After reading the fucking article, it seems to me this is an attempt to comply with a stupid law which, while it sounded good on the ballet, has unintended consequences such as this.
The obvious conclusion is not necessarily the correct one, especially when the one making the conclusion is apparently paranoid and believes that the government is full of malicious fools and idiots.
Your definition of news is.... interesting to say the least.
Planning for the worst is the job of military planners. Do you think that if people think good thoughts and don't plan for bad events that said bad events will magically not happen?
Or, a guy gets away with his crimes for 39 years and then screws up and gets caught.
Or, a guy figures he is high profile enough that he can finally do what he wants and get away with it.
Or, a guy finally does what he has always wanted to do counting on people not to believe he did it because he released "a cache of documents that embarrasses the world's most powerful government and threatening to release more? "
Why should the people who buy laptops have to take off any stickers?
It is not like they gave me the laptop or paid me for the advertising space. They didn't ask me if they could put the stickers on my laptop. Why should I have to spend my time and money removing the stickers?
What is next, stickers on the back of the screen for better advertising?
The problem is that she is required to keep an open mind during the entire case. The juror had decided the defendant was guilty before the prosecution had rested and the defense had presented its case.
Well, the defense lawyer's son is 17 and the juror is 20. Maybe he thought she was hot and was hoping to try and hook up with her after the trial.
Or, he may well have been looking for just such a comment.
One is confined as punishment. The confinement keeps one from many things, including but not limited to one's home, job, car, friends, and family. This GPS thing is not confinement. It is restriction from certain locations.
Now, how about you explain what is wrong with patriotism.
You answered:
What's wrong with patriotism is that it's oft confused with nationalism
Your stated opinion is that patriotism is wrong because it is often confused with nationalism. Those are your words. If you mean something, do say it. If you do not mean something, do not say it. Do not say something and then try to dance around claiming what you said is not what you meant.
First, the "amateurs" who wrote the Wikipedia article are almost certainly people trained in its field, in the same way that the physics and computer articles are generally edited by physicists and computer people.
First, The writers and editors do not have to be people trained in the field and this is acknowledge by Wikipedia in its disclaimer. Second, anyone can change almost any Wikipedia article to support a position, then site that version of the article.
Those two facts render any and every Wikipedia article less reliable than the testimony of a doctor who has examined and interviewed the people at the heart of the case.
To suggest otherwise would be to say that one is better off relying on Wikipedia articles to make medical diagnoses over one's doctor.
Because it is reasonable to assume an article written by amateurs is much more reliable than an expert witness, a practicing psychologist, who actually interviewed the people in question.
The judge objected to the fact that information in Wikipedia articles can be changed at will by just about anyone and that the information comes with "no guarantee of validity".
The Wikipedia articles, with no guarantee of validity, was presented in an attempt to counter testimony of an expert witness which DOES come with a guarantee of validity, namely the expert status of the witness.
If the Wikipedia article used in the brief sited the DSM, then the lawyer should have used the DSM, which is a reference manual compiled and edited by a community of experts.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading the fucking article, it seems to me this is an attempt to comply with a stupid law which, while it sounded good on the ballet, has unintended consequences such as this.
If you had RTFA you would know that the definition of what is healthy comes from the " National School Lunch Program (NSLP) guidelines".
The obvious conclusion is not necessarily the correct one, especially when the one making the conclusion is apparently paranoid and believes that the government is full of malicious fools and idiots.
Your definition of news is.... interesting to say the least.
Planning for the worst is the job of military planners. Do you think that if people think good thoughts and don't plan for bad events that said bad events will magically not happen?
You assume that there is something to work, which is an unsupported, and most likely false, assumption.
Or, a guy gets away with his crimes for 39 years and then screws up and gets caught.
Or, a guy figures he is high profile enough that he can finally do what he wants and get away with it.
Or, a guy finally does what he has always wanted to do counting on people not to believe he did it because he released "a cache of documents that embarrasses the world's most powerful government and threatening to release more? "
You are just another paranoid kool-aid drinker.
How hard is it to screw over you employees, over-pay yourself, steal from the company, and fuck your secretary and/or mistress?
True that.
You mean besides the big glowing apple on the back of the screen, right?
Why should the people who buy laptops have to take off any stickers?
It is not like they gave me the laptop or paid me for the advertising space. They didn't ask me if they could put the stickers on my laptop. Why should I have to spend my time and money removing the stickers?
What is next, stickers on the back of the screen for better advertising?
That is because Apple subscribes to the Model T school of production. "You can have whatever you want, as long as it is what we give you."
Why not just get rid of them if they are so hated? It is like ad bugs and snipes on TV. They are hated but the producers keep putting them out.
The problem is that she is required to keep an open mind during the entire case. The juror had decided the defendant was guilty before the prosecution had rested and the defense had presented its case.
Well, the defense lawyer's son is 17 and the juror is 20. Maybe he thought she was hot and was hoping to try and hook up with her after the trial.
Or, he may well have been looking for just such a comment.
Actually, the defense had not presented its case, so there was no lost work.
The same could be said of the post to which I replied.
Really?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
# 11 Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people
# 19 Italy: 37.9633 per 1,000 people
# 31 Russia: 20.5855 per 1,000 people
# 34 Japan: 19.177 per 1,000 people
Looks to me like the U.S. is better at catching, convicting, and incarcerating criminals than the other countries you listed.
One is confined as punishment. The confinement keeps one from many things, including but not limited to one's home, job, car, friends, and family. This GPS thing is not confinement. It is restriction from certain locations.
And, when the source articles don't confirm the information? It has happened before, and it will happen again.
You answered:
Your stated opinion is that patriotism is wrong because it is often confused with nationalism. Those are your words. If you mean something, do say it. If you do not mean something, do not say it. Do not say something and then try to dance around claiming what you said is not what you meant.
The problem is they cited Wikipedia instead of the DSM.
No, it is NOT.
The problem lies here:
First, The writers and editors do not have to be people trained in the field and this is acknowledge by Wikipedia in its disclaimer. Second, anyone can change almost any Wikipedia article to support a position, then site that version of the article.
Those two facts render any and every Wikipedia article less reliable than the testimony of a doctor who has examined and interviewed the people at the heart of the case.
To suggest otherwise would be to say that one is better off relying on Wikipedia articles to make medical diagnoses over one's doctor.
Because it is reasonable to assume an article written by amateurs is much more reliable than an expert witness, a practicing psychologist, who actually interviewed the people in question.
You stated your opinion straight out.
The judge objected to the fact that information in Wikipedia articles can be changed at will by just about anyone and that the information comes with "no guarantee of validity".
The Wikipedia articles, with no guarantee of validity, was presented in an attempt to counter testimony of an expert witness which DOES come with a guarantee of validity, namely the expert status of the witness.
If the Wikipedia article used in the brief sited the DSM, then the lawyer should have used the DSM, which is a reference manual compiled and edited by a community of experts.