In his book "Why We Get Fat", author Gary Taubes makes the point (which the Paleo diet advocates also make) that humans didn't develop anything like organized agriculture until about 8,000 years ago, too recent in our physical evolution to have developed a predominantly grain-consuming physiology.
Actually, at least two.
First being the implication that humans are somehow not adapted/meant to eat grain. As if were talking rocks and not plants. Plants, which humans found SO tasty, they decided to plant them.
We planted what we could eat already. We did NOT plant random things and then tried to eat them.
Second error lies in the fact that not only did we not need to evolve the ability to digest each kind of food one at a time, we actually simply picked up the ability to digest locally available food. How? By ingesting such food (as in trying to eat it). Along with the bacteria already feeding on it. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100413072046.htm
So, instead of evolving our own abilities to digest certain food for thousands and thousands of human generations - we picked it up from the millions and millions of generations of the local bacteria. Who adapted to living in our intestines where it's warm and safe and the food is plentiful all year round.
This data here shows the negative correlation in black and white. You posted it, read it and understand what you are seeing.
Cons Lib HS: 41% 18% Grad: 30% 30%
So you see, as education level increases from high school to graduate level, conservativism decreases and liberalism increases. Plain as day.
How do I put this... Those numbers? Different populations, NOT samples of the same population. And you can't just take numbers from different populations and declare that those numbers present a trend. That would be what's technically called "comparing apples to oranges".
Four-in-ten Americans with graduate degrees say they are politically moderate, while about three-in-ten say they are either liberal or conservative (29% each). Among those with no more than a high school education, a third says they are moderate, 41% describe themselves as conservative and fewer than one-in-five call themselves liberal (18%).
Numbers don't say that most conservatives only have a high school education. They say that those with only a high school education are mostly conservatives. Note the slight but important difference.
Most of the thieves are illiterate vs. most illiterate are thieves.
Also, numbers quite clearly point out that among those with higher education there are EQUAL NUMBERS OF LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES.
Then, there's that thing where higher education is closely related to the ability to pay for such education. Your interpretation of the data would suggest that rich are more likely to be liberal than conservative. Which is clearly not the case based on readily observable evidence.
In fact, most of my posts about Islam are modded (censored) right off the forum by (yup, you guessed it) the left
Slashdot now has left/right oriented mod-points? Do they also come in different colors and flavors? Can I get some in purple? How about black? That has to be a popular color for sure.
the only slight nuance is that I think the non-religious --- tribal and cultural -- context is a shade more important in afghanistan than comes across in your post. but this is quibbling at the edges.
Well, it's not like I was writing a book on the topic nor am I pretending to be an expert. It's just... a Slashdot comment.:)
I didn't miss that. I just think that those are different issues (numbers comment, perception of innocence comment...) of the same topic, that needed to be argued separately.
Nor did I miss the point you were trying to make. I'm do find it though that you may be misunderstanding the reasons (and reasoning) for such actions. And I'm not trying to defend such extremist positions or acts. Just trying to explain where that kind of thinking is coming from.
Cause it is VERY easy to just brush off actions of the other side as stupidity, barbarism, "racial issues" or whatever other generalization fits best at the time. And that is a very dangerous practice.
Again, plenty of conservatives among academics. Heck, you want to see a scary statistic - look up incidence of conservatism among elderly. You can draw all kind of crazy conclusions from that. Like that conservative == wise.
Also, check your data. It may very well be that the percentage of the elderly (those more likely to have worked and retired with only a high-school diploma or a trade) is skewing your statistics.
Cause, according to the link above, they are toe-to-toe with the liberals among those with graduate degrees.
Four-in-ten Americans with graduate degrees say they are politically moderate, while about three-in-ten say they are either liberal or conservative (29% each). Among those with no more than a high school education, a third says they are moderate, 41% describe themselves as conservative and fewer than one-in-five call themselves liberal (18%).
Granted, this is just USA. Global statistics probably vary a bit.
I'm just saying that it is not prudent to write away the "other side" as uneducated or stupid. Or too green, frivolous, weak, ginger, whatever...
While certain Christian idiots have done things like bomb abortion clinics (thereby killing both doctors and those seeking abortions), I ask if you've ever seen one try to poison a school full of children for being taught evolution? I thought not.
Numbers make a difference? Come on. What's the next step? Wearing a uniform makes a difference? How about a badge? A tee-shirt? A white sheet and a hood? Following orders from the head of the church? From a holy book? From god himself talking through your dog? Not killing people, just torturing them a little? Killing only their pets and farm animals? Burning down their house? Bullying?
How many steps must we remove the perceived responsibility for the act before the guilt is washed away completely?
And it has nothing to do with a particular religion. It has EVERYTHING to do with cultural perceptions.
Those bombing abortion clinics live in a world (born, raised, educated in it - aware of the rules of the society) where exists a law of the state and more importantly they live in a very INDIVIDUALISTIC world. They see themselves (as individuals) breaking a failed state law, following a higher (god's) law - by punishing individual "evildoers" who are breaking a higher law. Taking justice into their own hands because they perceive themselves as "righteous" and those over there as "evil", confident that god will look favorably on their acts. They are interpreting the "holy scripture" to match their view of the world and fortify their actions.
On the other hand... Islamic fundamentalists in places like Afghanistan were born, raised and educated (with only brand of education available - fundamentalist, religious and quite literal) in a world without anything even resembling a state law. Also, they were raised in the state of perpetual war with foreign invaders - with or without their own gods. It's just GOD and god's laws that have kept them safe (for certain values of safe) so far. Now... take any "holy book" and you'll find more than enough examples of "laws and regulations" which, taken literally, are not only barbaric but down right insane by today's standards. And NONE of that is open to interpretation. At least not to masses.
Now try to put yourself in that state of mind here - breaking god's laws is the equivalent of opening the inter-dimensional rift to the dimension of evil, a gateway to hell, waking Cthulhu... There are no gradations for them. It is a very simple black and white world. Disrespect god or his laws == waking Cthulhu. And it's not the Cthulhu they fear - it's The God who will punish EVERYONE for the sins of the few.
In their mind, they are protecting EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING from being plunged into depths of hell by punishing those sinners who dared to raise against god.
Innocent? They don't see those girls as innocent. They see them as tainted at best and as pure evil Cthulhu worshipers at worst. And remember, they are working for the god who burned Sodom and Gomorrah, asked Abraham to slit the throat of his own son... all of that Old Testament stuff is literal instructions to them. Direct from god. The God. Maker of the Universe and all that stuff. Angry, pissed off, uncompromising god of the Old Testament. The kind of god who would reveal himself to people living in the scorching heat and desolation of a desert.
On top of all that (soldiers of god vs. legions of evil) stuff, it is much easier to press a button, toss a grenade at the crowd, or pour poison into a cistern - than to kill a very specific human being. Burden gets diluted in the numbers. Just as bomber pilots about the guilt they feel for indiscriminate bombing or accidental civilian "collateral damage". Then ask front line soldiers. Then ask generals and politicians who gave out those orders.
If anything, one might argue that the religious fanatics in Afghanistan are LESS responsible for their acts. After all, they live in a delusion of being
Is it any surprise that progressives are better educated than conservatives then?
I wouldn't generalize that much... Or in that particular direction. After all, education is simply a graded result of time invested into research of a particular topic or skill. You have your more than fair share of conservatives among academics as well.
It's more the case of "progressives", as you say, being more open minded. To new ideas, concepts etc.
Why are conservatives anti-education? Because their beliefs cannot be supported by facts, and so the more factual ideas you teach, the less conservative your people will be.
Not all conservatives have religious or anti-educational ideas and motivations.
BUT... What they all DO have is a very strong preference for the status quo. THAT is why they can't accept new ideas, or find them threatening. To them it's good as it is. Perfect in fact. To fundamentalists among them, ANY change is a tantamount to an attack on their entire way of life.
Those girls weren't being taught to be atheists, feminists, witches or whatever the fundamentalists would find undermining to their religious beliefs. In fact, they probably had religious studies at school as well.
They were simply girls, being taught. That's the idea that breaks the status quo world of the(se) fundamentalists.
Let's disregard the smaller stuff. Can't really comb the nonsense above sentence by sentence. Nor would we want to right? I mean, when one touts "free market" claiming that people get things cheaply from corporations motivated only by profit, blindly disregarding the "what market can bear" principle of pricing... what can you do to such a person?
They are either lying their ass off to promote their own agenda, or they have a few of the wires in their noggin crossed. And since I'm of firm belief that people ARE essentially good-natured and not evil pricks - I'm going with mental problems here.
government that allows the corporations to mine on land that is held public.
OK. Governments, which are the extension of the public (i.e. Of the people, by the people...) lease out land. Under very specific conditions.
This IS a government created problem, because government holds this land and allows companies to come and to mine on it without actually participating in a market of any kind. The gov't sells licenses to their preferred companies and takes away liability and responsibility.
See kids? This is the case of a mind not working properly.
Russian problem in TFA (I suppose we are still talking about that, but there MIGHT be a possibility that the poster above is having some other argument in his mind with that "This IS" of his.) arose from two things. 1 - improperly sealed chambers in the mine. 2 - freshwater flooding in.
Now, for number 2 you can only blame god. Fuck you god! There. Number 1 on the other hand was responsibility of the corporation/company running the mine. See kids, government does not "take away liability and responsibility" when leasing something. They TRANSFER IT.
As for government not "actually participating in a market of any kind" - that is called "irrelevant argument". Government does not need to "participate in the market" to protect the rights and well being of its citizens. You know - doing its job. It's the government. They make laws and regulations for that.
Whatever land that gov't holds in 'public' possession where somebody wants to mine or do any business, this land has to be auctioned off.
What do you think would happen then?
Before we answer that, let's just point out that the poster is suggesting that the government (Of the people, by the people...) should take the land belonging to all citizens of the country and sell it to the highest bidder. Literally. Which would, again literally, mean that the government should STEAL the public property in order to acquire profit. You know... instead of doing their job, working for the greater good of all, they would act like a corporation - motivated only by profit.
Now... What would happen then? Well... "because nobody could afford to buy it outright" it would be bought by international corporations and funds. Also, foreign governments. So, add treason to stealing - country would not even have to be conquered to foreign inva.. buyers.
You know. Like what USA did to Russia with Alaska. Only now we would be talking ANY land ANY where.
And the rest of the post above is just "Oogily-boogily" crazy talk. Governments not knowing "real" values cause they can't compete with private owners - as apparently that is a prerequisite to understanding math, economics, statistics and basically being able to add 2 and 2. Governments getting more money which is good, but which is bad.
And lets not forget the solution for the gov-good-bad problem - investing ALL THE MONEY FROM THE SALE of the land INTO CLEANUP of the effects from mining.
Yup. That's the idea. 1. Sell public land to foreign investors stripping people of the country of any and all value that land may EVER have to them. 2. Let foreign investors mine the land and keep all the profit AND the land. 3
Some of them link to other statistics, like this one.
And I'm not about to recreate the entire Wikipedia here. Besides, I can only give the links to you, can't make you click on them or read the text there.
Also, back in 1992, latest Star Trek movie was The Undiscovered Country - featuring NCC-1701-A, which get decommissioned at the end. Which again, would have fit in nicely with it being "exhibited" in Las Vegas.
On a side note... Why even bother with credit cards?
Even with an iPhone, it remains an arduous hassle to enter all the information that is typically required to buy anything online with a credit card.
Pre-paid or on a contract, one still pays to some company for the privilege of using one's phone. So, why not simply send an SMS or call a number which would charge your number with either a prearranged sum or which would let you to type the sum in?
Sure, such practice may delay the money flow in case of all those phones which are on a contract - until the bill gets payed. That is, unless the phone company is willing to take the risk of "non-collection" on itself. But it seems a far safer practice than "entering all the information that is typically required to buy anything online with a credit card" or "keeping [their] credit cards on file".
biting his own arm until he draws blood, I may have to take a bat to him to get your message across...
A colleague of mine's son would bang his head on the floor if he couldn't get his way. She would have none of that. She wouldn't yell or try to stop him or punish him. She'd just ignore him when he would start acting like that. He stopped when he saw that it's getting him nowhere.
Countering violence (self inflicted or otherwise) with more violence is not necessarily the correct solution. Particularly when dealing with kids.
5) Re-fuel with fuel conveniently pre-manufactured by previous robotic missions (this is the only part not obvious to me how it would be done for whatever that's worth).
No, I am not from the US. But that has nothing to do with the issue. Adding to what Raisey-raison has already said, it is VERY MUCH possible to make both the education AND the tests of political literacy available, valid, transparent AND accurate and indiscriminate.
Actual problem lies in the fact that for political literacy tests to be used, a certain percentage of disfranchisement would HAVE to be built into it - which lies theoretically around 2-5% percent, but which is practically closer to around 30%.
And that's when the moral issues really raise their ugly head. I.e. Is it more moral to seemingly disfranchise the less intelligent third of the population BUT actually leave them the option to still achieve their voting rights in the long run if they try REALLY hard, OR to let them be exploited by campaigns which promote the emotional issues instead of actually more relevant ones? Or how about is it moral to allow for the entire population to be exploited by emotional campaigns just so one third of the population wouldn't be seemingly disenfranchised? And then we get to the issue of age-based disfranchisement - where a huge percentage of population (varying by country) is not allowed to vote OR be voted for cause they are too young, but they get saddled with OUR decisions just the same.
Not that education would solve everything. People still fall for the three-card Monte hustle. BUT... An educated electorate AND educated representatives would make for a far better government than the if either of those is allowed to be ignorant.
It's very simple: If you go to a polling place, you are in a situation where you can be observed by poll workers, who will notice things like somebody standing over your shoulder with either a gun or $10 to get you to vote the way that somebody wants you to. Whereas if you can vote anywhere, it's quite possible for an organization to do those sorts of things.
Actually... THAT is not actually a problem.
I see that many here are arguing how "voting from home" would somehow stimulate or facilitate monetary or other influence on the voters. It is supposed to make it easier for secretive organizations to collect votes from the voters they paid to vote for them.
Which is nonsense. Anyone can already pay anyone else to vote for anyone else. Always could. There is no way for poll workers to check if voters are actually voting for option X because they think that option X is the best solution or because they've sold their votes to the "Vote X" campaign.
Home/online voting does not facilitate an easier route for the buyers (of votes) to collect the product they bought (votes) from the seller (voter). Telephone did that, and to some extent even a postal system. It does not even facilitate an easier route for the sellers (voters) to get the money in exchange for their goods (votes) - because online transactions are VERY traceable.
And THAT is why selling/buying votes is not a problem. Because ONE verified sold vote is enough to bring the whole election AND the election process in question. Besides, no party would dare to use such a tool. Not just because it could inevitably cost them the election and even party membership, but also because such voters are inherently unreliable. Who's to say they won't take the money from both sides and then make their vote invalid by selecting all choices or worse (for the vote-buyers) - vote for some third option?
Issues with online voting are just technical and mostly related to security and verifiability of already cast votes. First issue could easily be fixed with some reasonably priced hardware which the government could lend the voters for the purpose of holding the elections, or even easier - through the use of modern camera-equipped mobile phones.
Simply issue each voter with a unique ticket, have them read the first part of it to their phone's camera along with their name and other ID data before the vote, give them an encrypted ticket during the vote, and have them read it AND the second part of their unique ticket after they vote. Encrypt the gathered data (doesn't even have to be the entire video - just the verification gathered from it), ship it and count the votes.
And the voter could check that their vote got counted properly by checking the lists of those unique voter tickets, which should be made publicly available online ensuring greater transparency as a bonus. Video of voting is an additional verification bonus for the voter, and it can be kept in the phone's memory (card, drive.. whatever).
And to make sure the whole thing is done securely, have the voting software delivered in two steps. First one makes sure that the phone is secure (no malware, open connections etc.) and makes it secure if it is not (at least for the duration of the vote), followed by the second step where the actual voting software is downloaded.
Six volumes of collected stories and poetry by Roger Zelazny. You are bound to bump into something you haven't read before OR find a new facet to the things you've read already as each story is followed by a section explaining the references he used. As for actual "new" stuff by Zelazny, there's this. And you may find this amusing as well.
That Wikipedia quote, while it does have a leg to stand on, its one leg is not in any remotely good condition and it is missing several toes.
It cites an article where it is said the following, about patent trolls:
"The long-anticipated eBay case gets to the heart of the debate over so-called patent trolls â" companies that obtain patents only to license them, often using the threat of an injunction to extract a high price from infringers." Woellert, L.: eBay Takes on the Patent Trolls. Business Week, March 30, 2006. One of the arguments that eBay made was that non-practicing inventors, quaintly nicknamed "patent trolls," should not be entitled to an injunction as a matter of course.
Oh, my! Now non-practicing inventors are "patent trolls" too.
And then it goes further along that way:
Who are these evil âoepatent trollsâ anyway? The term was first coined by Intel, whose in-house counsel was quoted to have said, âoeA patent troll is somebody who tries to make a lot of money off a patent that they are not practicing and have no intention of practicing and in most cases never practiced.â(TM)â Sandburg, B.: Inventorâ(TM)s Lawyer Makes a Pile from Patents. The Recorder, July 30, 2001. According to this definition, a non-practicing inventor is a patent troll.
And there is more:
Later, the definition of âoepatent trollâ was modified to describe those who buy patents, which they do not practice, for the sole purpose of assertion. Under this definition, to be a troll one needs to (a) buy a patent, (b) not practice the patented invention, and (c) assert the acquired patent. As I have argued in Making Innovation Pay â" Turning IP into Shareholder Value (B. Berman, ed., John Wiley & Sons Publishers, Inc.) (2006), this definition is patently absurd.
And in the end, the author decides that there is no such thing as a patent troll at all:
To summarize, the so-called "patent trolls" are stuff of myths and legends, not of sound reason.
So, you saying that "they are far from being a patent troll" makes sense - but only because "patent trolls" don't exist according to all those definitions above. Particularly the Wikipedia's "common accepted definition", which is "patently absurd".
ON THE OTHER HAND... Taking in account that "patent troll" is first and foremost a pejorative term (think of the first racial slur that comes to your mind) used to describe a perfectly legal, though sometimes morally questionable ACT, well...
Apple has been "patent trolling" many times. Or "asserting a patent". It's all in the eye of the beholder.
As for the article itself... what retard wrote that, and how am I not shocked it's posted in Forbes? Yes, Apple (not jobs, the lawsuits had been going for years and Jobs had just returned) was running a legal battle against Microsoft at the time, but as Jobs said, Apple was going to go under way before they were able to win or lose. And to be honest, Microsoft had the money to even pay if they ever won.
Losses were not what was in Gate's mind at the time. The reason Gates actually bailed Apple out was that Apple going out of business would had been horrible for Microsoft's defense in their anti-trust monopoly abuse case since Apple's competition was one of the points that was constantly brought up by the defense during the case.
Slashdot Mirror
In his book "Why We Get Fat", author Gary Taubes makes the point (which the Paleo diet advocates also make) that humans didn't develop anything like organized agriculture until about 8,000 years ago, too recent in our physical evolution to have developed a predominantly grain-consuming physiology.
Actually, at least two.
First being the implication that humans are somehow not adapted/meant to eat grain. As if were talking rocks and not plants.
Plants, which humans found SO tasty, they decided to plant them.
We planted what we could eat already. We did NOT plant random things and then tried to eat them.
Second error lies in the fact that not only did we not need to evolve the ability to digest each kind of food one at a time, we actually simply picked up the ability to digest locally available food.
How? By ingesting such food (as in trying to eat it). Along with the bacteria already feeding on it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100413072046.htm
So, instead of evolving our own abilities to digest certain food for thousands and thousands of human generations - we picked it up from the millions and millions of generations of the local bacteria.
Who adapted to living in our intestines where it's warm and safe and the food is plentiful all year round.
This data here shows the negative correlation in black and white. You posted it, read it and understand what you are seeing.
Cons Lib
HS: 41% 18%
Grad: 30% 30%
So you see, as education level increases from high school to graduate level, conservativism decreases and liberalism increases. Plain as day.
How do I put this... Those numbers? Different populations, NOT samples of the same population.
And you can't just take numbers from different populations and declare that those numbers present a trend.
That would be what's technically called "comparing apples to oranges".
Four-in-ten Americans with graduate degrees say they are politically moderate, while about three-in-ten say they are either liberal or conservative (29% each).
Among those with no more than a high school education, a third says they are moderate, 41% describe themselves as conservative and fewer than one-in-five call themselves liberal (18%).
Numbers don't say that most conservatives only have a high school education.
They say that those with only a high school education are mostly conservatives. Note the slight but important difference.
Most of the thieves are illiterate vs. most illiterate are thieves.
Also, numbers quite clearly point out that among those with higher education there are EQUAL NUMBERS OF LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES.
Then, there's that thing where higher education is closely related to the ability to pay for such education.
Your interpretation of the data would suggest that rich are more likely to be liberal than conservative.
Which is clearly not the case based on readily observable evidence.
In fact, most of my posts about Islam are modded (censored) right off the forum by (yup, you guessed it) the left
Slashdot now has left/right oriented mod-points?
Do they also come in different colors and flavors?
Can I get some in purple? How about black? That has to be a popular color for sure.
Thanks. Now give me your mod points! :P
the only slight nuance is that I think the non-religious --- tribal and cultural -- context is a shade more important in afghanistan than comes across in your post. but this is quibbling at the edges.
Well, it's not like I was writing a book on the topic nor am I pretending to be an expert. :)
It's just... a Slashdot comment.
I didn't miss that.
I just think that those are different issues (numbers comment, perception of innocence comment...) of the same topic, that needed to be argued separately.
Nor did I miss the point you were trying to make.
I'm do find it though that you may be misunderstanding the reasons (and reasoning) for such actions.
And I'm not trying to defend such extremist positions or acts. Just trying to explain where that kind of thinking is coming from.
Cause it is VERY easy to just brush off actions of the other side as stupidity, barbarism, "racial issues" or whatever other generalization fits best at the time.
And that is a very dangerous practice.
Correlation is not causation. :)
Again, plenty of conservatives among academics.
Heck, you want to see a scary statistic - look up incidence of conservatism among elderly.
You can draw all kind of crazy conclusions from that. Like that conservative == wise.
Also, check your data.
It may very well be that the percentage of the elderly (those more likely to have worked and retired with only a high-school diploma or a trade) is skewing your statistics.
Cause, according to the link above, they are toe-to-toe with the liberals among those with graduate degrees.
Four-in-ten Americans with graduate degrees say they are politically moderate, while about three-in-ten say they are either liberal or conservative (29% each).
Among those with no more than a high school education, a third says they are moderate, 41% describe themselves as conservative and fewer than one-in-five call themselves liberal (18%).
Granted, this is just USA. Global statistics probably vary a bit.
I'm just saying that it is not prudent to write away the "other side" as uneducated or stupid.
Or too green, frivolous, weak, ginger, whatever...
While certain Christian idiots have done things like bomb abortion clinics (thereby killing both doctors and those seeking abortions), I ask if you've ever seen one try to poison a school full of children for being taught evolution? I thought not.
Numbers make a difference? Come on. What's the next step?
Wearing a uniform makes a difference? How about a badge? A tee-shirt? A white sheet and a hood?
Following orders from the head of the church? From a holy book? From god himself talking through your dog?
Not killing people, just torturing them a little? Killing only their pets and farm animals? Burning down their house? Bullying?
How many steps must we remove the perceived responsibility for the act before the guilt is washed away completely?
And it has nothing to do with a particular religion. It has EVERYTHING to do with cultural perceptions.
Those bombing abortion clinics live in a world (born, raised, educated in it - aware of the rules of the society) where exists a law of the state and more importantly they live in a very INDIVIDUALISTIC world.
They see themselves (as individuals) breaking a failed state law, following a higher (god's) law - by punishing individual "evildoers" who are breaking a higher law.
Taking justice into their own hands because they perceive themselves as "righteous" and those over there as "evil", confident that god will look favorably on their acts.
They are interpreting the "holy scripture" to match their view of the world and fortify their actions.
On the other hand...
Islamic fundamentalists in places like Afghanistan were born, raised and educated (with only brand of education available - fundamentalist, religious and quite literal) in a world without anything even resembling a state law.
Also, they were raised in the state of perpetual war with foreign invaders - with or without their own gods.
It's just GOD and god's laws that have kept them safe (for certain values of safe) so far.
Now... take any "holy book" and you'll find more than enough examples of "laws and regulations" which, taken literally, are not only barbaric but down right insane by today's standards.
And NONE of that is open to interpretation. At least not to masses.
Now try to put yourself in that state of mind here - breaking god's laws is the equivalent of opening the inter-dimensional rift to the dimension of evil, a gateway to hell, waking Cthulhu...
There are no gradations for them. It is a very simple black and white world. Disrespect god or his laws == waking Cthulhu.
And it's not the Cthulhu they fear - it's The God who will punish EVERYONE for the sins of the few.
In their mind, they are protecting EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING from being plunged into depths of hell by punishing those sinners who dared to raise against god.
Innocent? They don't see those girls as innocent.
They see them as tainted at best and as pure evil Cthulhu worshipers at worst.
And remember, they are working for the god who burned Sodom and Gomorrah, asked Abraham to slit the throat of his own son... all of that Old Testament stuff is literal instructions to them.
Direct from god. The God. Maker of the Universe and all that stuff.
Angry, pissed off, uncompromising god of the Old Testament.
The kind of god who would reveal himself to people living in the scorching heat and desolation of a desert.
On top of all that (soldiers of god vs. legions of evil) stuff, it is much easier to press a button, toss a grenade at the crowd, or pour poison into a cistern - than to kill a very specific human being.
Burden gets diluted in the numbers.
Just as bomber pilots about the guilt they feel for indiscriminate bombing or accidental civilian "collateral damage".
Then ask front line soldiers.
Then ask generals and politicians who gave out those orders.
If anything, one might argue that the religious fanatics in Afghanistan are LESS responsible for their acts.
After all, they live in a delusion of being
Is it any surprise that progressives are better educated than conservatives then?
I wouldn't generalize that much... Or in that particular direction.
After all, education is simply a graded result of time invested into research of a particular topic or skill.
You have your more than fair share of conservatives among academics as well.
It's more the case of "progressives", as you say, being more open minded. To new ideas, concepts etc.
Why are conservatives anti-education? Because their beliefs cannot be supported by facts, and so the more factual ideas you teach, the less conservative your people will be.
Not all conservatives have religious or anti-educational ideas and motivations.
BUT... What they all DO have is a very strong preference for the status quo. THAT is why they can't accept new ideas, or find them threatening.
To them it's good as it is. Perfect in fact.
To fundamentalists among them, ANY change is a tantamount to an attack on their entire way of life.
Those girls weren't being taught to be atheists, feminists, witches or whatever the fundamentalists would find undermining to their religious beliefs.
In fact, they probably had religious studies at school as well.
They were simply girls, being taught.
That's the idea that breaks the status quo world of the(se) fundamentalists.
You might like the link in my followup post above then. Here it is again for your statistic pleasure.
Let's disregard the smaller stuff. Can't really comb the nonsense above sentence by sentence. Nor would we want to right?
I mean, when one touts "free market" claiming that people get things cheaply from corporations motivated only by profit, blindly disregarding the "what market can bear" principle of pricing... what can you do to such a person?
They are either lying their ass off to promote their own agenda, or they have a few of the wires in their noggin crossed.
And since I'm of firm belief that people ARE essentially good-natured and not evil pricks - I'm going with mental problems here.
government that allows the corporations to mine on land that is held public.
OK. Governments, which are the extension of the public (i.e. Of the people, by the people...) lease out land. Under very specific conditions.
This IS a government created problem, because government holds this land and allows companies to come and to mine on it without actually participating in a market of any kind. The gov't sells licenses to their preferred companies and takes away liability and responsibility.
See kids? This is the case of a mind not working properly.
Russian problem in TFA (I suppose we are still talking about that, but there MIGHT be a possibility that the poster above is having some other argument in his mind with that "This IS" of his.) arose from two things.
1 - improperly sealed chambers in the mine.
2 - freshwater flooding in.
Now, for number 2 you can only blame god. Fuck you god! There.
Number 1 on the other hand was responsibility of the corporation/company running the mine.
See kids, government does not "take away liability and responsibility" when leasing something. They TRANSFER IT.
As for government not "actually participating in a market of any kind" - that is called "irrelevant argument".
Government does not need to "participate in the market" to protect the rights and well being of its citizens. You know - doing its job.
It's the government. They make laws and regulations for that.
Whatever land that gov't holds in 'public' possession where somebody wants to mine or do any business, this land has to be auctioned off.
What do you think would happen then?
Before we answer that, let's just point out that the poster is suggesting that the government (Of the people, by the people...) should take the land belonging to all citizens of the country and sell it to the highest bidder. Literally.
Which would, again literally, mean that the government should STEAL the public property in order to acquire profit.
You know... instead of doing their job, working for the greater good of all, they would act like a corporation - motivated only by profit.
Now... What would happen then?
Well... "because nobody could afford to buy it outright" it would be bought by international corporations and funds. Also, foreign governments.
So, add treason to stealing - country would not even have to be conquered to foreign inva.. buyers.
You know. Like what USA did to Russia with Alaska. Only now we would be talking ANY land ANY where.
And the rest of the post above is just "Oogily-boogily" crazy talk.
Governments not knowing "real" values cause they can't compete with private owners - as apparently that is a prerequisite to understanding math, economics, statistics and basically being able to add 2 and 2.
Governments getting more money which is good, but which is bad.
And lets not forget the solution for the gov-good-bad problem - investing ALL THE MONEY FROM THE SALE of the land INTO CLEANUP of the effects from mining.
Yup. That's the idea.
1. Sell public land to foreign investors stripping people of the country of any and all value that land may EVER have to them.
2. Let foreign investors mine the land and keep all the profit AND the land.
3
Some of them link to other statistics, like this one.
And I'm not about to recreate the entire Wikipedia here.
Besides, I can only give the links to you, can't make you click on them or read the text there.
Thus speaketh Matthew Hutson:
And in nearly every country around the world, the percentage of self-described atheists is only in the single digits.
Which is bullshit. And lies.
And to top that off, he is using the current date (at the time) to peddle this nonsense and his book through the "article" above.
From TFA:
There was to be the dining area for the shipâ(TM)s crew (where you could dine in Star Fleet comfort), and other special features.
And the one in the mockups is NCC-1701-A. Blue navigation deflector. Nacelles no longer round.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701-A)
Also, back in 1992, latest Star Trek movie was The Undiscovered Country - featuring NCC-1701-A, which get decommissioned at the end.
Which again, would have fit in nicely with it being "exhibited" in Las Vegas.
http://swampland.time.com2012/03/30/the-obama-campaign-tries-out-a-new-cellular-weapon/
TFA is actually dated March 30, 2012.
On a side note... Why even bother with credit cards?
Even with an iPhone, it remains an arduous hassle to enter all the information that is typically required to buy anything online with a credit card.
Pre-paid or on a contract, one still pays to some company for the privilege of using one's phone.
So, why not simply send an SMS or call a number which would charge your number with either a prearranged sum or which would let you to type the sum in?
Sure, such practice may delay the money flow in case of all those phones which are on a contract - until the bill gets payed.
That is, unless the phone company is willing to take the risk of "non-collection" on itself.
But it seems a far safer practice than "entering all the information that is typically required to buy anything online with a credit card" or "keeping [their] credit cards on file".
Or wait for April Fool's day to wear off.
Sadly, the article is dated 26th of March. It was also shared on Twitter and commented on that day.
biting his own arm until he draws blood, I may have to take a bat to him to get your message across...
A colleague of mine's son would bang his head on the floor if he couldn't get his way.
She would have none of that. She wouldn't yell or try to stop him or punish him. She'd just ignore him when he would start acting like that.
He stopped when he saw that it's getting him nowhere.
Countering violence (self inflicted or otherwise) with more violence is not necessarily the correct solution. Particularly when dealing with kids.
5) Re-fuel with fuel conveniently pre-manufactured by previous robotic missions (this is the only part not obvious to me how it would be done for whatever that's worth).
Probably manufactured through Sabatier reaction.
Or if you prefer video more...
Sorry, was kinda busy these past days...
No, I am not from the US. But that has nothing to do with the issue.
Adding to what Raisey-raison has already said, it is VERY MUCH possible to make both the education AND the tests of political literacy available, valid, transparent AND accurate and indiscriminate.
Actual problem lies in the fact that for political literacy tests to be used, a certain percentage of disfranchisement would HAVE to be built into it - which lies theoretically around 2-5% percent, but which is practically closer to around 30%.
And that's when the moral issues really raise their ugly head.
I.e. Is it more moral to seemingly disfranchise the less intelligent third of the population BUT actually leave them the option to still achieve their voting rights in the long run if they try REALLY hard, OR to let them be exploited by campaigns which promote the emotional issues instead of actually more relevant ones?
Or how about is it moral to allow for the entire population to be exploited by emotional campaigns just so one third of the population wouldn't be seemingly disenfranchised?
And then we get to the issue of age-based disfranchisement - where a huge percentage of population (varying by country) is not allowed to vote OR be voted for cause they are too young, but they get saddled with OUR decisions just the same.
Not that education would solve everything. People still fall for the three-card Monte hustle.
BUT... An educated electorate AND educated representatives would make for a far better government than the if either of those is allowed to be ignorant.
It's very simple: If you go to a polling place, you are in a situation where you can be observed by poll workers, who will notice things like somebody standing over your shoulder with either a gun or $10 to get you to vote the way that somebody wants you to. Whereas if you can vote anywhere, it's quite possible for an organization to do those sorts of things.
Actually... THAT is not actually a problem.
I see that many here are arguing how "voting from home" would somehow stimulate or facilitate monetary or other influence on the voters.
It is supposed to make it easier for secretive organizations to collect votes from the voters they paid to vote for them.
Which is nonsense. Anyone can already pay anyone else to vote for anyone else. Always could.
There is no way for poll workers to check if voters are actually voting for option X because they think that option X is the best solution or because they've sold their votes to the "Vote X" campaign.
Home/online voting does not facilitate an easier route for the buyers (of votes) to collect the product they bought (votes) from the seller (voter). Telephone did that, and to some extent even a postal system.
It does not even facilitate an easier route for the sellers (voters) to get the money in exchange for their goods (votes) - because online transactions are VERY traceable.
And THAT is why selling/buying votes is not a problem.
Because ONE verified sold vote is enough to bring the whole election AND the election process in question.
Besides, no party would dare to use such a tool.
Not just because it could inevitably cost them the election and even party membership, but also because such voters are inherently unreliable.
Who's to say they won't take the money from both sides and then make their vote invalid by selecting all choices or worse (for the vote-buyers) - vote for some third option?
Issues with online voting are just technical and mostly related to security and verifiability of already cast votes.
First issue could easily be fixed with some reasonably priced hardware which the government could lend the voters for the purpose of holding the elections, or even easier - through the use of modern camera-equipped mobile phones.
Simply issue each voter with a unique ticket, have them read the first part of it to their phone's camera along with their name and other ID data before the vote, give them an encrypted ticket during the vote, and have them read it AND the second part of their unique ticket after they vote.
Encrypt the gathered data (doesn't even have to be the entire video - just the verification gathered from it), ship it and count the votes.
And the voter could check that their vote got counted properly by checking the lists of those unique voter tickets, which should be made publicly available online ensuring greater transparency as a bonus.
Video of voting is an additional verification bonus for the voter, and it can be kept in the phone's memory (card, drive.. whatever).
And to make sure the whole thing is done securely, have the voting software delivered in two steps.
First one makes sure that the phone is secure (no malware, open connections etc.) and makes it secure if it is not (at least for the duration of the vote), followed by the second step where the actual voting software is downloaded.
Six volumes of collected stories and poetry by Roger Zelazny.
You are bound to bump into something you haven't read before OR find a new facet to the things you've read already as each story is followed by a section explaining the references he used.
As for actual "new" stuff by Zelazny, there's this.
And you may find this amusing as well.
See subject.
I was really hoping that the post above would be at +5 by now, but I guess people are too busy arguing the fine points of the jokes way above.
That Wikipedia quote, while it does have a leg to stand on, its one leg is not in any remotely good condition and it is missing several toes.
It cites an article where it is said the following, about patent trolls:
"The long-anticipated eBay case gets to the heart of the debate over so-called patent trolls â" companies that obtain patents only to license them, often using the threat of an injunction to extract a high price from infringers." Woellert, L.: eBay Takes on the Patent Trolls. Business Week, March 30, 2006.
One of the arguments that eBay made was that non-practicing inventors, quaintly nicknamed "patent trolls," should not be entitled to an injunction as a matter of course.
Oh, my! Now non-practicing inventors are "patent trolls" too.
And then it goes further along that way:
Who are these evil âoepatent trollsâ anyway? The term was first coined by Intel, whose in-house counsel was quoted to have said, âoeA patent troll is somebody who tries to make a lot of money off a patent that they are not practicing and have no intention of practicing and in most cases never practiced.â(TM)â Sandburg, B.: Inventorâ(TM)s Lawyer Makes a Pile from Patents. The Recorder, July 30, 2001. According to this definition, a non-practicing inventor is a patent troll.
And there is more:
Later, the definition of âoepatent trollâ was modified to describe those who buy patents, which they do not practice, for the sole purpose of assertion. Under this definition, to be a troll one needs to (a) buy a patent, (b) not practice the patented invention, and (c) assert the acquired patent. As I have argued in Making Innovation Pay â" Turning IP into Shareholder Value (B. Berman, ed., John Wiley & Sons Publishers, Inc.) (2006), this definition is patently absurd.
And in the end, the author decides that there is no such thing as a patent troll at all:
To summarize, the so-called "patent trolls" are stuff of myths and legends, not of sound reason.
So, you saying that "they are far from being a patent troll" makes sense - but only because "patent trolls" don't exist according to all those definitions above.
Particularly the Wikipedia's "common accepted definition", which is "patently absurd".
ON THE OTHER HAND...
Taking in account that "patent troll" is first and foremost a pejorative term (think of the first racial slur that comes to your mind) used to describe a perfectly legal, though sometimes morally questionable ACT, well...
Apple has been "patent trolling" many times. Or "asserting a patent".
It's all in the eye of the beholder.
As for the article itself... what retard wrote that, and how am I not shocked it's posted in Forbes? Yes, Apple (not jobs, the lawsuits had been going for years and Jobs had just returned) was running a legal battle against Microsoft at the time, but as Jobs said, Apple was going to go under way before they were able to win or lose. And to be honest, Microsoft had the money to even pay if they ever won.
Losses were not what was in Gate's mind at the time. The reason Gates actually bailed Apple out was that Apple going out of business would had been horrible for Microsoft's defense in their anti-trust monopoly abuse case since Apple's competition was one of the points that was constantly brought up by the defense during the case.
I concur. On all those points.
Don't you have to be a bottom feeding shell corporation with no actual products to be a patent troll?
Not sure Apple fit this definition at any stage of it's history.
"Don't you have to be poor, with no actual possession, to be a crack addict?"
Patent trolling is an act, not a profession. Though some people/companies do base their business around that single act.