I'm always been surprised at the kind of reaction anything labeled 'paranormal' gets from rational people. Why exactly couldn't telepathy exist?
There's nothing logically impossible about the idea of telepathy. Or the Loch Ness Monster. Or UFOs.
The thing you need to realize, however, is that they're labeled 'paranormal' for a reason. If we had solid evidence of any of them, we'd call them scientific fact. People look down on these ideas because, while there may be some people who believe in them, rigorous studies haven't been able to substantiate any of them.
That being said, I don't see any reason there shouldn't be some continued research into these areas. The more basic research, the better, I say. What doesn't make sense, however, is sinking substantial amounts of money into research in areas that show no actual promise of ever turning up anything. Or, spending a lot of time doing non-scientific work in these areas. I'm sure paranormal enthusiasts can point to lots of "evidence" for telepathy. How much of it would actually stand up to scrutiny, though?
They just asked him a few questions and they were all basically, "hey, what's up with your company's attitude these days?" I guess actually asking about anything at all directly related to their products would be too relevant or something?
I have no intention of trying to collect another mail-in rebate. It's a pain, I'm lazy, and, frankly, I don't really want to tell these companies my contact information. So, if I see an item that's, for example, "$100 (after $20 mail-in rebate)" the message I get is that the company feels people won't buy the item at $120. $120 is too much. They want people to buy it, thinking it costs $100. But since I'm not going to send in the rebate, my price will be $120. Even if I would have considered $120 a fair price before I saw the rebate, I now think of that item as overpriced at $120. So no sale.
Mike/Chris wants you to think that this was no big deal. Just a social experiment. Nothing to be concerned about. This is a lie!
In fact, the 6 month timer was a countdown to when Mike/Chris would release a pirated MP3 of Monty Python's Always Look On the Bright Side of Life. The FBI has been notified.
The whole idea that the terrorists hate our freedom (as espoused by the Prez, et al) is just a bit of rhetorical baloney. When you're trying to condemn the terrorists, it sounds great to say that they're trying to destroy our freedoms. It certainly sounds better than saying they want us to stop mucking around with the rest of the world, and stop supporting Israel.
After the 9/11 attacks, many people felt that it would be a kind of defeat to let the attacks change our way of life. The right to privacy, freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable searches, the right to a fair trial -- are these the things that the terrorists were aiming at? No. But they are some of the things that made America great, and by our government trampling over them in their supposed attempts at fighting terrorists, we have let the terrorist attacks degrade us. Our government's reactions to the terrorist attacks have damaged us in ways that are more fundamental than the destruction of buildings and the deaths of citizens. The terrorists can kill us and destroy our resources. It takes the government to destroy our freedoms. I don't know if we ought to technically say that the government is letting the terrorists win. In my book, what our government has done is probably worse.
I'm no lawyer, and I'm not familiar with New Hampshire law, but if you read more on that page you're quoting from it sure makes it sound like they're talking about secretly taping people in the bathroom, changing room, etc. Not on your own front step.
"If they believe this, then is it not a theological statement?"
I really don't understand how people can take any sort of belief and claim that just because it's a belief, it's a religious statement. I'm not going to try to define "religion," but in my experience, it tends to deal with issues such as: dieties, the supernatural, faith, the creation/destruction of the world, the afterlife. Saying that you believe religion is mucking up the world is not, itself, a religious belief. Just like any old beliefs about the world are not -- just because they are beliefs -- inherently religious.
I believe there are a lot of Mormons in this town: not a religious statement.
The evangelicals sure are messing up our educational system: not a religious statement.
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth: religious statement.
You can never guarantee you win an auction, of course. What I do when coming up with my max bid is try to determine a dollar amount where I'd still buy it, but it's so high that I wouldn't feel too bad about walking away without it. A dollar amount where I start to feel uncomfortable, if you will.
I was looking for an old (somewhat obscure) out of production game on eBay once. I found it with one bid on it, going for $8. It would have originally retailed for maybe $30. I thought about it and bid something like $63 on it. It seemed high for the item. I would have paid $63 and been ok with it. But, if I was outbid, well I wouldn't really feel that bad about it, because that would have been a lot to pay for it, anyway. (As it went, I only paid $12 for it.)
Sniping works only because people don't actually enter the maximum they want to pay like eBay tells them to. The people that enter in a bid $2 higher than the current high bid and plan to up their bid later as needed are the people that are mis-using the system. Not the snipers.
The Slashdot summary makes reference to research. The article's title is "Serious Study: Immaturity Levels Rising." Unfortunately, the article did not mention anything about any actual study that was being done. It presented a theory called "psychological neoteny." The article didn't tell us about any sort of data that had been collected or any research that had been done in this area. I'm rather curious to know how you could confirm this theory. How can you measure how mature people are? And how could you possibly measure how mature people were in the past?
...I only heard the commentary from Scott Cleland. It was chock full of misinformation and outright lies.... Point and counterpoint debate is good, but they need to air them both back-to-back...
If I was running a news program, I'd give as little time as possible to misinformation and outright lies. It makes sense to report on actual reasons people would want to block net neutrality. It doesn't make sense to let these people on your show to spout a bunch of BS.
It's best to cover all your bases. When you head out to your next class, take your iPod AND a 6-pack. Everyone will marvel at how hip you are. (Except for, maybe, your professor.)
Welcome to capitalism. You are, as always, free to have contempt for people who want a product more than you do, or are better able to pay for it. Have fun with that.
Implanting immigrants with chips as they enter the country? That's just disturbing. If only there was some way for these people to get into the country while avoiding authorities...
I think this is going to be a sticky mess since the rule of law isn't being respected in the US now and US attitudes towards foreign courts has always been "screw you, mate!"
We don't call people "mate" here in the U.S. Try replacing that word with "terrorist."
There are 8 races in WoW and only one of them is human. If you look at the humans and the human cities, they definitely appear to be inspired by Europeans. Stormwind City sure looks like it was inspired by a European castle.
So, Europeans = humans, Jamaicans = trolls, Native Americans = tauren. So... minorities are monsters. This is quite literally de-humanizing minorities.
If the human race embraced, say, Japanese culture, and European (or American) culture was obviously present in the form of some race of warped bipedal beings, it might feel different to white folks like me. Although, really, the thing is, it's much different being a majority race and being made fun of than being a minority. Minorities often feel persecuted or excluded because of their race. Being in the majority often means you don't even have to think about race most of the time. So, it's only natural that a minority would be more sensitive to having their culture appropriated by strange and monstrous creatures.
I learned from a few hard lessons, if after a few exchanges a dialog became testy and began escalation, I'd intervene on behalf of myself and the correspondent by curtailing the e-mail until a quick chat on the phone could reset the tone. That almost always worked.
It's funny. Even though you bolded the word "always" I can't help but place emphasis on the word "almost." Maybe you could call me and we could talk this over?
The people that were more concerned about privacy might not be that likely to answer questions from strangers on the phone.
This guy works for Google?
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I often find it strange when folks post articles online about the company they work for. Unless you're anonymous, an executive, or in the PR dept, is your company going to want you sending out reviews of their products?
(I don't know who this guy is, and the site is Slashdotted.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm always been surprised at the kind of reaction anything labeled 'paranormal' gets from rational people. Why exactly couldn't telepathy exist?
There's nothing logically impossible about the idea of telepathy. Or the Loch Ness Monster. Or UFOs.
The thing you need to realize, however, is that they're labeled 'paranormal' for a reason. If we had solid evidence of any of them, we'd call them scientific fact. People look down on these ideas because, while there may be some people who believe in them, rigorous studies haven't been able to substantiate any of them.
That being said, I don't see any reason there shouldn't be some continued research into these areas. The more basic research, the better, I say. What doesn't make sense, however, is sinking substantial amounts of money into research in areas that show no actual promise of ever turning up anything. Or, spending a lot of time doing non-scientific work in these areas. I'm sure paranormal enthusiasts can point to lots of "evidence" for telepathy. How much of it would actually stand up to scrutiny, though?
They just asked him a few questions and they were all basically, "hey, what's up with your company's attitude these days?" I guess actually asking about anything at all directly related to their products would be too relevant or something?
Where or what was it that Lawrence Krauss invited all of these people to, and were there any cosmologists there?
I have no intention of trying to collect another mail-in rebate. It's a pain, I'm lazy, and, frankly, I don't really want to tell these companies my contact information. So, if I see an item that's, for example, "$100 (after $20 mail-in rebate)" the message I get is that the company feels people won't buy the item at $120. $120 is too much. They want people to buy it, thinking it costs $100. But since I'm not going to send in the rebate, my price will be $120. Even if I would have considered $120 a fair price before I saw the rebate, I now think of that item as overpriced at $120. So no sale.
Mike/Chris wants you to think that this was no big deal. Just a social experiment. Nothing to be concerned about. This is a lie!
In fact, the 6 month timer was a countdown to when Mike/Chris would release a pirated MP3 of Monty Python's Always Look On the Bright Side of Life. The FBI has been notified.
The whole idea that the terrorists hate our freedom (as espoused by the Prez, et al) is just a bit of rhetorical baloney. When you're trying to condemn the terrorists, it sounds great to say that they're trying to destroy our freedoms. It certainly sounds better than saying they want us to stop mucking around with the rest of the world, and stop supporting Israel.
After the 9/11 attacks, many people felt that it would be a kind of defeat to let the attacks change our way of life. The right to privacy, freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable searches, the right to a fair trial -- are these the things that the terrorists were aiming at? No. But they are some of the things that made America great, and by our government trampling over them in their supposed attempts at fighting terrorists, we have let the terrorist attacks degrade us. Our government's reactions to the terrorist attacks have damaged us in ways that are more fundamental than the destruction of buildings and the deaths of citizens. The terrorists can kill us and destroy our resources. It takes the government to destroy our freedoms. I don't know if we ought to technically say that the government is letting the terrorists win. In my book, what our government has done is probably worse.
I'm no lawyer, and I'm not familiar with New Hampshire law, but if you read more on that page you're quoting from it sure makes it sound like they're talking about secretly taping people in the bathroom, changing room, etc. Not on your own front step.
"If they believe this, then is it not a theological statement?"
I really don't understand how people can take any sort of belief and claim that just because it's a belief, it's a religious statement. I'm not going to try to define "religion," but in my experience, it tends to deal with issues such as: dieties, the supernatural, faith, the creation/destruction of the world, the afterlife. Saying that you believe religion is mucking up the world is not, itself, a religious belief. Just like any old beliefs about the world are not -- just because they are beliefs -- inherently religious.
Why do guns have safety switches on them?
You can never guarantee you win an auction, of course. What I do when coming up with my max bid is try to determine a dollar amount where I'd still buy it, but it's so high that I wouldn't feel too bad about walking away without it. A dollar amount where I start to feel uncomfortable, if you will.
I was looking for an old (somewhat obscure) out of production game on eBay once. I found it with one bid on it, going for $8. It would have originally retailed for maybe $30. I thought about it and bid something like $63 on it. It seemed high for the item. I would have paid $63 and been ok with it. But, if I was outbid, well I wouldn't really feel that bad about it, because that would have been a lot to pay for it, anyway. (As it went, I only paid $12 for it.)
Sniping works only because people don't actually enter the maximum they want to pay like eBay tells them to. The people that enter in a bid $2 higher than the current high bid and plan to up their bid later as needed are the people that are mis-using the system. Not the snipers.
The Slashdot summary makes reference to research. The article's title is "Serious Study: Immaturity Levels Rising." Unfortunately, the article did not mention anything about any actual study that was being done. It presented a theory called "psychological neoteny." The article didn't tell us about any sort of data that had been collected or any research that had been done in this area. I'm rather curious to know how you could confirm this theory. How can you measure how mature people are? And how could you possibly measure how mature people were in the past?
If I was running a news program, I'd give as little time as possible to misinformation and outright lies. It makes sense to report on actual reasons people would want to block net neutrality. It doesn't make sense to let these people on your show to spout a bunch of BS.
Unless he is mentally handicapped and they were clearly taking advantage of him (which is not the case for him)
You obviously haven't listened to Dare to Be Stupid.
It's best to cover all your bases. When you head out to your next class, take your iPod AND a 6-pack. Everyone will marvel at how hip you are. (Except for, maybe, your professor.)
there's no mention of what the two lawyers are supposed to do in case of a tie ...
File an appeal?
Welcome to capitalism. You are, as always, free to have contempt for people who want a product more than you do, or are better able to pay for it. Have fun with that.
And they could call the new company Nipple.
Implanting immigrants with chips as they enter the country? That's just disturbing. If only there was some way for these people to get into the country while avoiding authorities...
I think this is going to be a sticky mess since the rule of law isn't being respected in the US now and US attitudes towards foreign courts has always been "screw you, mate!"
We don't call people "mate" here in the U.S. Try replacing that word with "terrorist."
There are 8 races in WoW and only one of them is human. If you look at the humans and the human cities, they definitely appear to be inspired by Europeans. Stormwind City sure looks like it was inspired by a European castle.
So, Europeans = humans, Jamaicans = trolls, Native Americans = tauren. So... minorities are monsters. This is quite literally de-humanizing minorities.
If the human race embraced, say, Japanese culture, and European (or American) culture was obviously present in the form of some race of warped bipedal beings, it might feel different to white folks like me. Although, really, the thing is, it's much different being a majority race and being made fun of than being a minority. Minorities often feel persecuted or excluded because of their race. Being in the majority often means you don't even have to think about race most of the time. So, it's only natural that a minority would be more sensitive to having their culture appropriated by strange and monstrous creatures.
I learned from a few hard lessons, if after a few exchanges a dialog became testy and began escalation, I'd intervene on behalf of myself and the correspondent by curtailing the e-mail until a quick chat on the phone could reset the tone. That almost always worked.
It's funny. Even though you bolded the word "always" I can't help but place emphasis on the word "almost." Maybe you could call me and we could talk this over?
That covers a wide swath of the online world, known colloquially as Web 2.0...
Colloquially, or as I like to say, "by idiots."
The people that were more concerned about privacy might not be that likely to answer questions from strangers on the phone.
I often find it strange when folks post articles online about the company they work for. Unless you're anonymous, an executive, or in the PR dept, is your company going to want you sending out reviews of their products?
(I don't know who this guy is, and the site is Slashdotted.)