"So politics is really hard? Explains the quality of the candidates this year. .."
"At least both candidates can read....."
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.
AC said: "Not only that, even in his wildest dreams Reagen never approached the level of debt a young, intelligent president with all his mental faculties could achieve in only three years of half-hearted piddling around; Sixteen Trillion as of last week.They didn't even start using the word 'Trillion' in association with debt before the Anointed One was elected."
A little something to think about if you are one of the folks who suppose the national debt is a bad thing: the national debt is equal to the money supply. Reduce the debt, and you reduce the money supply. Why? Because every dollar, whether printed, or on deposit, is a debt instrument backed by the full faith and credit. It has been that way since the Nixon administration.
Want to reduce the national debt? Burn a dollar bill.
"If the Brits storm the Ecuadorian embassy, it'd be funny if Ecuador stormed the British embassy in Quito in return. And maybe a bunch of other governments will storm the British embassies in their countries too.
As a brit i'd like to see that happen."
As an Irish American, so would I; for different reasons, maybe.
"Lately a TSA agent allowed me to pass a 3+ oz jar of Hawaiian mustard through. He took it out of my bag, looked at it, thought about it, then shrugged at me and handed it back. Cuz it was mustard."
Which you could have used to make mustard gas.
Having read Tennessee HB 0368, I don't think it allows teachers to present creationism or other non-scientific alternatives to science in science classes. Instead, it protects teachers from school boards, administrators, or others that might seek to punish a teacher who "encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion". Teachers need the protection offered by HB 0368 because students who go home armed with scientific evidence and critical thinking skills are apt to controvert, and thereby, in some cases, anger their parents. I imagine that in Tennessee, as I know happens in Georgia, school systems are frightened by angry parents. To avoid upsetting parents, administrators discourage teachers from teaching "some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning". The new law in Tennessee addresses that problem and "protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not
be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine".
The Google Driverless Car only crashed when a human was driving it. Or, at least, so says Google. Having seen many human-driven cars crash, I agree with you that avoiding other traffic is not so easy. But I can't help believing that it will be easier for cars that drive themselves to avoid each other than it is for cars driven by people.
The entire point of science is to be able to verify claims,
Unless you are persuaded (as I am) by the argument made by Karl Popper that you can't verify claims, and the point of science is to show that false hypotheses are false.
Ordinarily, decisions by the Roberts Court are along idealogical lines. "Conservatives" on the court vote as a block, and the "Liberals" vote against them. On hearing the rendered decision, one can usually say, without having to look it up, which justices voted for and against the decision simply by identifying whether the decision pleases "Conservatives" or "Liberals". This decision, however, mystifies me. I cannot guess which justices voted to let the the 9th Circuit's decision stand, and which voted to hear the case and have the opportunity to fix the 9th's mistake. This is therefore a great opportunity to sort out the justices on a criterion other than partisan ideology. I am going to look up who voted each way, and then I'll know which justices are the idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
"What they do with "Rachael" is not my concern." Rachel from Cardmember Services is my sister, you insensitive clod.
"So politics is really hard? Explains the quality of the candidates this year. . ."
"At least both candidates can read....."
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.
AC said: "Not only that, even in his wildest dreams Reagen never approached the level of debt a young, intelligent president with all his mental faculties could achieve in only three years of half-hearted piddling around; Sixteen Trillion as of last week.They didn't even start using the word 'Trillion' in association with debt before the Anointed One was elected."
A little something to think about if you are one of the folks who suppose the national debt is a bad thing: the national debt is equal to the money supply. Reduce the debt, and you reduce the money supply. Why? Because every dollar, whether printed, or on deposit, is a debt instrument backed by the full faith and credit. It has been that way since the Nixon administration.
Want to reduce the national debt? Burn a dollar bill.
"If the Brits storm the Ecuadorian embassy, it'd be funny if Ecuador stormed the British embassy in Quito in return. And maybe a bunch of other governments will storm the British embassies in their countries too.
As a brit i'd like to see that happen."
As an Irish American, so would I; for different reasons, maybe.
Kudos more to Melinda than Bill.
"Lately a TSA agent allowed me to pass a 3+ oz jar of Hawaiian mustard through. He took it out of my bag, looked at it, thought about it, then shrugged at me and handed it back. Cuz it was mustard." Which you could have used to make mustard gas.
Denmark.
I vote for lunatic. Can I admire a fictional lunatic? Sure. Don Quixote, for example.
Having read Tennessee HB 0368, I don't think it allows teachers to present creationism or other non-scientific alternatives to science in science classes. Instead, it protects teachers from school boards, administrators, or others that might seek to punish a teacher who "encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion". Teachers need the protection offered by HB 0368 because students who go home armed with scientific evidence and critical thinking skills are apt to controvert, and thereby, in some cases, anger their parents. I imagine that in Tennessee, as I know happens in Georgia, school systems are frightened by angry parents. To avoid upsetting parents, administrators discourage teachers from teaching "some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning". The new law in Tennessee addresses that problem and "protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine".
In 50 years, I will most likely no longer be disabled by MS. I'll be dead. The future has something for everyone!
The Google Driverless Car only crashed when a human was driving it. Or, at least, so says Google. Having seen many human-driven cars crash, I agree with you that avoiding other traffic is not so easy. But I can't help believing that it will be easier for cars that drive themselves to avoid each other than it is for cars driven by people.
And *nothing* annoys me more than their "Sent from my iFad" appended to e-mail messages. So long, commercial-free e-mail.
It's a setting. Change it if you'd like.
The entire point of science is to be able to verify claims,
Unless you are persuaded (as I am) by the argument made by Karl Popper that you can't verify claims, and the point of science is to show that false hypotheses are false.
I think my solution will be to buy no foreign-made products bearing visible logos.
Ordinarily, decisions by the Roberts Court are along idealogical lines. "Conservatives" on the court vote as a block, and the "Liberals" vote against them. On hearing the rendered decision, one can usually say, without having to look it up, which justices voted for and against the decision simply by identifying whether the decision pleases "Conservatives" or "Liberals". This decision, however, mystifies me. I cannot guess which justices voted to let the the 9th Circuit's decision stand, and which voted to hear the case and have the opportunity to fix the 9th's mistake. This is therefore a great opportunity to sort out the justices on a criterion other than partisan ideology. I am going to look up who voted each way, and then I'll know which justices are the idiots.
No; it sets precedent by allowing the 9th Circuit's decision to stand.