Some people would say that Proxima Centauri is "right next to" us,because it's only about four lightyears away. Presumably Martin was within four lightyears of his home, so that statement is true even if rather ambiguous.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
We will say it as many times as it takes to sink in.
We will say this as many times as it takes to sink in.
You have repeatedly claimed that Rachel Jeantel testified that Martin returned home after the first encounter with Zimmerman, but you've provided no citation, transcript, source or quotation to back you up. Don't worry, though; the Emperor has done the research for you, and tracked your claim back to this tweet. The tweet, in turn, cites a blog post, but unfortunately the blog post doesn't corroborate the tweet.
Obviously numerous other sources have reported on Jeantel's testimony, and absolutely none of them make any mention of Martin returning home. The same can be said of the numerous timelines and maps that have been drawn about the shooting. Now, which of these two scenarios do you think is more likely: that a single Twitter user picked out a key piece of Rachel's testimony that was somehow missed by every credible news source, or that the single Twitter user was simply mistaken?
Martin didn't "decide to go back and dish out a beating on the 'cracker.'" He encountered Zimmerman while Zimmerman was in his car (possibly exchanging a few words at this point). At some time shortly thereafter, Martin ran away from Zimmerman, running back in the direction he came from.* This means that in order for Martin to continue home, he needed to turn around and return to where he first saw Zimmerman. A few minutes later, Zimmerman and Martin met each other a second time, leading to the fatal shooting.
You have absolutely no basis to declare that Martin returned with the intention of starting a fight, no explanation of why Martin would run away and *then* decide to ambush or attack Zimmerman, and absolutely no evidence (except Zimmerman's own word) that Martin was the one who started the altercation.
*This is a reasonable thing to do when being followed by a potentially dangerous stranger. If Martin had simply run towards his house, and Zimmerman followed him, Zimmerman would have discovered where Martin was staying, potentially putting Martin in danger. Zimmerman understood this as well, which is why he didn't give the 911 dispatcher his home address when he was asked.
It's gotten to the point where upstream governments have outlawed collecting, in rainbarrels, water that falls on your roof to water your garden, because it's "not your water". But it is Southern California's water, you see.
That's called "non-riparian water rights," and it goes back to before the western states were even founded. The basis for this system is Common Law legal precedent, not legislation (although most states have passed laws formally codifying their water rights systems... as of over a hundred years ago).
The Puritans (the ones who were "escaping persecution") only founded the New England colonies. They immediately set up their own theocratic governments and began their own vicious persecution, most famously the Salem Witch Trials. Religious persecution caused BY the Puritans was one of the main reasons for the Religious Test clause of the Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The Continental Congress, the Revolution, and the eventual establishment of the Constitution was a completely different event than the Puritans founding a colony and happened around a hundred years after. Historically speaking, this is about as big a miss as confusing the Revolution and the Civil War.
In the ancient Chinese nation of Chu, during the reign of King Li, a man named Bian He discovered an incomparable piece of jade encased in a stone. When he presented the stone to King Li, the king did not believe it actually contained a piece of jade and ordered that Bian He have one of his legs cut off. When King Li died, and King Wu succeeded him, Bian He again presented the jade to the royal court; he was disbelieved a second time, and the King ordered his other leg cut off. When King Wu died, he was succeeded by King Wen; it was King Wen who finally believed Bian He and ordered that the stone be cut. Ultimately the stone was fashioned into a great jade disc, called the "jade disc of He" to honor its discoverer.
The jade was later stolen from Chu and sold to the state of Zhao. The King of Qin offered fifteen cities for the jade, giving rise to the Chinese idiom, "valued at multiple cities." Eventually the jade was surrendered to King Shi Huang of Qin, who became the first Emperor of China. Qin Shi Huang ordered the jade be cut down to create his imperial seal. The seal was lost about 1300 years later, but a thousand more years of imperial rule still followed.
The moral is that a) human beings with money make really stupid decisions b) even if you make a great discovery and serve loyally the king might still chop off your fucking legs.
A good analogy for this case would be Safford Unified School District v. Savanna Redding, when a 13-year-old girl was strip-searched after another student accused her of possessing prescription-strength Advil. The SCOTUS ruled the search was unconstitutional, yet still held the school officials had no liability because they did not violate "clearly established law."
The rule, basically, is that the government can wantonly violate your rights and you can only sue if both a) the people violating your rights KNEW their actions were illegal, and b) the government has waived its sovereign immunity.
The Emperor has tutored many people in set theory and seen that exact error many times. You made the mistake because the idea of computing the union of sets of sets (as opposed to sets of "objects" (ur-elements)) is very non-intuitive, and requires a significant leap of abstract thinking.
It also contains an error: Peano defined 2 as { {}, {{}} } = {0,1}. 3 is 2 U {2} = { 2, 1, 0 }. Larger numbers are defined inductively as (n+1):= n U {n}.
You can tell it was supposed to be the Peano construction (and not something else) because the GP defined zero as the empty set and 2 as {0,1}. The error was to also define 2 as {{{}}}, which is clearly not equivalent to {0,1} (since the former set has cardinality 1 and the latter has cardinality 2).
This is an incredibly common mistake even for math undergrads and good evidence that set theory really isn't very intuitive. There's a reason New Math failed.
It used to be taught that environmental factors during an organism's lifetime (malnutrition, etc.) did not have an effect on the genetic heritage of offspring (you get a "clean slate" of DNA, so to speak). [...] But here we are with a study that says environmental factors can leave a genetic mark.
The study was about somatic cells, eg "body cells" that make up the specialized tissues of your body. Your offspring are formed from germ cells, found in your gonads, and consequently your offspring can only inherit DNA from your germ cells, but never your somatic cells (except in the case of cloning or other artificial techniques).
Telomeres are the "endcaps" of chromosomal DNA. Every time a chromosome is copied, a small portion at the ends of the chromosome get "left off" of the copy, which limits the number of time a cell can divide before the telomeres are consumed and functional DNA segments begin to be deleted. This (usually) prevents cells from reproducing in an uncontrolled fashion, and it's one of your body's main defenses against cancer. That's how it works in somatic cells.
Germ cells, on the other hand, can express a ribozyme called "telomerase," which can bind to the ends of a chromosome and extend the telomeres. This is why animals can reproduce indefinitely even though 99% of their cells are "mortal." (As others have pointed out, when a somatic cell begins to express telomerase it's usually cancer.)
The upshot of all of this is that shortened telomeres in your somatic cells will have no direct effect on your offspring. This particular study in no way supports the idea that environmental factors are responsible for genetic changes in offspring. Your post is therefore ill-informed even if your thesis is correct ("almost everything they teach in American public school is either wrong or simplified to the point of uselessness?").
To rectify your error, your homework assignment for tonight is to study the enzymes called "telomerase" and "reverse transcriptase," followed by learning the "central dogma of biology."
Would you pay someone to build a house and then not have it inspected? You inspect a building to make sure it meets a specification, and if sustainability is part of the specification, you should hire someone to make sure of that, as well.
There is also an (informal?) mandate for all future government buildings to be more environmentally friendly. LEED certification provides a standard of proof that this goal is being met. In some cases, there may even be funding grants or other incentives to "green" builders who can provide third-party validation. And of course, paying for LEED certification helps the LEED program itself continue, which is arguably in itself a worthy goal for the government and NASA.
NASA is for now, funded by my tax dollars, and this is how they want to use my money? Shame on them.
You don't even know how much the certification cost, or else you would have included it in your post. You're also probably not an expert on construction, commercial development, or NASA's building needs. And yet, from a position supported by no factual basis, you feel comfortable taking stabs at NASA. Shame on you and your ignorance.
He places the blame right where it belongs, on those corporations and government agencies that are too incompetent to design secure computer systems or hire those who can:
Mr. Henry, who is leaving government to take a cybersecurity job with an undisclosed firm in Washington, said companies need to make major changes in the way they use computer networks to avoid further damage to national security and the economy. Too many companies, from major multinationals to small start-ups, fail to recognize the financial and legal risks they are taking—or the costs they may have already suffered unknowingly—by operating vulnerable networks, he said.
You're right: Obama has maintained way too many Bush-era policies, he has expanded others, and the remainder he has not challenged vigorously enough.
But bigotry, incompetence, criminality and right-wing authoritarianism bordering on fascism are nothing new at the FBI. It was a problem before Obama, and it will probably continue to be a problem after Obama.
...is that you do not believe homophobes would undertake a ridiculous, ill-conceived, but technically-sound plan to identify and harass gays. The Emperor does not believe you have interacted with very many homophobes.
They don't carry flags saying "Baptist" or "Methodist", they simply converse.
No, but they work for organizations with names like "Lutheran World Relief" or "Baptist Global Response," and their logos invariably feature crosses or other religious insignia. And not only that, but they network together, so that all the Lutheran and Methodist and Baptist relief efforts are communicating and working together, but they don't extend nearly the same effort when interacting with secular groups, which leads to a lot of obviously Christian evangelical groups spending most of their time together. They don't make comparable efforts when working with secular groups, and will often work completely autonomously from them, sometimes with disastrous results.
The Emperor knows this firsthand, as an atheist who has helped coordinate fundraising and other efforts for Lutheran World Relief.
And from what I've seen, athiests (and especially antitheists) continually shout "there is no god!" from the rooftops.
Of course, the only atheists you "know" are the vocal ones - that's because you'd never, ever recognize a "stealth" atheist. Get off the Internet, try to meet some real atheists (you will probably fail, due to the nature of atheism), and stop spreading derogatory lies about entire groups of people. The vast majority of atheists and agnostics will not openly bring up their beliefs, perhaps not even if pressed on the subject, because non-believers are the most persecuted and unpopular group in America, largely because of the intentional ignorance spread by people like yourself and your pastor. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN HIGHLY RELIGIOUS DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, WHERE ATHEISM IS EVEN LESS TOLERATED THAN IT IS HERE. Openly identifying as an atheist is not only extremely improbable behavior for an atheist in any situation, but in a country that does not have a strong tradition of liberalism, it is actually dangerous.
(We have not decided to correct you because you have offended our fellow atheists; The Emperor defends the truth and integrity of all cultural groups, including religious groups whose faith we do not share. But we will not abide libels.)
He's no idiot, not by a long shot.
That is slimly possible, but "idiot" was the polite term for someone who spreads ignorance and libel about an entire group of people. "Bigot," "monster," and "evil" may have been more appropriate, although just "ignorant" probably suffices.
And BTW, Mr Dawkinsfollower, last Sunday MY preacher spoke of the work our church is doing in Kenya. "I saw a lot of Catholics, and Methodists, and Baptists, and even Muslims, but I didn't see s single athiest, agnostic, or secular humanist."
You'll find plenty of atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists doing aid work in Doctors Without Borders, the Peace Corps, Amnesty International and the like. Your preacher got confused because secular charity organizations don't operate in the "name of atheism," and also apparently because he is an idiot.
Not, "How can I write flawless code?," but, "What should I be reading?" The submitter showed no prior knowledge of exploits, so it seemed reasonable to provide him with a simple introduction to the kinds of exploits he may encounter and how they can be prevented.
Interestingly, the 2010 "OWASP top 10 vulnerabilities" have all existed for a decades - a competent developer flash-frozen in 1998 and thawed out today would be able to guard against all of those flaws. That's not good evidence for your position that the question "continually needs to be asked."
Slashdot Mirror
Some people would say that Proxima Centauri is "right next to" us,because it's only about four lightyears away. Presumably Martin was within four lightyears of his home, so that statement is true even if rather ambiguous.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
We will say it as many times as it takes to sink in.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
We will say this as many times as it takes to sink in.
You have repeatedly claimed that Rachel Jeantel testified that Martin returned home after the first encounter with Zimmerman, but you've provided no citation, transcript, source or quotation to back you up. Don't worry, though; the Emperor has done the research for you, and tracked your claim back to this tweet. The tweet, in turn, cites a blog post, but unfortunately the blog post doesn't corroborate the tweet.
Obviously numerous other sources have reported on Jeantel's testimony, and absolutely none of them make any mention of Martin returning home. The same can be said of the numerous timelines and maps that have been drawn about the shooting. Now, which of these two scenarios do you think is more likely: that a single Twitter user picked out a key piece of Rachel's testimony that was somehow missed by every credible news source, or that the single Twitter user was simply mistaken?
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
You misunderstood Rachel Jeantel's testimony as badly as you've misunderstood every other part of this case.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11. Literally no one who matters claims that he did. What nonsense and drivel have you been reading?
Martin didn't "decide to go back and dish out a beating on the 'cracker.'" He encountered Zimmerman while Zimmerman was in his car (possibly exchanging a few words at this point). At some time shortly thereafter, Martin ran away from Zimmerman, running back in the direction he came from.* This means that in order for Martin to continue home, he needed to turn around and return to where he first saw Zimmerman. A few minutes later, Zimmerman and Martin met each other a second time, leading to the fatal shooting.
You have absolutely no basis to declare that Martin returned with the intention of starting a fight, no explanation of why Martin would run away and *then* decide to ambush or attack Zimmerman, and absolutely no evidence (except Zimmerman's own word) that Martin was the one who started the altercation.
*This is a reasonable thing to do when being followed by a potentially dangerous stranger. If Martin had simply run towards his house, and Zimmerman followed him, Zimmerman would have discovered where Martin was staying, potentially putting Martin in danger. Zimmerman understood this as well, which is why he didn't give the 911 dispatcher his home address when he was asked.
Martin, instead of going into the house, decided to turn around, and run back to dish out a beating on the "cracker" in question.
See, that's the thing. That didn't happen. You are lying. Why are you lying?
It's gotten to the point where upstream governments have outlawed collecting, in rainbarrels, water that falls on your roof
It didn't "get to the point." Rather, there never even was a point where things worked differently.
It's gotten to the point where upstream governments have outlawed collecting, in rainbarrels, water that falls on your roof to water your garden, because it's "not your water". But it is Southern California's water, you see.
That's called "non-riparian water rights," and it goes back to before the western states were even founded. The basis for this system is Common Law legal precedent, not legislation (although most states have passed laws formally codifying their water rights systems... as of over a hundred years ago).
But don't let facts get in your way.
The Puritans (the ones who were "escaping persecution") only founded the New England colonies. They immediately set up their own theocratic governments and began their own vicious persecution, most famously the Salem Witch Trials. Religious persecution caused BY the Puritans was one of the main reasons for the Religious Test clause of the Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The Continental Congress, the Revolution, and the eventual establishment of the Constitution was a completely different event than the Puritans founding a colony and happened around a hundred years after. Historically speaking, this is about as big a miss as confusing the Revolution and the Civil War.
In the ancient Chinese nation of Chu, during the reign of King Li, a man named Bian He discovered an incomparable piece of jade encased in a stone. When he presented the stone to King Li, the king did not believe it actually contained a piece of jade and ordered that Bian He have one of his legs cut off. When King Li died, and King Wu succeeded him, Bian He again presented the jade to the royal court; he was disbelieved a second time, and the King ordered his other leg cut off. When King Wu died, he was succeeded by King Wen; it was King Wen who finally believed Bian He and ordered that the stone be cut. Ultimately the stone was fashioned into a great jade disc, called the "jade disc of He" to honor its discoverer.
The jade was later stolen from Chu and sold to the state of Zhao. The King of Qin offered fifteen cities for the jade, giving rise to the Chinese idiom, "valued at multiple cities." Eventually the jade was surrendered to King Shi Huang of Qin, who became the first Emperor of China. Qin Shi Huang ordered the jade be cut down to create his imperial seal. The seal was lost about 1300 years later, but a thousand more years of imperial rule still followed.
The moral is that a) human beings with money make really stupid decisions b) even if you make a great discovery and serve loyally the king might still chop off your fucking legs.
A good analogy for this case would be Safford Unified School District v. Savanna Redding, when a 13-year-old girl was strip-searched after another student accused her of possessing prescription-strength Advil. The SCOTUS ruled the search was unconstitutional, yet still held the school officials had no liability because they did not violate "clearly established law."
The rule, basically, is that the government can wantonly violate your rights and you can only sue if both a) the people violating your rights KNEW their actions were illegal, and b) the government has waived its sovereign immunity.
The Emperor has tutored many people in set theory and seen that exact error many times. You made the mistake because the idea of computing the union of sets of sets (as opposed to sets of "objects" (ur-elements)) is very non-intuitive, and requires a significant leap of abstract thinking.
It also contains an error: Peano defined 2 as { {}, {{}} } = {0,1}. 3 is 2 U {2} = { 2, 1, 0 }. Larger numbers are defined inductively as (n+1) := n U {n}.
You can tell it was supposed to be the Peano construction (and not something else) because the GP defined zero as the empty set and 2 as {0,1}. The error was to also define 2 as {{{}}}, which is clearly not equivalent to {0,1} (since the former set has cardinality 1 and the latter has cardinality 2).
This is an incredibly common mistake even for math undergrads and good evidence that set theory really isn't very intuitive. There's a reason New Math failed.
It is not illegal to feed cow parts to chickens and then feed the chicken parts back to cows.
We did not anticipate such a reasonable and eager reaction, but We appreciate it anyway.
The Emperor accepts your praise with humility.
Also, small correction, telomerase is apparently a ribonuceloprotein, not a ribozyme - it contains both RNA and a regular protein.
It used to be taught that environmental factors during an organism's lifetime (malnutrition, etc.) did not have an effect on the genetic heritage of offspring (you get a "clean slate" of DNA, so to speak). [...] But here we are with a study that says environmental factors can leave a genetic mark.
The study was about somatic cells, eg "body cells" that make up the specialized tissues of your body. Your offspring are formed from germ cells, found in your gonads, and consequently your offspring can only inherit DNA from your germ cells, but never your somatic cells (except in the case of cloning or other artificial techniques).
Telomeres are the "endcaps" of chromosomal DNA. Every time a chromosome is copied, a small portion at the ends of the chromosome get "left off" of the copy, which limits the number of time a cell can divide before the telomeres are consumed and functional DNA segments begin to be deleted. This (usually) prevents cells from reproducing in an uncontrolled fashion, and it's one of your body's main defenses against cancer. That's how it works in somatic cells.
Germ cells, on the other hand, can express a ribozyme called "telomerase," which can bind to the ends of a chromosome and extend the telomeres. This is why animals can reproduce indefinitely even though 99% of their cells are "mortal." (As others have pointed out, when a somatic cell begins to express telomerase it's usually cancer.)
The upshot of all of this is that shortened telomeres in your somatic cells will have no direct effect on your offspring. This particular study in no way supports the idea that environmental factors are responsible for genetic changes in offspring. Your post is therefore ill-informed even if your thesis is correct ("almost everything they teach in American public school is either wrong or simplified to the point of uselessness?").
To rectify your error, your homework assignment for tonight is to study the enzymes called "telomerase" and "reverse transcriptase," followed by learning the "central dogma of biology."
Dismissed.
There is also an (informal?) mandate for all future government buildings to be more environmentally friendly. LEED certification provides a standard of proof that this goal is being met. In some cases, there may even be funding grants or other incentives to "green" builders who can provide third-party validation. And of course, paying for LEED certification helps the LEED program itself continue, which is arguably in itself a worthy goal for the government and NASA.
NASA is for now, funded by my tax dollars, and this is how they want to use my money? Shame on them.
You don't even know how much the certification cost, or else you would have included it in your post. You're also probably not an expert on construction, commercial development, or NASA's building needs. And yet, from a position supported by no factual basis, you feel comfortable taking stabs at NASA. Shame on you and your ignorance.
Mr. Henry, who is leaving government to take a cybersecurity job with an undisclosed firm in Washington, said companies need to make major changes in the way they use computer networks to avoid further damage to national security and the economy. Too many companies, from major multinationals to small start-ups, fail to recognize the financial and legal risks they are taking—or the costs they may have already suffered unknowingly—by operating vulnerable networks, he said.
You're right: Obama has maintained way too many Bush-era policies, he has expanded others, and the remainder he has not challenged vigorously enough.
But bigotry, incompetence, criminality and right-wing authoritarianism bordering on fascism are nothing new at the FBI. It was a problem before Obama, and it will probably continue to be a problem after Obama.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. He IS their boss and that IS separation of powers.
The article makes no mention of when the training manuals were in effect. The comment in question, that the FBI could "bend or suspend the law," came from Robert Mueller, who was appointed by President Bush on September 4, 2001. The most recently-reported race-related scandal at the FBI (prior to this one) also took place during the Bush administration. Both scandals were revealed by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who has been investigating misconduct at the FBI for the past few years.
How on Earth did you connect this to Obama?
...is that you do not believe homophobes would undertake a ridiculous, ill-conceived, but technically-sound plan to identify and harass gays. The Emperor does not believe you have interacted with very many homophobes.
They don't carry flags saying "Baptist" or "Methodist", they simply converse.
No, but they work for organizations with names like "Lutheran World Relief" or "Baptist Global Response," and their logos invariably feature crosses or other religious insignia. And not only that, but they network together, so that all the Lutheran and Methodist and Baptist relief efforts are communicating and working together, but they don't extend nearly the same effort when interacting with secular groups, which leads to a lot of obviously Christian evangelical groups spending most of their time together. They don't make comparable efforts when working with secular groups, and will often work completely autonomously from them, sometimes with disastrous results.
The Emperor knows this firsthand, as an atheist who has helped coordinate fundraising and other efforts for Lutheran World Relief.
And from what I've seen, athiests (and especially antitheists) continually shout "there is no god!" from the rooftops.
Of course, the only atheists you "know" are the vocal ones - that's because you'd never, ever recognize a "stealth" atheist. Get off the Internet, try to meet some real atheists (you will probably fail, due to the nature of atheism), and stop spreading derogatory lies about entire groups of people. The vast majority of atheists and agnostics will not openly bring up their beliefs, perhaps not even if pressed on the subject, because non-believers are the most persecuted and unpopular group in America, largely because of the intentional ignorance spread by people like yourself and your pastor. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN HIGHLY RELIGIOUS DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, WHERE ATHEISM IS EVEN LESS TOLERATED THAN IT IS HERE. Openly identifying as an atheist is not only extremely improbable behavior for an atheist in any situation, but in a country that does not have a strong tradition of liberalism, it is actually dangerous.
(We have not decided to correct you because you have offended our fellow atheists; The Emperor defends the truth and integrity of all cultural groups, including religious groups whose faith we do not share. But we will not abide libels.)
He's no idiot, not by a long shot.
That is slimly possible, but "idiot" was the polite term for someone who spreads ignorance and libel about an entire group of people. "Bigot," "monster," and "evil" may have been more appropriate, although just "ignorant" probably suffices.
And BTW, Mr Dawkinsfollower, last Sunday MY preacher spoke of the work our church is doing in Kenya. "I saw a lot of Catholics, and Methodists, and Baptists, and even Muslims, but I didn't see s single athiest, agnostic, or secular humanist."
You'll find plenty of atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists doing aid work in Doctors Without Borders, the Peace Corps, Amnesty International and the like. Your preacher got confused because secular charity organizations don't operate in the "name of atheism," and also apparently because he is an idiot.
Not, "How can I write flawless code?," but, "What should I be reading?" The submitter showed no prior knowledge of exploits, so it seemed reasonable to provide him with a simple introduction to the kinds of exploits he may encounter and how they can be prevented.
Interestingly, the 2010 "OWASP top 10 vulnerabilities" have all existed for a decades - a competent developer flash-frozen in 1998 and thawed out today would be able to guard against all of those flaws. That's not good evidence for your position that the question "continually needs to be asked."