As you were careful not to say that you yourself don't accept scientific dating methods, I was careful not to accuse you of being one of those people. My point was directed only at people who reject good science based on solid evidence and reasonable logic.
You got a -1 Troll for your comment, which might be unfair, as perhaps you meant for it to get a +1 Funny. If so, that's a shame, bad mods based on misunderstandings are common.
The peanut-butter-jar argument is actually about a trillion times stupider than even you blame it for. That idiot apparently think that "life" in its simplest form means germs, bacteria, single-cell organisms; and that fallacy belies his incredible ignorance (or intentional misinformation) of evolution. Evolution didn't go from amino acids to bacteria, it went through a bazillion steps in between. What we now know of as a single cell is certainly a conglomeration of different bits and pieces of self-replicating molecules which eventually came together to form cells after a very long period of evolution.
If "life arose in a jar of peanut butter", it would be in the form of a single amino acid capable of self-replication. Thus, it would have zero chance of causing any harm to any person or other living creature. Thus, nothing that guy says in that video makes any sense, is utter hogwash, and would be laughably dismissible if it weren't taken seriously by, apparently, a great number of people.
Anyone who has not seen this video should certainly look it up so that they can see first hand the inanity of anti-evolution arguments.
Accurate smakurate! What we really need is a dating method that won't be rejected by anti-science types. Unfortunately, we all know that is impossible, because their objections are ideological, not scientific. So, we are left with only one option, which is to ignore the anti-science types.
I'm confused. They can't accuse you of literally walking out with the data, but they can, may, and probably should accuse you of figuratively walking out with the data.
It would be SO EASY for FM radio to become relevant again: SUCK LESS. A lot less. A HELL of a lot less. Radio is cheap, available, and efficient. People would happily tune in if it didn't insult their intelligence and force crappy music on them.
Huh. Did you buy your phone to hold your contacts? That's a new feature. Did you buy your phone to tell you your recently missed calls? That's a new feature. Did you buy your cell phone to show you the number as you type it? That's a new feature. Did you buy your cell phone to send text messages? New. To tell you the time of day? New.
Don't act like you're all old school and minimalist. I bet you use and enjoy many of the innovative new features of cell phones. Some you like, some you don't, and that's fine, but it's not in any way superior to eschew a new feature.
As for FM radio -- fuck it. I only need FM radio to listen to FM radio stations, and who the hell would ever want to listen to any of the shit played on radio? Quite contrary to you, I desperately want my phone to play MP3s, but I'm stuck using a separate iPod.
Me neither. It's not at all a troll. It's rather quite the opposite. Anyway I hope a person who knows the law a little better than I can explain why I'm mistaken, because it's clear that my understanding of the law in this case is incomplete.
Is it illegal for an ISP to arbitrarily block content? I thought that was exactly the nature of this debate. We wouldn't be talking about ISPs arbitrarily blocking content if ISPs weren't allowed to arbitrarily block content.
As to your second and third sentences, I think the structure of cable television plans is sufficient counterexample to show how wrong that is. Also, it just doesn't make sense. If I want the Playboy channel, I pay extra for it. Why wouldn't an ISP charge me extra to view Wikipedia?
This is all exactly why we should have net neutrality written into the law.
I don't understand why common carrier status is not fundamental to this debate. The way I understand it, common carrier status means that a company provides a transportation service to the public and is shielded from liability for the actions of their customers because of the dual facts that the service is essential to modern life and that the company is technically unable to adequately control that customer behavior. That's why airlines aren't liable when terrorists use their planes to destroy skyscrapers.
If major telecoms specifically want to "shape" internet traffic, they are explicitly acknowledging that they are capable and willing (and eager!) to control the actions of their customers. If that is the case, then it becomes legally incumbent upon them to do what they can to stop illegal behavior. What I'm talking about is filesharing: if telecoms are capable of stopping illegal filesharing, then they are legally required to do so, since common carrier status no longer applies to them.
The problem with that reasoning is that it would open the telecoms to gigantic liability, presumably much larger than the extra money they might squeeze out of, say, Google, to make its packets travel faster. And also presumably, the telecoms are run by crafty people with competent lawyers who have thought all this through, and know what they are talking about much better than I do. So, I know my legal reasoning must be wrong, but I don't know where.
Hi again. I was just reading a news story that mentioned how the Emancipation Proclamation "effectively ended slavery". Not that this will settle an argument over the semantics of the word "ended", but here it is.
I am totally flabbergasted at the apparent popularity of double spaces. Seriously. I thought everyone who learned to type after the invention of the Apple ][ learned to use one space, and I'm surprised to hear otherwise. I'm also shocked that the double space remains popular among people that learned to type on typewriters, considering almost everyone reads text exclusively in single-space format: either on the web, magazine, newspaper, or book, all of which are 100% single spaced. Anyone who claims it is easier to read with double spaces is not being truthful, because it's difficult to believe that they encounter more than a tiny sliver of double-spaced text in their daily lives.
Obviously, this is a personal preference with very little importance to it. People can, should, and will type however they damn well please. Nevertheless, having come myself to a conclusion which I think is straightforward and unassailable, it's eye opening to see so many posts from people with strong preferences for extra spaces.
I happily agree with what you said, and even how you said it. Try as I might, I can't understand the arguments for double spaces. All the arguments are hokum.
I am 30, and when I was taught to type in 7th grade we were told explicitly: "Your parents learned to type on typewriters and will tell you to use two spaces between sentences. You will learn to type on a computer, and will use computers for typing for the rest of your lives. On computers, and in modern language, use only one space between sentences."
Now, my typing teacher isn't exactly the end-all opinion on spacing, but her opinion concurs with the larger world, where computers typically remove extra spaces; and with professional typesetters at newspapers, magazines, and books, which all use single spacing. Thus, I appeal to the authority of the professionals, with my anecdote about my own typing teacher.
To me, it sounds like your teachers were about 50 to 60 years old, near the end of their teaching careers, and had not updated their knowledge since they themselves learned to type. Yes, in the distant past, with one writing technology, humanity briefly flirted with the disastrous notion of double spacing.
This has nothing to do with laziness. If it makes a person feel morally superior to type extra spaces, then I suggest that person get some perspective, and a life, in that order.
I can see you are a professional typesetter. No, wait, I can see you aren't. First of all, this isn't quite a settled question for the reason that there are still living people who learned to type on typewriters (such as you, I suspect). Second of all, standard typography has evolved TO one space, FROM two spaces, not the other way around. I base this on modern language guides, and I can't think of any other way to determine what language has evolved toward. Third of all, there IS significant new information that implies this convention should change, and that is the invention of the computer. Fourth of all, people like one space instead of two because it looks better, is more standard, and is easier to read, not because they are lazy. Fifth and finally, a point we agree on, is that I concur that laziness should not drive language evolution; but of course I recognize that it does, though not in this case.
First, yes, I agree, of course the internet "comes from" both government and private industry.
But also, clearly, the government "created" the Internet; and that is evidenced by the government "opening the door [of the Internet] to private industry".
Yes. It's also close to the opposite of Argument From Authority: well, it isn't true if you can't hang it on a trusted authority. Call it the "Argument To Authority".
That would be dangerous, though, because we'd have all sorts of woo-woo weirdos saying that their theories are true even though no scientist would ever agree with them. But, we have that today anyway.
That's exactly what I did. I stated plainly my opposition to his incorrect statements. Have you changed your mind and decided that I argued in your preferred style?
You can argue semantics if you want, on what statement or action had exactly what effect, but it's called "The Emancipation Proclamation" and it is remembered as the dawning moment of the end of slavery. I think it's unfair to say it didn't free the slaves. Another person could disagree with you and say that the constitutional amendment or forthcoming laws didn't free the slaves either, but rather the individual slave owners freed the slaves when they let the slaves leave their land. Others could draw the line somewhere else.
So I disagree. What he said is not true, and what I quoted is sufficient to show it.
Fair enough. Still, the cops can't just come into my house for no reason looking for cocaine; but they can and do x-ray my shipments for no reason looking for cocaine. But yes, you are principally correct and I don't disagree. Be well.
Slashdot Mirror
As you were careful not to say that you yourself don't accept scientific dating methods, I was careful not to accuse you of being one of those people. My point was directed only at people who reject good science based on solid evidence and reasonable logic.
You got a -1 Troll for your comment, which might be unfair, as perhaps you meant for it to get a +1 Funny. If so, that's a shame, bad mods based on misunderstandings are common.
The peanut-butter-jar argument is actually about a trillion times stupider than even you blame it for. That idiot apparently think that "life" in its simplest form means germs, bacteria, single-cell organisms; and that fallacy belies his incredible ignorance (or intentional misinformation) of evolution. Evolution didn't go from amino acids to bacteria, it went through a bazillion steps in between. What we now know of as a single cell is certainly a conglomeration of different bits and pieces of self-replicating molecules which eventually came together to form cells after a very long period of evolution.
If "life arose in a jar of peanut butter", it would be in the form of a single amino acid capable of self-replication. Thus, it would have zero chance of causing any harm to any person or other living creature. Thus, nothing that guy says in that video makes any sense, is utter hogwash, and would be laughably dismissible if it weren't taken seriously by, apparently, a great number of people.
Anyone who has not seen this video should certainly look it up so that they can see first hand the inanity of anti-evolution arguments.
When and if we find life elsewhere, than we can make conjecture
Wow! The rare reverse-then-than typo! Seldomly seen in the wild, today we are witness to a rare treat.
Typoos are a bitch, aren't they?
Indeed. And I'm just chiding you in good fun, by the way, I mean no offense.
Accurate smakurate! What we really need is a dating method that won't be rejected by anti-science types. Unfortunately, we all know that is impossible, because their objections are ideological, not scientific. So, we are left with only one option, which is to ignore the anti-science types.
You're not talking out of your ass, and yet someone modded you troll instead of informative. Welcome to Slashdot.
he stole a company-logo'd coffee mug and gave it to me
Well, I bet that made you feel a lot better.
I'm confused. They can't accuse you of literally walking out with the data, but they can, may, and probably should accuse you of figuratively walking out with the data.
Shit, that is all so true.
It would be SO EASY for FM radio to become relevant again: SUCK LESS. A lot less. A HELL of a lot less. Radio is cheap, available, and efficient. People would happily tune in if it didn't insult their intelligence and force crappy music on them.
Huh. Did you buy your phone to hold your contacts? That's a new feature. Did you buy your phone to tell you your recently missed calls? That's a new feature. Did you buy your cell phone to show you the number as you type it? That's a new feature. Did you buy your cell phone to send text messages? New. To tell you the time of day? New.
Don't act like you're all old school and minimalist. I bet you use and enjoy many of the innovative new features of cell phones. Some you like, some you don't, and that's fine, but it's not in any way superior to eschew a new feature.
As for FM radio -- fuck it. I only need FM radio to listen to FM radio stations, and who the hell would ever want to listen to any of the shit played on radio? Quite contrary to you, I desperately want my phone to play MP3s, but I'm stuck using a separate iPod.
Me neither. It's not at all a troll. It's rather quite the opposite. Anyway I hope a person who knows the law a little better than I can explain why I'm mistaken, because it's clear that my understanding of the law in this case is incomplete.
Is it illegal for an ISP to arbitrarily block content? I thought that was exactly the nature of this debate. We wouldn't be talking about ISPs arbitrarily blocking content if ISPs weren't allowed to arbitrarily block content.
As to your second and third sentences, I think the structure of cable television plans is sufficient counterexample to show how wrong that is. Also, it just doesn't make sense. If I want the Playboy channel, I pay extra for it. Why wouldn't an ISP charge me extra to view Wikipedia?
This is all exactly why we should have net neutrality written into the law.
I don't understand why common carrier status is not fundamental to this debate. The way I understand it, common carrier status means that a company provides a transportation service to the public and is shielded from liability for the actions of their customers because of the dual facts that the service is essential to modern life and that the company is technically unable to adequately control that customer behavior. That's why airlines aren't liable when terrorists use their planes to destroy skyscrapers.
If major telecoms specifically want to "shape" internet traffic, they are explicitly acknowledging that they are capable and willing (and eager!) to control the actions of their customers. If that is the case, then it becomes legally incumbent upon them to do what they can to stop illegal behavior. What I'm talking about is filesharing: if telecoms are capable of stopping illegal filesharing, then they are legally required to do so, since common carrier status no longer applies to them.
The problem with that reasoning is that it would open the telecoms to gigantic liability, presumably much larger than the extra money they might squeeze out of, say, Google, to make its packets travel faster. And also presumably, the telecoms are run by crafty people with competent lawyers who have thought all this through, and know what they are talking about much better than I do. So, I know my legal reasoning must be wrong, but I don't know where.
Hi again. I was just reading a news story that mentioned how the Emancipation Proclamation "effectively ended slavery". Not that this will settle an argument over the semantics of the word "ended", but here it is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/black-tea-party-leaders-a_n_670560.html
I am totally flabbergasted at the apparent popularity of double spaces. Seriously. I thought everyone who learned to type after the invention of the Apple ][ learned to use one space, and I'm surprised to hear otherwise. I'm also shocked that the double space remains popular among people that learned to type on typewriters, considering almost everyone reads text exclusively in single-space format: either on the web, magazine, newspaper, or book, all of which are 100% single spaced. Anyone who claims it is easier to read with double spaces is not being truthful, because it's difficult to believe that they encounter more than a tiny sliver of double-spaced text in their daily lives.
Obviously, this is a personal preference with very little importance to it. People can, should, and will type however they damn well please. Nevertheless, having come myself to a conclusion which I think is straightforward and unassailable, it's eye opening to see so many posts from people with strong preferences for extra spaces.
+5 Insightful Flamebait Troll
I happily agree with what you said, and even how you said it. Try as I might, I can't understand the arguments for double spaces. All the arguments are hokum.
That, and how to smoke weed out of an apple.
I am 30, and when I was taught to type in 7th grade we were told explicitly: "Your parents learned to type on typewriters and will tell you to use two spaces between sentences. You will learn to type on a computer, and will use computers for typing for the rest of your lives. On computers, and in modern language, use only one space between sentences."
Now, my typing teacher isn't exactly the end-all opinion on spacing, but her opinion concurs with the larger world, where computers typically remove extra spaces; and with professional typesetters at newspapers, magazines, and books, which all use single spacing. Thus, I appeal to the authority of the professionals, with my anecdote about my own typing teacher.
To me, it sounds like your teachers were about 50 to 60 years old, near the end of their teaching careers, and had not updated their knowledge since they themselves learned to type. Yes, in the distant past, with one writing technology, humanity briefly flirted with the disastrous notion of double spacing.
This has nothing to do with laziness. If it makes a person feel morally superior to type extra spaces, then I suggest that person get some perspective, and a life, in that order.
I can see you are a professional typesetter. No, wait, I can see you aren't. First of all, this isn't quite a settled question for the reason that there are still living people who learned to type on typewriters (such as you, I suspect). Second of all, standard typography has evolved TO one space, FROM two spaces, not the other way around. I base this on modern language guides, and I can't think of any other way to determine what language has evolved toward. Third of all, there IS significant new information that implies this convention should change, and that is the invention of the computer. Fourth of all, people like one space instead of two because it looks better, is more standard, and is easier to read, not because they are lazy. Fifth and finally, a point we agree on, is that I concur that laziness should not drive language evolution; but of course I recognize that it does, though not in this case.
First, yes, I agree, of course the internet "comes from" both government and private industry.
But also, clearly, the government "created" the Internet; and that is evidenced by the government "opening the door [of the Internet] to private industry".
That's how I see it, anyway.
Yes. It's also close to the opposite of Argument From Authority: well, it isn't true if you can't hang it on a trusted authority. Call it the "Argument To Authority".
That would be dangerous, though, because we'd have all sorts of woo-woo weirdos saying that their theories are true even though no scientist would ever agree with them. But, we have that today anyway.
So, both extremes are impossible.
That's exactly what I did. I stated plainly my opposition to his incorrect statements. Have you changed your mind and decided that I argued in your preferred style?
You can argue semantics if you want, on what statement or action had exactly what effect, but it's called "The Emancipation Proclamation" and it is remembered as the dawning moment of the end of slavery. I think it's unfair to say it didn't free the slaves. Another person could disagree with you and say that the constitutional amendment or forthcoming laws didn't free the slaves either, but rather the individual slave owners freed the slaves when they let the slaves leave their land. Others could draw the line somewhere else.
So I disagree. What he said is not true, and what I quoted is sufficient to show it.
Yes! Thank you that was exactly what I was doing.
Fair enough. Still, the cops can't just come into my house for no reason looking for cocaine; but they can and do x-ray my shipments for no reason looking for cocaine. But yes, you are principally correct and I don't disagree. Be well.