...about the whole god thing, you sure get uppity about "fake" religions easily.
You sure you're not a closeted god believer, pretending to be agnostic cause you heard that's practically the same as that atheism thing that all cool kids with big brains do, but still kinda safer should it turn out that there is a god? Or possibly simply a troll?
See... Cause only those who give serious credence to the "my god is one and only god and he's a special god and real and not like all those other fake gods other people believe in"-thing get uppity about "fake" religions and "lack of respect". Agnostics on the other hand go "I don't know. Who knows? Maybe they're right? Who can really know?" And atheists go "God? Nope. Religion? Silly." So, really, you sure you're not a pedophile?
On a plus side, he gets a free (as in pay later with interests) cryogenic treatment plus at least 10 more lifetimes once he thaws off - so he could repay the debt. Plus interests.
Car moves too far from your home without you in it - it goes BOOM! You don't need to worry about police or insurance either. Mine's packaging is covered in Arabic so it all looks like a terrorist car bomb gone bad.
That is a low-impurity source of carbon that is going to end up getting incorporated into the steel itself - it is a raw material, not a fuel.
The coal they are shipping there will be converted into coke in China and that is a rather dirty process that hasn't changed much since 1920s. Or in fact, 1800s. And as they don't have to care about various environmental regulations over there, they can turn all that coking coal into coke a lot cheaper than what it would cost them to do that in the USA. Also, if a couple of dozen guys "expire" way before their due date cause they've been inhaling arsenic vapors during quenching of the coke... Whose gonna notice that when there are 1.3 billion more of them?
During the coking process, you are basically releasing in the air all those wonderful impurities (like arsenic, mercury, nitrogen, sulfur etc.) from the cooking coal, without burning up the carbon. What are you using to heat up the coking coal? More coal. Naturally, any of those byproducts that can be used do get used - like the coal gas, which is usually used either to produce ammonia or is burned to produce electricity for the coking plant, or both. Both also release carbon into the air.
THEN, you take the coke you made, and use it to fire up the smelting furnaces (i.e. you burn more coal) during which it is also used as a reducing agent. That's when you release most of the carbon in the coke into the air as CO and CO2. The rest gets burned out of pig iron when you heat it up with oxygen to produce steel. Anything more than 2% of carbon in steel classifies that steel as cast iron. Pig iron is 4-5% carbon.
So basically... All coal is very dirty and it is primarily a fuel, not a raw material.
The scary and sad part is that apparently the consensus here at Slashdot is that: a) Consumers have NO rights and b) Don't like it - you don't have to buy it, fuck you.
Yes, but not as much as they hurt. I still encounter Christians today who are certain that dinosaur bones were put in place by lawyers and the devil or that the world is only thousands of years old [gallup.com].
And I encounter atheists who think medieval people though the Earth was flat, or that Copernicus was rejected by Christians, or that Galileo's heliocentrism was correct (hint: it wasn't, the reasons for him thinking the Earth moved were demonstrably false. So he came to the right conclusion, but for completely wrong reasons). Being wrong is a pretty universal trait among humans.
You are conflating IGNORANCE of historical facts with IGNORING of scientifically proven facts in favor of conspiracy theories and fairytales. Not the same kind of wrong.
One is simply a lack of knowledge, the other is promotion and nurturing of delusions and untruths.
So why would engaging in homosexual activity, at one time, for whatever reason, make anyone irrefutably homosexual?
Because heterosexual sexual and romantic attraction is a biological thing. It's how we procreate. Homosexual sexual and romantic attraction does not result with procreation. Humans and other animals do it for reasons other than just procreation.
As such, it is a part of a different set than heterosexual romantic and sexual attraction and relation. And heterosexual set is an exclusive set, because its limits are dictated by biological factors. Only one combination out there actually produces babies.
And before you go complaining that bisexual partners can produce biological offspring - bisexuals are an intersection of two sets, not a sum. They are homosexual && heterosexual, NOT homosexual += heterosexual.
OP was using selective reading of the article to "prove" that there are "A lot less" gay people than "5-10%". I.e. He was cherry picking.
While doing that he blindly went for the lowest number, ignoring the fact that when it comes to homosexual sexual relationships - bisexual IS homosexual. Bisexual does not mean homosexual += heterosexual. It's homosexual && heterosexual.
Yeah, sure. Let's go into semantics and let's try to quantify how gay is having sex with a member of opposite sex and how much exactly is one form of having gay sex more or less gay than the other. Cause if we semanticize it enough, we simply must come to a conclusion that someone is gay only if they reveal it publicly in front of an audience of at least 5 million, while riding a zebra. AmIright?
Or... we can take a look at the study discussed in the article which tells us that the "same-sex sexual attraction" is actually 11%, with those 8.2% being a subset of people who actually acted out on that attraction.
So, yeah... Those 8.2% weren't conducting sterile medical experiments - they were having steamy human to human sex, motivated by attraction to humans of same sex, NOT by their scientific curiosity. Not that we really need numbers to tell us that when it comes to sex, humans tend not to be scientific or clinical. Instead, they are more like mindless passionate fuck-machines.
On a side note, the OP is wrong even without going beyond the those who identify themselves as LGB. It's 3.5%, not less than 2% - 1.7% are those who identify as ONLY gay or lesbian, the rest of them being bisexual. So even the number of declared LGB humans is TWICE as much as the OP claims.
The Williams Institute found that, overall, an estimated 8.2 percent of the population had engaged in some form same-sex sexual activity. Put another way, 4.7 percent of the population had wandered across the line without coming to think of themselves as either gay or bisexual.
That same study found out that (from the same FA):
just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent -- predominantly women -- identify as bisexual.
Basically, that "less than 2%" number is the people who think of themselves as being homosexual or bisexual. 8.2% apparently just like having sex with people of the same sex. Clearly, they're not gay. Cause they don't identify with being gay. Cause it's all about identifying.
That's why I always identify myself with Superman.
...with some HIGHLY specific case... which you've apparently forgotten to address in your post.
Instead, you chose to reply to "A pension, whether in the public or private sectors, is an agreement between employer and employees.", which is a perfectly valid but incomplete definition of a pension (it's a three party agreement) - with a rant about some case in the government sector, known only to you. We have no idea what case you are talking about. All we see here is you implying that ALL pensions are basically corruption and thievery.
As such, your post is not "the nadir of right-wing stupidity". It's flamebait.
It is not the data that is being stolen. Data is just bits and bytes, kilobytes etc. of ones and zeroes.
What APPEARS AS being stolen is the information encoded within the data. What is actually happening is UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS. Possibly unauthorized dissemination of information, revealing of trade and other secrets etc. IF the information is relayed to a third party.
It helps if you think of it as a case of early 20th century spying. A spy intercepts and reads an enciphered radio transmission - he has the data but no information. Information gets to its intended recipient, clearly not stolen.
A spy deciphers the transmission - he has access to what he was actually after. The information. Information still gets to its intended recipient, still not stolen, BUT - the spy above has also had access to information.
So far, all that the spy is guilty of is unauthorized access. If and when he delivers the information to the third party, then he is guilty of various other things. None of them being stealing.
You can absolutely steal data. If you steal someone's debit card and buy a bunch of stuff with it, you have stolen data that allowed you to gain access to their bank account. Someone else ends up losing the stolen dollars you used.
That is not stealing data. That is stealing a physical object, a debit card, THEN using it without authorization to gain access to the bank account, THEN stealing the money from the account. No data was stolen. No, not even when the money was stolen in the end. Data on the card was USED to access the bank account but it was not stolen - the CARD was stolen. And the money.
Same way you are not stealing the position of the teeth on a key used to open a safe - you are stealing a key.
Now, making a copy of the card or key - that's unauthorized copying OR just making a copy. When you bring a "borrowed" key to a key copying store, the employee is not copying a key without authorization. He is just making a copy. YOU are doing the unauthorized copying, but only if there is a specific rule prohibiting access to that key or making copies of it.
Same with the card. Making a copy is unauthorized copying, accessing the account is unauthorized access, stealing money is stealing - but the card or the data were not stolen. Money was.
Science 28 April 2000: Vol. 288 no. 5466 pp. 586-587 DOI: 10.1126/science.288.5466.586
News of the Week
CELL BIOLOGY In Contrast to Dolly, Cloning Resets Telomere Clock in Cattle
Gretchen Vogel
When researchers took a close look at the cells of Dolly, the cloned sheep, they found that her telomeres, the caps on the ends of the chromosomes, were shorter than normal. Because telomere length decreases with age, this was an indication that Dolly might age unusually quickly. But on page 665, a physician and his colleagues report that cells from calves that they cloned have telomeres that are longer than normal. According to the researchers, the findings suggest that tissues produced by cloning might last at least as long as the original cells--and perhaps longer.
lubricant they use on the machines that make aluminum soda cans can be conclusively, causally linked to obesity in lab rats...
BPA is not a lubricant. It is a "key monomer in production of epoxy resins and in the most common form of polycarbonate plastic."
Also, he was asking for causation, not correlation. Finding in your urine more of the chemical that you ingest while drinking sugary drinks, does not prove that it's the chemical and not the sugar that's making you obese. All it proves is that the said chemical has apparently leached into your sugary drink - perhaps from its packaging and perhaps from the cups you use.
I completely agree. I also find the notion of ownership as "an inalienable natural right" to be rather... hilarious. Not only does it evoke visions of a crotchety old man grabbing at the dirt at his feet, trying to stuff it into his pockets, shouting "Mine! Mine! Go away! Don't touch it! This planet is mine!" - it's funny cause if it was so inalienable and natural, why do we need laws and rules to govern and protect it?
Breathing is natural. Do we have laws and regulations regarding that? Can you prevent someone from doing that (And only that. No suffocating now. That's also illegal.) by passing a law or by regulation? Or being alive. Can you pass a law that will prevent someone from being alive? Not killing them or hurting them or making them do that to themselves - banning them from living. Or dying. That one can't be outlawed either.
That's inalienable. Natural. Stuff like freedom and "pursuit of happiness" are natural - but not inalienable. Both can be taken away by strength or by law. Stuff like property is neither inalienable OR natural. It is just... a custom of our society.
And like you said - ownership is a good thing, but frankly... When I think about it, I realize that I don't really need or want to own most things (or even all things). I want access to them. Or maybe not even that. Having a choice between access to cheese or to Mona Lisa... I'm sorry Leonardo.
As for the joke... Besides the whole "Mine! Mine!" thing... It was about insinuating that humans don't come to this world with gun (or anything else) in hand, and that should someone be born with a gun instead of a hand they'd have a rather unpleasant time... pleasing themselves. Thus, a sad puberty.
P.S. The Slashdot quote at the bottom reads: "He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion" See? The universe agrees. Why else would that quote appear randomly like that? IT IS A SIGN! YAY!:D
There is nothing "natural" about property - it is a human concept, built on cognitive dissonance. We imagined it, built our society around it, so we claim it to be true. In reality, you don't OWN even the air in your lungs, and even your flesh had to be grown by your mother.
Ownership means having control over something. How can you have control over something that existed and will continue to exist even after you cease to? If anything, things that you think you own actually own you. They have a higher capacity for existence and as for control - you are providing it by claiming ownership over them. Want proof? One could take away from you one of your things, creating emotional and other responses in you (but none in your things) - thereby exerting control over you through the things you "own". You might even be willing to do their bidding in order to get your things back.
Now, a right to USE... That's just Newtonian physics. THAT'S natural.
Slashdot Mirror
...about the whole god thing, you sure get uppity about "fake" religions easily.
You sure you're not a closeted god believer, pretending to be agnostic cause you heard that's practically the same as that atheism thing that all cool kids with big brains do, but still kinda safer should it turn out that there is a god?
Or possibly simply a troll?
See... Cause only those who give serious credence to the "my god is one and only god and he's a special god and real and not like all those other fake gods other people believe in"-thing get uppity about "fake" religions and "lack of respect".
Agnostics on the other hand go "I don't know. Who knows? Maybe they're right? Who can really know?"
And atheists go "God? Nope. Religion? Silly."
So, really, you sure you're not a pedophile?
With all due respect... naturally.
On a plus side, he gets a free (as in pay later with interests) cryogenic treatment plus at least 10 more lifetimes once he thaws off - so he could repay the debt. Plus interests.
Lie senses are tingling.
Car moves too far from your home without you in it - it goes BOOM!
You don't need to worry about police or insurance either.
Mine's packaging is covered in Arabic so it all looks like a terrorist car bomb gone bad.
That is a low-impurity source of carbon that is going to end up getting incorporated into the steel itself - it is a raw material, not a fuel.
The coal they are shipping there will be converted into coke in China and that is a rather dirty process that hasn't changed much since 1920s. Or in fact, 1800s.
And as they don't have to care about various environmental regulations over there, they can turn all that coking coal into coke a lot cheaper than what it would cost them to do that in the USA.
Also, if a couple of dozen guys "expire" way before their due date cause they've been inhaling arsenic vapors during quenching of the coke... Whose gonna notice that when there are 1.3 billion more of them?
During the coking process, you are basically releasing in the air all those wonderful impurities (like arsenic, mercury, nitrogen, sulfur etc.) from the cooking coal, without burning up the carbon.
What are you using to heat up the coking coal? More coal.
Naturally, any of those byproducts that can be used do get used - like the coal gas, which is usually used either to produce ammonia or is burned to produce electricity for the coking plant, or both.
Both also release carbon into the air.
THEN, you take the coke you made, and use it to fire up the smelting furnaces (i.e. you burn more coal) during which it is also used as a reducing agent.
That's when you release most of the carbon in the coke into the air as CO and CO2. The rest gets burned out of pig iron when you heat it up with oxygen to produce steel.
Anything more than 2% of carbon in steel classifies that steel as cast iron. Pig iron is 4-5% carbon.
So basically... All coal is very dirty and it is primarily a fuel, not a raw material.
US consumers have quite a few rights and quite a few laws and agencies protecting those rights.
The scary and sad part is that apparently the consensus here at Slashdot is that:
a) Consumers have NO rights and
b) Don't like it - you don't have to buy it, fuck you.
Yes, but not as much as they hurt. I still encounter Christians today who are certain that dinosaur bones were put in place by lawyers and the devil or that the world is only thousands of years old [gallup.com].
And I encounter atheists who think medieval people though the Earth was flat, or that Copernicus was rejected by Christians, or that Galileo's heliocentrism was correct (hint: it wasn't, the reasons for him thinking the Earth moved were demonstrably false. So he came to the right conclusion, but for completely wrong reasons). Being wrong is a pretty universal trait among humans.
You are conflating IGNORANCE of historical facts with IGNORING of scientifically proven facts in favor of conspiracy theories and fairytales.
Not the same kind of wrong.
One is simply a lack of knowledge, the other is promotion and nurturing of delusions and untruths.
So why would engaging in homosexual activity, at one time, for whatever reason, make anyone irrefutably homosexual?
Because heterosexual sexual and romantic attraction is a biological thing. It's how we procreate.
Homosexual sexual and romantic attraction does not result with procreation. Humans and other animals do it for reasons other than just procreation.
As such, it is a part of a different set than heterosexual romantic and sexual attraction and relation.
And heterosexual set is an exclusive set, because its limits are dictated by biological factors.
Only one combination out there actually produces babies.
And before you go complaining that bisexual partners can produce biological offspring - bisexuals are an intersection of two sets, not a sum.
They are homosexual && heterosexual, NOT homosexual += heterosexual.
So we're back to more semantics? What "is" means?
OP was using selective reading of the article to "prove" that there are "A lot less" gay people than "5-10%".
I.e. He was cherry picking.
While doing that he blindly went for the lowest number, ignoring the fact that when it comes to homosexual sexual relationships - bisexual IS homosexual.
Bisexual does not mean homosexual += heterosexual.
It's homosexual && heterosexual.
It's an intersection of two sets, not a sum.
Yeah, sure.
Let's go into semantics and let's try to quantify how gay is having sex with a member of opposite sex and how much exactly is one form of having gay sex more or less gay than the other.
Cause if we semanticize it enough, we simply must come to a conclusion that someone is gay only if they reveal it publicly in front of an audience of at least 5 million, while riding a zebra. AmIright?
Or... we can take a look at the study discussed in the article which tells us that the "same-sex sexual attraction" is actually 11%, with those 8.2% being a subset of people who actually acted out on that attraction.
So, yeah... Those 8.2% weren't conducting sterile medical experiments - they were having steamy human to human sex, motivated by attraction to humans of same sex, NOT by their scientific curiosity.
Not that we really need numbers to tell us that when it comes to sex, humans tend not to be scientific or clinical.
Instead, they are more like mindless passionate fuck-machines.
On a side note, the OP is wrong even without going beyond the those who identify themselves as LGB.
It's 3.5%, not less than 2% - 1.7% are those who identify as ONLY gay or lesbian, the rest of them being bisexual.
So even the number of declared LGB humans is TWICE as much as the OP claims.
From TFA:
The Williams Institute found that, overall, an estimated 8.2 percent of the population had engaged in some form same-sex sexual activity. Put another way, 4.7 percent of the population had wandered across the line without coming to think of themselves as either gay or bisexual.
That same study found out that (from the same FA):
just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent -- predominantly women -- identify as bisexual.
Basically, that "less than 2%" number is the people who think of themselves as being homosexual or bisexual.
8.2% apparently just like having sex with people of the same sex. Clearly, they're not gay.
Cause they don't identify with being gay.
Cause it's all about identifying.
That's why I always identify myself with Superman.
...with some HIGHLY specific case... which you've apparently forgotten to address in your post.
Instead, you chose to reply to "A pension, whether in the public or private sectors, is an agreement between employer and employees.", which is a perfectly valid but incomplete definition of a pension (it's a three party agreement) - with a rant about some case in the government sector, known only to you.
We have no idea what case you are talking about.
All we see here is you implying that ALL pensions are basically corruption and thievery.
As such, your post is not "the nadir of right-wing stupidity".
It's flamebait.
And so is dressing and acting as a mouse. Squeak.
Examples of data would be: 5, $, B, T, C. Meaningless values. 5 of what? How much IS 5? What does $ signify? Or B?
Examples of information would be: $5, BTC5 - data encoded with meaning. 5 dollars. 5 BitCoins.
KNOWING which one of those is worth more would be knowledge.
Wisdom would be using that knowledge to achieve something. Some form of advantage or additional value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW_Pyramid
...worked on finding the hugs boson first.
That's a troll.
He's basically claiming that the Black Death is raging through Europe.
It is not the data that is being stolen. Data is just bits and bytes, kilobytes etc. of ones and zeroes.
What APPEARS AS being stolen is the information encoded within the data.
What is actually happening is UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS. Possibly unauthorized dissemination of information, revealing of trade and other secrets etc. IF the information is relayed to a third party.
It helps if you think of it as a case of early 20th century spying.
A spy intercepts and reads an enciphered radio transmission - he has the data but no information. Information gets to its intended recipient, clearly not stolen.
A spy deciphers the transmission - he has access to what he was actually after. The information.
Information still gets to its intended recipient, still not stolen, BUT - the spy above has also had access to information.
So far, all that the spy is guilty of is unauthorized access.
If and when he delivers the information to the third party, then he is guilty of various other things. None of them being stealing.
You can absolutely steal data. If you steal someone's debit card and buy a bunch of stuff with it, you have stolen data that allowed you to gain access to their bank account. Someone else ends up losing the stolen dollars you used.
That is not stealing data.
That is stealing a physical object, a debit card, THEN using it without authorization to gain access to the bank account, THEN stealing the money from the account.
No data was stolen. No, not even when the money was stolen in the end.
Data on the card was USED to access the bank account but it was not stolen - the CARD was stolen. And the money.
Same way you are not stealing the position of the teeth on a key used to open a safe - you are stealing a key.
Now, making a copy of the card or key - that's unauthorized copying OR just making a copy.
When you bring a "borrowed" key to a key copying store, the employee is not copying a key without authorization. He is just making a copy.
YOU are doing the unauthorized copying, but only if there is a specific rule prohibiting access to that key or making copies of it.
Same with the card.
Making a copy is unauthorized copying, accessing the account is unauthorized access, stealing money is stealing - but the card or the data were not stolen.
Money was.
Well, his father IS a time-jumping psychic alien...
...of how telomeres work during cloning.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/288/5466/586.summary
Science 28 April 2000:
Vol. 288 no. 5466 pp. 586-587
DOI: 10.1126/science.288.5466.586
News of the Week
CELL BIOLOGY
In Contrast to Dolly, Cloning Resets Telomere Clock in Cattle
Gretchen Vogel
When researchers took a close look at the cells of Dolly, the cloned sheep, they found that her telomeres, the caps on the ends of the chromosomes, were shorter than normal. Because telomere length decreases with age, this was an indication that Dolly might age unusually quickly. But on page 665, a physician and his colleagues report that cells from calves that they cloned have telomeres that are longer than normal. According to the researchers, the findings suggest that tissues produced by cloning might last at least as long as the original cells--and perhaps longer.
That's your friends setting their sharing preferences to "Friends".
Text-only posts set to "Public" have the "Share" option.
So Abrams is not directing anymore?
He wasn't by any chance killed along with Lilliput and Orcish when a burning piano dropped on their heads?
Also, butter. They make tea from it.
They tend to eat or drink on average more than 20 grams of salt per day.
They also tend to live 4900 meters above sea level. On average.
lubricant they use on the machines that make aluminum soda cans can be conclusively, causally linked to obesity in lab rats...
BPA is not a lubricant.
It is a "key monomer in production of epoxy resins and in the most common form of polycarbonate plastic."
Also, he was asking for causation, not correlation.
Finding in your urine more of the chemical that you ingest while drinking sugary drinks, does not prove that it's the chemical and not the sugar that's making you obese.
All it proves is that the said chemical has apparently leached into your sugary drink - perhaps from its packaging and perhaps from the cups you use.
You're only saying that to get on my good side while you find a way to steal my credit cards and my stuff.
I completely agree.
I also find the notion of ownership as "an inalienable natural right" to be rather... hilarious.
Not only does it evoke visions of a crotchety old man grabbing at the dirt at his feet, trying to stuff it into his pockets, shouting "Mine! Mine! Go away! Don't touch it! This planet is mine!" - it's funny cause if it was so inalienable and natural, why do we need laws and rules to govern and protect it?
Breathing is natural. Do we have laws and regulations regarding that? Can you prevent someone from doing that (And only that. No suffocating now. That's also illegal.) by passing a law or by regulation?
Or being alive. Can you pass a law that will prevent someone from being alive? Not killing them or hurting them or making them do that to themselves - banning them from living.
Or dying. That one can't be outlawed either.
That's inalienable. Natural.
Stuff like freedom and "pursuit of happiness" are natural - but not inalienable. Both can be taken away by strength or by law.
Stuff like property is neither inalienable OR natural. It is just... a custom of our society.
And like you said - ownership is a good thing, but frankly...
When I think about it, I realize that I don't really need or want to own most things (or even all things).
I want access to them. Or maybe not even that.
Having a choice between access to cheese or to Mona Lisa... I'm sorry Leonardo.
As for the joke... Besides the whole "Mine! Mine!" thing...
It was about insinuating that humans don't come to this world with gun (or anything else) in hand, and that should someone be born with a gun instead of a hand they'd have a rather unpleasant time... pleasing themselves.
Thus, a sad puberty.
P.S. The Slashdot quote at the bottom reads: "He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion" :D
See? The universe agrees. Why else would that quote appear randomly like that?
IT IS A SIGN! YAY!
There is nothing "natural" about property - it is a human concept, built on cognitive dissonance.
We imagined it, built our society around it, so we claim it to be true.
In reality, you don't OWN even the air in your lungs, and even your flesh had to be grown by your mother.
Ownership means having control over something.
How can you have control over something that existed and will continue to exist even after you cease to?
If anything, things that you think you own actually own you. They have a higher capacity for existence and as for control - you are providing it by claiming ownership over them.
Want proof? One could take away from you one of your things, creating emotional and other responses in you (but none in your things) - thereby exerting control over you through the things you "own".
You might even be willing to do their bidding in order to get your things back.
Now, a right to USE... That's just Newtonian physics.
THAT'S natural.