I'm not sure what that means, "why doesn't even a single media only talk about official conspiracy theories?"
There usually are official investigations. We have official investigations of Roswell, WTC, JFK... but of course the official investigation's findings aren't convincing to conspiracy theorists -- that's why they're conspiracy theorists.
Yes, you're right, holocaust deniers, intelligent design proponents, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists all feel like they've been denied the right to debate their theories.
The thing is, they're lying to themselves. They have lots of debates. I've heard 9/11 conspiracy theories deconstructed and made out to be bullshit lots and lots of times. Holocaust deniers do have conventions (like the one in Iran last year). Intelligent design, which should be laughed out of any adult conversation, has managed to actually be taught in schools and considered in courts of law. All of these people already get way, way, way, way, way more attention than their theories deserve.
These people say the opposite of the truth, not only when spouting their absurd theories, but when explaining why other people won't listen to them. "Oh, they're just sheep, led astray by a huge conspiracy." No, actually, you're a petty fool with a reality deficit. We don't ignore you because we are dummies, we ignore you because we have better judgment than you do and can see thru what you say.
So, the implication is that a big conspiracy set up charges to bring down the towers and that this conspiracy is good enough to never be uncovered, but not good enough to make it look unlike a professional demolition?
Also, I was watching it. The only thing that made it look like a professional demo is that the building fell downward. Professional demos have a bunch of blasts in a visible pattern to take out the major supports; the Twin Towers didn't have any of that, it merely fell in the direction of gravity, which doesn't much surprise me.
Don't leave us hanging, tell us who the company was!
I consolidated with Nelnet. Their achilles heel was their terrible website, but they recently got a new, very good website. Overall, I have been satisfied.
Right. And that's a cute theory, but it doesn't have the virtue of comporting with reality. My story was exactly a counterexample to your theory: my employer underpaid me, and I had to demonstrate it before my employer changed my wage. The invisible hand of the market did work, but it wasn't magic, and it wasn't some tacit understanding of the local employment pool, it was my explicit action which brought about the pay change.
Your theory is true generally, at a course-grain level. Indeed, my employer wasn't trying to pay me minimum wage or anything like that. And a grocery store isn't going to charge ten times the amount for the same item. But my employer was underpaying me by thirty percent, and one grocery store might charge thirty percent more than the other one. They can do that exactly because of the central weakness in your theory: perfect information. Shoppers (employees) don't have perfect information; they don't seek it; thus, stores (employers) don't have to have exactly the right price (wage).
At the heart, that is why free-market theory is flawed: it assumes perfect information and perfect competition; but there is no such thing as perfect information or perfect competition, only approximations of those things. Which is why the market sort of looks like it acts similar to free-market theory predicts, but not quite.
It would be less crazy if it comported with reality. Since it doesn't, yes, it's crazy. (But, not much crazier than any other ideology that ignores reality.)
You are mostly right but let me rephrase it: an employee is paid exactly as much as they can and do demand.
Last year I was making a certain amount because I could not demand more from my employer. I went out and got a job offer making +30%. When I got that offer, I knew I'd soon be making that higher amount, regardless of who was paying me. I took my offer to my employer who immediately matched it (slightly exceeded it).
Was I worth more on Tuesday than I was on Monday? No, I figure that I was "worth" the same, but I successfully demanded more on Tuesday, so I got it.
Wow, that's an especially odd coincidence considering the movie.
I had a similarly odd thing happen while watching Powder: in the middle of the movie, for no reason, the lamp in the room I was in slowly dimmed to nothing, then slowly came back to full strength, over a period of ten or fifteen seconds. (That is weird because Powder is a movie about a guy who causes weird things to happen to electricity.)
"One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape, however, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere."
As a fellow Alaskan, and newly-registered Democrat, I will bet you real dollars that the scenario you described doesn't happen. Alaskans would sooner vote for Kim Il Sung than for a Democrat. Weren't you in the state for Lisa Murkowski's election? I'm just sayin'.
It wasn't a bridge to nowhere, it was a bridge to an airport......an extremely overpriced and under-needed bridge to an airport. The locals did need improved access to their airport, and federal dollars improve airports all over the nation every day, but in this case they would have been fine with an improved vehicle ferry.
Also, the bridge did get approved, before it was recalled.
You are obviously highly informed about this issue.
Nah, he wasn't at all one of the 'most corrupt out there'. Ted actually has a reputation for being very careful about violating ethics rules. My interpretation is that, after so many years in the Senate, he got lax and went over the line. (He's been my senator for my entire lifetime and this is the first time he's gotten into hot water.)
However, it is totally clear that he is woefully ignorant about the internet.
The bridge was not to nowhere, it linked the town's population to the town's airport. Also, there were a few people living on the island, and more people would move to the island if there were a bridge to it. (I know this, and more, because I live in that region of Alaska.)
Still, it wasn't worth nearly as much as it was going to cost, so it was right and proper to kill the project (and would be right and proper to kill a zillion other similarly not-worth-the-cost federal projects).
But, to be clear, "bridge to nowhere" is a marketing term, and like most marketing terms, describes exactly the opposite of reality.
For what it's wroth, Uncle Ted has a longstanding reputation for two things: first, he is amazingly effective at getting federal funds for projects in my state; second, he is very careful to keep his ethical nose clean. But, it seems like after so long in the Senate, he may have messed up and crossed the line; if so, we'll have Senator Begich.
Slashdot Mirror
All of those people think there is a hidden truth that only they can see, and everyone else is just blind to what they themselves see so clearly.
But -- they're wrong. That's their shared characteristic: an unrealistic belief that they have higher knowledge than everyone else.
It's hubris, mainly, or conceit. It's not surprising -- most humans are like that.
No, you're wrong, foolio.
I'm not sure what that means, "why doesn't even a single media only talk about official conspiracy theories?"
There usually are official investigations. We have official investigations of Roswell, WTC, JFK... but of course the official investigation's findings aren't convincing to conspiracy theorists -- that's why they're conspiracy theorists.
Yes, you're right, holocaust deniers, intelligent design proponents, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists all feel like they've been denied the right to debate their theories.
The thing is, they're lying to themselves. They have lots of debates. I've heard 9/11 conspiracy theories deconstructed and made out to be bullshit lots and lots of times. Holocaust deniers do have conventions (like the one in Iran last year). Intelligent design, which should be laughed out of any adult conversation, has managed to actually be taught in schools and considered in courts of law. All of these people already get way, way, way, way, way more attention than their theories deserve.
These people say the opposite of the truth, not only when spouting their absurd theories, but when explaining why other people won't listen to them. "Oh, they're just sheep, led astray by a huge conspiracy." No, actually, you're a petty fool with a reality deficit. We don't ignore you because we are dummies, we ignore you because we have better judgment than you do and can see thru what you say.
So, the implication is that a big conspiracy set up charges to bring down the towers and that this conspiracy is good enough to never be uncovered, but not good enough to make it look unlike a professional demolition?
Also, I was watching it. The only thing that made it look like a professional demo is that the building fell downward. Professional demos have a bunch of blasts in a visible pattern to take out the major supports; the Twin Towers didn't have any of that, it merely fell in the direction of gravity, which doesn't much surprise me.
The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center?
Yes. Next question.
You thought correctly. Sushi can be served with fish, or with other things; and the fish or other things can be cooked or raw.
Raw fish is a popular form of sushi, so the mistake can be excused as synecdoche.
Did you say "in dangered"?
That's hilarious. I've never seen that mistake before.
I think he meant "Than now what..."
Don't leave us hanging, tell us who the company was!
I consolidated with Nelnet. Their achilles heel was their terrible website, but they recently got a new, very good website. Overall, I have been satisfied.
Right. And that's a cute theory, but it doesn't have the virtue of comporting with reality. My story was exactly a counterexample to your theory: my employer underpaid me, and I had to demonstrate it before my employer changed my wage. The invisible hand of the market did work, but it wasn't magic, and it wasn't some tacit understanding of the local employment pool, it was my explicit action which brought about the pay change.
Your theory is true generally, at a course-grain level. Indeed, my employer wasn't trying to pay me minimum wage or anything like that. And a grocery store isn't going to charge ten times the amount for the same item. But my employer was underpaying me by thirty percent, and one grocery store might charge thirty percent more than the other one. They can do that exactly because of the central weakness in your theory: perfect information. Shoppers (employees) don't have perfect information; they don't seek it; thus, stores (employers) don't have to have exactly the right price (wage).
At the heart, that is why free-market theory is flawed: it assumes perfect information and perfect competition; but there is no such thing as perfect information or perfect competition, only approximations of those things. Which is why the market sort of looks like it acts similar to free-market theory predicts, but not quite.
Actually, it should be "What *we* tech workers need to know about overtime." Also, most of the stories on the site are geared toward us nerdy readers.
Oh, wait, I misunderstood you.
It would be less crazy if it comported with reality. Since it doesn't, yes, it's crazy. (But, not much crazier than any other ideology that ignores reality.)
You are mostly right but let me rephrase it: an employee is paid exactly as much as they can and do demand.
Last year I was making a certain amount because I could not demand more from my employer. I went out and got a job offer making +30%. When I got that offer, I knew I'd soon be making that higher amount, regardless of who was paying me. I took my offer to my employer who immediately matched it (slightly exceeded it).
Was I worth more on Tuesday than I was on Monday? No, I figure that I was "worth" the same, but I successfully demanded more on Tuesday, so I got it.
Wow, that's an especially odd coincidence considering the movie.
I had a similarly odd thing happen while watching Powder: in the middle of the movie, for no reason, the lamp in the room I was in slowly dimmed to nothing, then slowly came back to full strength, over a period of ten or fifteen seconds. (That is weird because Powder is a movie about a guy who causes weird things to happen to electricity.)
"One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape, however, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere."
http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae535.cfm
Citation needed.
Anger at failures of the open market is typically a conservative issue.
(I know, I know, don't feed the trolls... still, this troll isn't even trolling right.)
As a fellow Alaskan, and newly-registered Democrat, I will bet you real dollars that the scenario you described doesn't happen. Alaskans would sooner vote for Kim Il Sung than for a Democrat. Weren't you in the state for Lisa Murkowski's election? I'm just sayin'.
It wasn't a bridge to nowhere, it was a bridge to an airport... ...an extremely overpriced and under-needed bridge to an airport. The locals did need improved access to their airport, and federal dollars improve airports all over the nation every day, but in this case they would have been fine with an improved vehicle ferry.
Also, the bridge did get approved, before it was recalled.
You are obviously highly informed about this issue.
Term limits also preclude good, capable, caring, sincere politicians from keeping a job that the voters want them to keep.
Nah, he wasn't at all one of the 'most corrupt out there'. Ted actually has a reputation for being very careful about violating ethics rules. My interpretation is that, after so many years in the Senate, he got lax and went over the line. (He's been my senator for my entire lifetime and this is the first time he's gotten into hot water.)
However, it is totally clear that he is woefully ignorant about the internet.
The bridge was not to nowhere, it linked the town's population to the town's airport. Also, there were a few people living on the island, and more people would move to the island if there were a bridge to it. (I know this, and more, because I live in that region of Alaska.)
Still, it wasn't worth nearly as much as it was going to cost, so it was right and proper to kill the project (and would be right and proper to kill a zillion other similarly not-worth-the-cost federal projects).
But, to be clear, "bridge to nowhere" is a marketing term, and like most marketing terms, describes exactly the opposite of reality.
For what it's wroth, Uncle Ted has a longstanding reputation for two things: first, he is amazingly effective at getting federal funds for projects in my state; second, he is very careful to keep his ethical nose clean. But, it seems like after so long in the Senate, he may have messed up and crossed the line; if so, we'll have Senator Begich.
He went nuts; he literally went crazy. He did not literally go nuts; he figuratively went nuts.
What does it mean to "literally go nuts"?