencies (police, firefighters) and infrastructure (hospitals, power plants, maybe mass transit.) Sounds reasonable to me.
Same argument around the proliferation of ATM's at banks. It was originally a vehicle to reduce staff expenditure (salary, benefits etc.), and save money. The irony is that you are often charged more for using an ATM transaction than to walk into a live branch and talk to a teller for the same transaction.
You only get charged an ATM fee at an ATM that isn't your bank's. You wouldn't be able to perform an ATM transaction at a bank that isn't your bank either. Complain about ATM fees if you want, but this is a dumb reason to complain.
Two paragraphs later, in the same article, it says,
To repeat, rather than reproduce, the CRU findings would require the CRU code and the list of weather stations it used to source the raw data. Such requests were made under freedom of information laws. The panel criticised the CRU response as "unhelpful and defensive".
Part of the criticism was that the CRU used the WRONG stations, because some of the possible stations gave bad data. To confirm/deny this, it would be necessary to have their full list of data. Their computer code also made adjustments which could have been wrong, and we all know how important it is to have as many eyes as possible looking at the source code to an important program, right? Instead of sharing their results, and their source code, and whatever else with scientists who think they have a better idea, they were "unhelpful and defensive." Then, when they were legally required to give the data to the scientists because the scientists are also taxpayers who paid for the research in the first place, they conspired to erase parts of it. And if they were erasing their data rather than disclosing it, their data was not "freely available." Sorry.
And then the article closes by quoting the report, which says
We note that much of the challenge to CRU's work has not always followed the conventional scientific method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions or offering alternative hypotheses for peer review and publication.
No matter how competent (real definition) you are, you can't check or seek to falsify the conclusions of an experiment without access to the data from that experiment. Even if you could, you can't publish it if there is a successful conspiracy against letting you publish things because the scientists who ran the original experiment have declared you incompetent because you disagree with them.
The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.
The allegation, of course, is that the scientists were redefining "competent researcher" to mean "researcher that agrees with them." So the panel didn't really clear them of the allegation. Maybe it cleared them of something else, but not what people were actually complaining about.
Yeah because there is no proof that there is a huge portion of racist and religious idiots in the tea party even to the point of having to oust one of their leaders (Mark Williams of the tea party express) for racist comments. The tea party itself is new but it's just the same people moving around. Racists used to be democrats, then they moved to republicans and now republicans don't want them so they've made their own party that is exclusively for ignorant people.
You accused the Tea Party of blowing up abortion clinics. Racism is bad, but bombings are a whole different level.
Also, there's ABSOLUTE PROOF that no Tea Party member was part of three of the four events that you mentioned. None of the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing, or the cult members from Waco or Ruby Ridge were alive in 2009, when the Tea Party movement started. Duh.
And lumping "racist and religious" together, as if the two are even remotely in the same category? What the hell is wrong with you?
BTW, I blame both liberals and conservatives for not doing anything about ALF.
What should conservatives be doing about ALF? Shooting them? That would go over poorly. The fact is, ONLY liberals support ALF. The liberals who don't (i.e. the sane ones) are in the extreme majority, so it's not fair to blame all liberals for ALF, but to blame conservatives for ALF is stupid.
ALF are terrorists and Peta are supporters. The old black panthers are virtually dead and the new black panther party is considered a hate group by people on the left and right.
No argument here. That's why I called them Taliban like. Although I'd look into how the Justice Department prosecutes the New Black Panther Party when they conduct voter intimidation if I were you.
Yes, right wing nuts did those things. But that doesn't mean it's OK to blame the right wing for them. Just like it's not OK to blame the entire left wing for this guy, or the Animal Liberation Front, or the Black Panthers, or a whole host of other leftist-nutjob groups. (It's certainly not OK to blame the Tea Party movement, which originated in 2009, over a decade after some of the events you mentioned. Idiot.)
Nothing the Tea Party movement has ever been accused of is remotely as bad/as "Taliban like" as "taking hostages at a TV network you don't like." Apparently the craziest element of the radical Left did precisely that this afternoon. But no, slashdot and the real media are jumping to the correct conclusion, i.e. "This guy was crazy. Not all leftists, but this guy."
On the other hand, what if he was there to get them to stop talking about evolution? Think people would start blaming Glenn Beck?
When I hear a supposedly educated Southerner refer to the northern states as "union states" it really makes me sad. You know, couchslug, it's no coincidence that the "right to work" states were also mostly slave states.
He was using "union states" to mean "states with strong labor unions," because, you know, he was talking about labor unions.
Please explain what you meant about right to work states being mostly slave states though. It's not like bad working conditions in blue collar jobs affect blue collar black people any differently than blue collar white people. Or were you calling all southerners racist because you have some kind of problem with them? The civil war was supposed to have ended a few years ago, asshole.
A man with a Netbook came into my work today, he was measuring furniture and entering it onto the HP Netbook. He was pushing a pram, AND holding this open screened Netbook down each aisle, incredibly awkward looking! I couldnt help but imagine how much better using my iPad would be for the task. I could easily hold my iPad in one hand, and tap-type with the other, instead of walking about with this big (it looked huge and flimsy) Netbook with a crappy screen. For each entry, he had to place it on something, and crouch over to type a few numbers into the spreadsheet. I'm sure I can type many times faster on a physical keyboard than my iPads software keyboard, but not in that scenario! How fast are you when crouched over, pecking out keys in a public space? Holding with one hand, tap typing with the other, I would be much more efficient using my iPad in this situation. Of course, a smartphone would have been better yet.
Every netbook I've seen has an open hinge, where it's possible for a right handed user to stick their left hand under the computer and have their fingers come through the hole in the hinge. (The result looks a bit like holding an artist's palette.) Then the user types with their right hand. You're less likely to drop it, you get tactile keyboard feedback, and you can transfer the data the guy was typing to an inventory system or whatever out one of the "ugly ports."
Plus, when you're not typing, you can push the pram with your right hand while still holding the netbook in your left hand. (Also, you can probably afford more furniture to measure if you're using a netbook rather than an iPad.)
Apparently the phone company will still send you a printed phone book if you call them and ask, How are the people without Internet, and now, without a phone book, supposed to find out what their number is?
Jane Akre worked for a Fox network affiliate and not Fox News. It would make as much sense to not like Fox News because Joe Buck and Troy Aikman are horrible football announcers.
I'm not sure about normal MSDN, but MSDN: Academic Alliance (MSDN for college students) gives you "free" (i.e. your school pays for it with your tuition) downloads but charges you directly for CDs. I'd imagine that normal MSDN works the same way.
My understanding was that this bill was intended to prevent the specific changes proposed by Texas from making it into California textbooks. That is not leftist revisionism.
The argument is that the current curriculum amounts to leftist revisionism. Which is what Texas, and presumably the GP to a lesser extent, is against.
Except Kernell DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING INCRIMINATING IN THE E-MAIL. This was her personal e-mail account. Kernell went looking for the state business there and DIDN'T FIND ANY. But God forbid that fact ever showed up.
So you're fine with being asked to provide proof of citizenship during a routine traffic stop? Keep in mind that your driver's license isn't proof of citizenship.
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 2, 11-1051 (B)... A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE. 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. A VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. [This means, among other things, an out of state driver's license.]
I would hope that a valid driver's license is checked for during a traffic stop anyway, suspected illegal or not.
Any time you're driving (such as on your midnight run to Taco Bell, or you driving down a highway in Arizona) you are required to have your driver's license on your person. This law accepts a driver's license as proof of citizenship. If you don't have your papers while driving, you're breaking the law anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I would beg to differ - groupthink is a decidedly different beast than a group of people all crying out against the same problem: in the latter case, the majority of the group has come to the conclusion that behaviour x is unwanted on their own, based on their personal experiences; and not because a lot of their peers also have that opinion.
OK, but I'm pretty sure most of FreeRepublic didn't serve in the military with gays who weren't up to military standards.
Yeah. It mostly is. It's not the fault of conservatives or Republicans that Democrats don't call themselves liberal very often, though. As it turns out, Americans don't want to vote for liberals. This is why you saw Obama comparing himself to Reagan during the campaign. Reagan is only a little more popular among conservatives than Bill Clinton is among liberals, but you NEVER saw McCain comparing himself to Clinton. This occured despite the fact that Obama's policies aren't at all like Reagan's, whereas McCain and Clinton would have been fairly similar politically.
On the other hand, Americans seem to not want to vote for actual conservatives either, which is why Democrats have held majorities in the House for most of the time that the parties have had their current political alignment. This is also why there's so much mistrust of the Tea Party movement. (Well, that and the liberal media.)
This leads to the thoroughly confusing situation where apparently the most electable person is a liberal who claims to be a conservative. What the hell, America?
They should let the people know, via the liberated press, what is really going on behind closed doors. Just as the publishers did during the Watergate or McCarthy scandals.
If they were doing this in secret, you wouldn't be reading about it on Slashdot. As it stands, Fox has run at least two stories on it. CNN has another. This is all over the media.
So the military have only NOW realized that putting sensitive or mission-critical information over a public network is a Bad Idea? Pffft. Pull the other one. They're one of the key players IN the Internet 2 endeavor. I can understand them wanting to get power stations and other critical infrastructure onto it
To be fair, the military was one of the key players IN the Internet 1 endeavor too. They also run a special, non-Internet connected WAN called SIPRNet for classified information. (Which means that they understand why it's bad to put mission critical information on a public network.) It sounds like this guy is proposing making a version of SIPRNet (that is, a private, non-Internet WAN) with civilians agencies (police, firefighters) and infrastructure (hospitals, power plants, maybe mass transit.) Sounds reasonable to me.
What? Because of the beard?
Same argument around the proliferation of ATM's at banks. It was originally a vehicle to reduce staff expenditure (salary, benefits etc.), and save money. The irony is that you are often charged more for using an ATM transaction than to walk into a live branch and talk to a teller for the same transaction.
You only get charged an ATM fee at an ATM that isn't your bank's. You wouldn't be able to perform an ATM transaction at a bank that isn't your bank either. Complain about ATM fees if you want, but this is a dumb reason to complain.
He no longer has access to Google.
Did they block him or something?
To repeat, rather than reproduce, the CRU findings would require the CRU code and the list of weather stations it used to source the raw data. Such requests were made under freedom of information laws. The panel criticised the CRU response as "unhelpful and defensive".
Part of the criticism was that the CRU used the WRONG stations, because some of the possible stations gave bad data. To confirm/deny this, it would be necessary to have their full list of data. Their computer code also made adjustments which could have been wrong, and we all know how important it is to have as many eyes as possible looking at the source code to an important program, right? Instead of sharing their results, and their source code, and whatever else with scientists who think they have a better idea, they were "unhelpful and defensive." Then, when they were legally required to give the data to the scientists because the scientists are also taxpayers who paid for the research in the first place, they conspired to erase parts of it. And if they were erasing their data rather than disclosing it, their data was not "freely available." Sorry.
And then the article closes by quoting the report, which says
We note that much of the challenge to CRU's work has not always followed the conventional scientific method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions or offering alternative hypotheses for peer review and publication.
No matter how competent (real definition) you are, you can't check or seek to falsify the conclusions of an experiment without access to the data from that experiment. Even if you could, you can't publish it if there is a successful conspiracy against letting you publish things because the scientists who ran the original experiment have declared you incompetent because you disagree with them.
That what she s---aw I just can't bring myself to do it.
Neither could she.
The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.
The allegation, of course, is that the scientists were redefining "competent researcher" to mean "researcher that agrees with them." So the panel didn't really clear them of the allegation. Maybe it cleared them of something else, but not what people were actually complaining about.
And just think of how outdated it will be the next time it comes through.
Yeah because there is no proof that there is a huge portion of racist and religious idiots in the tea party even to the point of having to oust one of their leaders (Mark Williams of the tea party express) for racist comments. The tea party itself is new but it's just the same people moving around. Racists used to be democrats, then they moved to republicans and now republicans don't want them so they've made their own party that is exclusively for ignorant people.
You accused the Tea Party of blowing up abortion clinics. Racism is bad, but bombings are a whole different level.
Also, there's ABSOLUTE PROOF that no Tea Party member was part of three of the four events that you mentioned. None of the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing, or the cult members from Waco or Ruby Ridge were alive in 2009, when the Tea Party movement started. Duh.
And lumping "racist and religious" together, as if the two are even remotely in the same category? What the hell is wrong with you?
BTW, I blame both liberals and conservatives for not doing anything about ALF.
What should conservatives be doing about ALF? Shooting them? That would go over poorly. The fact is, ONLY liberals support ALF. The liberals who don't (i.e. the sane ones) are in the extreme majority, so it's not fair to blame all liberals for ALF, but to blame conservatives for ALF is stupid.
ALF are terrorists and Peta are supporters. The old black panthers are virtually dead and the new black panther party is considered a hate group by people on the left and right.
No argument here. That's why I called them Taliban like. Although I'd look into how the Justice Department prosecutes the New Black Panther Party when they conduct voter intimidation if I were you.
Yes, right wing nuts did those things. But that doesn't mean it's OK to blame the right wing for them. Just like it's not OK to blame the entire left wing for this guy, or the Animal Liberation Front, or the Black Panthers, or a whole host of other leftist-nutjob groups. (It's certainly not OK to blame the Tea Party movement, which originated in 2009, over a decade after some of the events you mentioned. Idiot.)
Nothing the Tea Party movement has ever been accused of is remotely as bad/as "Taliban like" as "taking hostages at a TV network you don't like." Apparently the craziest element of the radical Left did precisely that this afternoon. But no, slashdot and the real media are jumping to the correct conclusion, i.e. "This guy was crazy. Not all leftists, but this guy."
On the other hand, what if he was there to get them to stop talking about evolution? Think people would start blaming Glenn Beck?
When I hear a supposedly educated Southerner refer to the northern states as "union states" it really makes me sad. You know, couchslug, it's no coincidence that the "right to work" states were also mostly slave states.
He was using "union states" to mean "states with strong labor unions," because, you know, he was talking about labor unions.
Please explain what you meant about right to work states being mostly slave states though. It's not like bad working conditions in blue collar jobs affect blue collar black people any differently than blue collar white people. Or were you calling all southerners racist because you have some kind of problem with them? The civil war was supposed to have ended a few years ago, asshole.
A man with a Netbook came into my work today, he was measuring furniture and entering it onto the HP Netbook. He was pushing a pram, AND holding this open screened Netbook down each aisle, incredibly awkward looking! I couldnt help but imagine how much better using my iPad would be for the task. I could easily hold my iPad in one hand, and tap-type with the other, instead of walking about with this big (it looked huge and flimsy) Netbook with a crappy screen. For each entry, he had to place it on something, and crouch over to type a few numbers into the spreadsheet. I'm sure I can type many times faster on a physical keyboard than my iPads software keyboard, but not in that scenario! How fast are you when crouched over, pecking out keys in a public space? Holding with one hand, tap typing with the other, I would be much more efficient using my iPad in this situation. Of course, a smartphone would have been better yet.
Every netbook I've seen has an open hinge, where it's possible for a right handed user to stick their left hand under the computer and have their fingers come through the hole in the hinge. (The result looks a bit like holding an artist's palette.) Then the user types with their right hand. You're less likely to drop it, you get tactile keyboard feedback, and you can transfer the data the guy was typing to an inventory system or whatever out one of the "ugly ports."
Plus, when you're not typing, you can push the pram with your right hand while still holding the netbook in your left hand. (Also, you can probably afford more furniture to measure if you're using a netbook rather than an iPad.)
Apparently the phone company will still send you a printed phone book if you call them and ask, How are the people without Internet, and now, without a phone book, supposed to find out what their number is?
Jane Akre worked for a Fox network affiliate and not Fox News. It would make as much sense to not like Fox News because Joe Buck and Troy Aikman are horrible football announcers.
It's not atheist XOR agnostic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Fixed that for you.
I'm not sure about normal MSDN, but MSDN: Academic Alliance (MSDN for college students) gives you "free" (i.e. your school pays for it with your tuition) downloads but charges you directly for CDs. I'd imagine that normal MSDN works the same way.
My understanding was that this bill was intended to prevent the specific changes proposed by Texas from making it into California textbooks. That is not leftist revisionism.
The argument is that the current curriculum amounts to leftist revisionism. Which is what Texas, and presumably the GP to a lesser extent, is against.
Oh, and it comes with embedded corn by default.
It's called a microkernel.
Except Kernell DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING INCRIMINATING IN THE E-MAIL. This was her personal e-mail account. Kernell went looking for the state business there and DIDN'T FIND ANY. But God forbid that fact ever showed up.
So you're fine with being asked to provide proof of citizenship during a routine traffic stop? Keep in mind that your driver's license isn't proof of citizenship.
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 2, 11-1051 (B) ... A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. A VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. [This means, among other things, an out of state driver's license.]
I would hope that a valid driver's license is checked for during a traffic stop anyway, suspected illegal or not.
Any time you're driving (such as on your midnight run to Taco Bell, or you driving down a highway in Arizona) you are required to have your driver's license on your person. This law accepts a driver's license as proof of citizenship. If you don't have your papers while driving, you're breaking the law anyway.