Others have said small claims court, which is good if you're on a budget.
But, (OP), remember that we live in the USA, where anyone can sue anyone else for any reason at any time. (Sure, you'll get laughed out of court suing your parents over your circumcision, but that hasn't stopped folks.)
If you're a member of Pre-Paid Legal or something similar, you might be able to get a deep discount on attorney's fees.
Nope, and I was actually thinking an AC would respond with "say hi to Bubba for me" but this is not a contract, there's no way anyone can collect on this offer, and it's really similar to the blue ball on the first season of Drawn Together which talked about shooting the president.
Not from memory, because I'm somewhat anal about carrying my Palm and watching TV through a pausable medium:
Spanky Ham (Adam Carolla, he's got an amazing voice), to Princess: "Yeah but honey where you're from, inanimate objects spring to life and spew silly catch phrases."
Blue ball growns eyes and mouth: "What you talkin' about, Pig?"
Princess: "No, he's right blue ball, maybe I should just apologize."
Blue ball alone, caption "Fairytale Advisor": "Usually, Clara looks to us for advice. But this time it came from Spanky. It's a good thing, too, because I was going to tell her to shoot the president."
Ball and background turn red, camera turns and ominous music plays.
I rest on freedom of speech, and if that's not enough I've traced my IP address and you can find me at 127.0.0.1.
I'm no expert, but would it make sense to sell those options instead? Then you have the income in case of no movement, but I'm not sure whether movement in any direction would be profitable or if any movement would eliminate a profit.
My idea is based on "70% of all options expire worthless", so it's best to be on the selling side. Perhaps the above strategy is really only worthwhile with a stock that doesn't move?
Well then, let them set a national education curriculum and scientists will continue to disallow them to teach their copywritten material in classrooms that don't follow the scientific method.
You're absolutely right; this debate has been going on for as long as we've had consciousness, basically. However, it seems that there's a light at the end of the tunnel by using the system to punish those who would subvert the meaning of science. I think that's grand, and I fully support their efforts.
And if, as you suppose, the people of Kansas really want this and it's not (what most people believe to be) a very vocal minority, then Kansas will just become an extension of "Amish country" and fewer leaders will come from that area. Good or bad, that's the bed they're making.
Let them view themselves as martyrs. As long as they have the trapping of citizens, they'll be unlikely to blow shit up.
The parents haven't shown this disdain, just as I personally haven't shown any disdain for citizens of Iraq (or, for that matter, Afghanistan).
The elected representatives can, at times, lead the populace into directions that the populace doesn't want to go. Directions that are threatening to the populace at large, and directions that the populace will get up in arms about.
As another responder said, I don't think that threatening not to teach science to Kansas residents will be met with a few decades of Kansas youths not being able to go to college.
Rather, I think it will be met with a swift changing of the guard.
I like the idea of that book, but of course if you read Revelations, it says that anyone who adds to these words will have the ills and diseases of the ages added to their life; and he who takes away from these words will have the kingdom of heaven taken away from them. (Note: I'm paraphrasing here, and yes, there's a joke in there.)
My guess is that Mr. Malone will suffer a horrible plight on this Earth and then go directly to hell.
Of course, that's the literal interpretation, which also sends every biblical translator to hell (no two languages can be directly translated in exactly the same way, especially for something so voluminous as the bible).
Back to the topic though, I really, really like the idea of using "the system" to fight those who are trying to use "the system" to subvert the definition of science. As many others have said, scientists aren't clamoring to have their views taught in religion classes. So, what's behind this need for the zealots to have religion taught in science classes?
My favorite comes from a sig I saw here: "Religion is a gateway psychosis."
And I completely agree: those religions that turn their worshippers into Amway-like zealots should be targeted. If the religion isn't science-hostile then it should not have anything to fear from scientists (I like that there's something of a tautology to that, like the fact that the Shakers died out because their followers were forbidden to have sex... well duh!).
Reducing overpopulation when there is limited food supplies is definitely an advantage!
Reminds me of my old biology teacher, who described that deer on an island, when they begin to overpopulate, will "develop" an immune-system disease. This will then kill off 3/4 of the deer population, allowing the survivors to continue eating and breeding. The alternative would be everyone starves and the genes all die out, so although from the individual's point of view it's horrific, it's actually beneficial to the genes.
Richard Dawkins wrote a book "The Selfish Gene" which described this very eloquently.
Bringing this back to the above, perhaps our genes have "detected" that we have or are approaching overpopulating the Earth; and, therefore, the "homosexual gene" got turned on and we actually have more homosexuals in the population today than we did a century ago (i.e., it's not just that the numbers seem to be increasing because it's more acceptable to discuss these days). So not only are those who turn to homosexuality less of a risk for creating more mouths to feed, they can also use their excess resources to help raise the mouths of their family members--thus helping their genes to survive, since they share around 1/4 of their genes with their neices and nephews.
Exactly. As someone else's sig says, "Religion is a gateway psychosis."
(For those who don't know, this is a direct response to the moral majority non-scientists who state that "pot is a gateway drug".)
It would be interesting if every time a group attempted to restrict the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution, we all ganged up and asked the government to restrict the freedom of speech of the instruction book they're using to bully us (i.e., the Bible, Koran, etc).
Well, I'm not convinced. I could give you money ("invest") for you to kill someone, and I should definitely still be held liable.
I believe that removing accountability from corporations is one of the primary reasons they behave like sociopaths these days (i.e., only greed matters).
I agree with you that investing is currently similar to gambling, in that you only risk what you put in (unless you short a stock, or sell options). However, I don't think I should be able to set up a "hit shop" and have my customers not be liable for the hits that they purchase.
Under such a system, why the hell would ANYBODY want to subject themselves to that kind of risk??
For the same reason that people convince themselves that gambling is a good idea: because the potential rewards outweigh the risks.
Do you think gambling should be risk-free? After all, that's what investing is.
Perhaps under such a system, investors would be more cautious with their money, and stupid fucking idiotic ideas like "we'll lose money on every transaction... but make it up in volume!" would never get funded. Perhaps the Internet bubble never would have happened, and the investing trend would have continued to be "up and to the right" instead of stumbling when people realized that money-losing transactions, regardless of the volume, will result in a net loss to the company (in fact, as the volume increases, so does the loss!).
Would you want to be employed by a firm whose products were projected to be worthless by year's end?
Doesn't matter. We're approaching the singularity, and the closer we get the shorter the "idea/implementation/successor" cycle gets. So right now, companies can expect to profit from an idea for a year. A couple years from now, that cycle will only be 6 months, possibly less.
Ray Kurzweil has a graph (not on this page, but similar graphs appear and I'm too lazy to find what I saw a year ago), showing that while advances trend up and to the right, each individual advance is a bell curve and the bell gets shorter (and taller!) the closer we get to the singularity.
How would I behave with my money? As I have been for the last 10 years, irresponsibly: money won't matter beyond the singularity.
As to investing, I just do what VectorVest tells me to do for just one of their indicators, and made over 300% last year.
There will be tremendous societal upheaval in the next 20 or 30 years, as we approach, meet, and move past the singularity. Knowing how businesses will behave on our way there will help you cope, not hurt you. Whether you agree with this or not, you had better prepare for it.
So, to totally ruin the joke for this trolling AC, there is no such word as the word that the OP used. Which is why it was a joke, because the word looks like two other words.
Back in 1994, Steve Remondini was the head of IT (then MIS) at Citrix Systems. He sent an email to every employee, telling them that they need to delete items from their inboxes because the server was too full (Exchange, one of the older versions).
The punch line? He sent it as an attachment, in.DOC format. The fucker took around 256 KB to send an email which contained under 1 KB of content.
He was fired not very long thereafter. I remember one manager kept stating about him, "He spends too much travel time" (he was down the long hall and around the corner, and never picked up the phone, instead insisting on showing up in Scott's office and badgering him).
Slashdot Mirror
Are you on drugs?
Then give me some!
(RIP Mr. Kinison)
I read it as they're going to give massages.
Um, internal chemical and electrical communications to a central processing unit?
But, (OP), remember that we live in the USA, where anyone can sue anyone else for any reason at any time. (Sure, you'll get laughed out of court suing your parents over your circumcision, but that hasn't stopped folks.)
If you're a member of Pre-Paid Legal or something similar, you might be able to get a deep discount on attorney's fees.
10001000100010110011011101001001010 ... 2.
Not from memory, because I'm somewhat anal about carrying my Palm and watching TV through a pausable medium:
I rest on freedom of speech, and if that's not enough I've traced my IP address and you can find me at 127.0.0.1.
My idea is based on "70% of all options expire worthless", so it's best to be on the selling side. Perhaps the above strategy is really only worthwhile with a stock that doesn't move?
I hereby offer $200 toward this goal.
Even simpler: did you install Sony's latest DRM?
You're absolutely right; this debate has been going on for as long as we've had consciousness, basically. However, it seems that there's a light at the end of the tunnel by using the system to punish those who would subvert the meaning of science. I think that's grand, and I fully support their efforts.
And if, as you suppose, the people of Kansas really want this and it's not (what most people believe to be) a very vocal minority, then Kansas will just become an extension of "Amish country" and fewer leaders will come from that area. Good or bad, that's the bed they're making.
Let them view themselves as martyrs. As long as they have the trapping of citizens, they'll be unlikely to blow shit up.
Pettiness is as pettiness does.
The elected representatives can, at times, lead the populace into directions that the populace doesn't want to go. Directions that are threatening to the populace at large, and directions that the populace will get up in arms about.
As another responder said, I don't think that threatening not to teach science to Kansas residents will be met with a few decades of Kansas youths not being able to go to college.
Rather, I think it will be met with a swift changing of the guard.
Thanks! It's now on my list.
My guess is that Mr. Malone will suffer a horrible plight on this Earth and then go directly to hell.
Of course, that's the literal interpretation, which also sends every biblical translator to hell (no two languages can be directly translated in exactly the same way, especially for something so voluminous as the bible).
Back to the topic though, I really, really like the idea of using "the system" to fight those who are trying to use "the system" to subvert the definition of science. As many others have said, scientists aren't clamoring to have their views taught in religion classes. So, what's behind this need for the zealots to have religion taught in science classes?
And I completely agree: those religions that turn their worshippers into Amway-like zealots should be targeted. If the religion isn't science-hostile then it should not have anything to fear from scientists (I like that there's something of a tautology to that, like the fact that the Shakers died out because their followers were forbidden to have sex... well duh!).
Hey wait, are there stairs on spaceships?
Reminds me of my old biology teacher, who described that deer on an island, when they begin to overpopulate, will "develop" an immune-system disease. This will then kill off 3/4 of the deer population, allowing the survivors to continue eating and breeding. The alternative would be everyone starves and the genes all die out, so although from the individual's point of view it's horrific, it's actually beneficial to the genes.
Richard Dawkins wrote a book "The Selfish Gene" which described this very eloquently.
Bringing this back to the above, perhaps our genes have "detected" that we have or are approaching overpopulating the Earth; and, therefore, the "homosexual gene" got turned on and we actually have more homosexuals in the population today than we did a century ago (i.e., it's not just that the numbers seem to be increasing because it's more acceptable to discuss these days). So not only are those who turn to homosexuality less of a risk for creating more mouths to feed, they can also use their excess resources to help raise the mouths of their family members--thus helping their genes to survive, since they share around 1/4 of their genes with their neices and nephews.
(For those who don't know, this is a direct response to the moral majority non-scientists who state that "pot is a gateway drug".)
It would be interesting if every time a group attempted to restrict the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution, we all ganged up and asked the government to restrict the freedom of speech of the instruction book they're using to bully us (i.e., the Bible, Koran, etc).
I believe that removing accountability from corporations is one of the primary reasons they behave like sociopaths these days (i.e., only greed matters).
I agree with you that investing is currently similar to gambling, in that you only risk what you put in (unless you short a stock, or sell options). However, I don't think I should be able to set up a "hit shop" and have my customers not be liable for the hits that they purchase.
For the same reason that people convince themselves that gambling is a good idea: because the potential rewards outweigh the risks.
Do you think gambling should be risk-free? After all, that's what investing is.
Perhaps under such a system, investors would be more cautious with their money, and stupid fucking idiotic ideas like "we'll lose money on every transaction... but make it up in volume!" would never get funded. Perhaps the Internet bubble never would have happened, and the investing trend would have continued to be "up and to the right" instead of stumbling when people realized that money-losing transactions, regardless of the volume, will result in a net loss to the company (in fact, as the volume increases, so does the loss!).
Doesn't matter. We're approaching the singularity, and the closer we get the shorter the "idea/implementation/successor" cycle gets. So right now, companies can expect to profit from an idea for a year. A couple years from now, that cycle will only be 6 months, possibly less.
Ray Kurzweil has a graph (not on this page, but similar graphs appear and I'm too lazy to find what I saw a year ago), showing that while advances trend up and to the right, each individual advance is a bell curve and the bell gets shorter (and taller!) the closer we get to the singularity.
How would I behave with my money? As I have been for the last 10 years, irresponsibly: money won't matter beyond the singularity.
As to investing, I just do what VectorVest tells me to do for just one of their indicators, and made over 300% last year.
There will be tremendous societal upheaval in the next 20 or 30 years, as we approach, meet, and move past the singularity. Knowing how businesses will behave on our way there will help you cope, not hurt you. Whether you agree with this or not, you had better prepare for it.
Ask Google: "define: causally"; "in a causal fashion; "causally efficacious powers" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn"
So, to totally ruin the joke for this trolling AC, there is no such word as the word that the OP used. Which is why it was a joke, because the word looks like two other words.
Is that like, "I did it, but no biggie, I'm cool about it"?
The punch line? He sent it as an attachment, in .DOC format. The fucker took around 256 KB to send an email which contained under 1 KB of content.
He was fired not very long thereafter. I remember one manager kept stating about him, "He spends too much travel time" (he was down the long hall and around the corner, and never picked up the phone, instead insisting on showing up in Scott's office and badgering him).