The cash credits will cost the company at least $15 million, and allowing for the fact that some of the coupons will be unused the PPV movie offer should cost the company about $10-15 million.
$15 million a company won't make is not $15 million lost. The fact is, 95% of those receiving the coupon wouldn't have bought a movie anyway. This also gives Echostar a way to advertise the ease-of-use of Dish-on-demand, meaning that some people will become Dish-on-demand customers that would have never considered it before....and if memory serves correct, the $25-30 million Viacom wanted was not the total for the entire contract. It was in the hundreds of millions range.
Hell, in that case I've got around 14 machines strewn around in the closet, attic, under the bed, and out in the garage. I'll be sure to mark them all down on my renters insurance.
The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
I don't think Mr. Stallman defines freedom in the same way I do. I don't think Mr. Stallman's concept of morality is anywhere near mine either. I just can't take someone seriously who tells me that non-free software is morally unnacceptable. I think Mr. Stallman is a bit out of touch with reality and with his importance to the world.
The open source community is much better off gaining credibility and notoriety by making better software and being an inclusive place where developers and tinkerers hone their craft than by suggesting non-free software is immoral.
Yeah heaven forbid that the US govt lied to the world about WMD so they could invade a foreign land, get cheap gas, pump up the military, look good for the cameras and get a re-elect.
You need to pick, I'm tired of this crap. Is Bush: A) The mastermind of an international junta and leader of the illuminati that wants to control the world. B) A simpleton puppet who has to wear velcro shoes.
Seriously though, you've been all over this thread dismissing today's news. Maybe you should really do some introspection. When Saddam's capture seems to be bad news for your views on the conflict in Iraq then something is very, very wrong.
1. "Hundreds of thousands" might be a slight exaggeration.
Latest estimates put the numbers from mass graves, that's just mass graves, at 300,000.
2. All that went on with the blessing of the US, UK and the most of rest of the world
Hardly. It went on, but most certainly neither the U.S. or the U.K. put their blessing on such an event. By the standard you seem to hold, the fact that hit happened meant it went on with the "blessing" of ALL of the world.
You see, back then Saddam Hussein was a Good Guy (TM), because he was fighting those nasty Ayatollahs in Iran that gave the US such a bloody nose at the start of the 1980s. That he was a brutal dictator didn't matter then because he was the West's brutal dictator.
You accuse those who disagree with you of simplifying the issue ("Perhaps you should switch off Fox News, pick up a history book, blah blah...") when you do the exact same thing. Saddam was an ally of convenience. In spite of your assertions, the United States only provided Saddam with around 1% of his armaments during the period from 1973-1992.
He was not placed in power by the U.S. and the U.K. and he helped turn back the Ayatollah and, ultimately, the spread of Soviet influence in the Middle East. It was thinking just like yours that got us into the situation with Iran in the first place. Jimmy Carter, whose good intentions and blatant idiocy virtually destroyed our intelligence gathering capabilities during his presidency (gasp! We had dealings with unbecoming people!), got us into that mess in the first place.
For bonus points, find out where else this kind of oppression is going on and how long it's been ignored by the Western world.
Then what should have been done? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have done anything in Iraq because bad things are going on elsewhere? I really don't why you take the position you have. It would be logically consistent to instead be petitioning for the removal of other murderous regimes such as in Sudan and Zimbabwe instead of bitching about the removal of Saddam.
Maybe it is you who should study history a bit better. I'll let Mr. Bush help you:
The roots of our democracy can be traced to England, and to its Parliament -- and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared, the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed, precisely because it did not respect its own people -- their creativity, their genius and their rights.
President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today. (Applause.)
A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the President. According to one editorial of the time, "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan." (Laughter.) Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous. In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct. (Applause.)
The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well underway. In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia. This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America* had collapsed. Within another year, the South African government released Ne
"I am not trying to say that [the Americans] are angels! They have their interests; they came to Iraq for that reason, not to free the Iraqis. But the fruit is, in fact, liberation." - Chaldean Bishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk, speaking to an Italian journalist.
The most important issue here is that the Iraqi people are free and their future just got brighter. It is unfortunate that the first reaction by so many wasn't to be happy for the Iraqi people but to, instead, spin this against Bush.
Let's go look at the Presidential race, since that's the issue of discussion here, not party contributions...
More avoidance...no surprise. I read some of your previous posts, and just like in this thread, you immediately retreat with either a personal insult or "propoganda" line any time someone challenges your Democratic rhetoric.
First, $200 is not "big donor", and honestly $2000 is not "big donor". The soft money is "big donor" money, but even by your own criteria you have to do some serious spinning to draw the conclusion you've drawn.
Second, the statistic you harped manages to omit any discussion of the average donation given to each candidate. You ignore what you don't like and call the rest "propoganda".
Third, party contributions and presidential race contributions are closely wedded, so your dismissal of them is disingenuous (seems to be a habit of yours, Mr. Democratic demagogue).
Fourth, you'll see that by your own criteria, Bush had a larger contribution of funds by "small donors" both in numbers and as a percentage of his overall monies raised. Considering Gore received more than 15 million more federal dollars, this total is exascerbated further.
The fact that you use such ridiculous intellectual gymnastics to support your arguments is not surprising, especially considering the candidate you support in the Democratic primary couldn't figure out what party he was in until recently. He even said that he was a Democrat because "the Whitehouse wouldn't return his calls". The man picked his party before picking his philosophy, for goodness sakes! How embarrassing.
There is nothing you've posted that wasn't spin. Nothing.
Anyway, I'm not cynical like you. I just don't like people distorting the truth. Just give me the raw facts and I'll make up my own mind.
Yes, you are very cynical. After all, the Washington Times is an arm of the RNC and everything posted in refutation to what you posted is "propoganda". You can call yourself an optimist all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you come off like a bitter, cynical partisan.
What you don't seem to understand is that you admittedly apply a filter to everything you get, so any statistic is considered a fact by you if it comes from the right source or supports that right cause. As a result, you never really know what the facts are. You just know what statistics you like to use to support your own previously drawn conclusions.
With your post and others in reply to refutations to your parent post, you've shown that you cannot be reasoned with. You quickly retreat to the "bullshit, lies, and propaganda" mantra, even when countered with a link (that you chose not to even address) from the same very organization you cited as support for your position.
The fact is, as many have pointed out, you compared apples and oranges. You were given facts, but you won't address them or you scream conspiracy. Hell, you dismissed the Washington Times, one of the five most respected newspapers in the world, out of hand without even addressing where they might have gotten the data.
And I'm sorry, but even $280 cannot be considered a "big fund-raiser" contribution, and Howard Dean's average will change DRASTICALLY if he is declared the Democratic nominee. You have to understand, most big money donors won't be putting their money in play until after the nomination has been made. THAT is why you are comparing apples and oranges, although I'm confident that you still won't "get" it.
You have proven yourself an unreasonable fool and a bitter partisan. Get over yourself. You're wrong.
You do realize that the conclusion you've drawn from your above link is a bit disingenuous, don't you? You've got 1 Republican candidate versus 10 Democratic candidates in that graph. The parent poster was correct, the Democrats do indeed have more money from large organizations, such as unions and PACs than any other party. For example, consider this link from the very same site:
One of the biggest embarassments to the Democratic party is that the size of the average donation to their party is larger than the average size contributed to the Republican party. In fact, the mean size of political donations to the RNC during the past election cycle (2000) was about $50. The Democrats claim that the mean size of contributions is unimportant and will not publish it for that reason and because it somehow would invade the privacy of their contributing base in aggregate.
And if you think that McCain-Feingold has "negated" the impact of unions and PACs, you are very mistaken.
Why did we know nothing about this until after we took over the country?
I'm not sure what you are positing here.
So are you suggesting that Saddam did not execute hundreds of thousands of his own people? Maybe one of the individuals who found this comment insightful can enlighten me here.
Okay then, if the number is 28,000, 32,000, or 51,000...does that make my point any different? The fact is, the article puts a human perspective on the ouster of Saddam, and that is woefully needed in a time when the opposition scratches and claws for every bit of news that can be spun politically. That is essentially the hypocrisy of the liberal mantra when it comes to the war in Iraq: they politicize every event, whether it be directly related to the war or peripherally related to the war, into something that can be used to amass politicaly capital when the crux of the liberal argument against the war is that Bush was politically motivated in taking us there in the first place!
I'm as excited as anyone about the prospects of sending humans to Mars and beyond, and I sorely wish the replies had stayed on topic. I stopped reading kuro5hin because it became an extension of indymedia or moveon.org. It's a shame that Slashdot is declining in the very same way.
Well.. Before 9-11, the last major U.S. terrorist act was done a white male!
I assume you are talking about Tim McVeigh and the OKC bombing of the federal office building. That was not the last major terrorist act on U.S. interests but rather, on U.S. soil. The terrorist act on U.S. soil prior to that was the WTC bombing in 1993 by Islamic extremists of Arabic descent.
You know, Mr. McVeigh fit a common profile the FBI uses when investigating cases like that: the militant, anti-government white guy. While investigating the Mohammed-Malvo sniper case, which made the investigation drag out a bit longer than it could have had the culprits actually fit the profile. Even though the FBI got it wrong in that particular case, it made perfect sense that they should be looking for the same type of person who had committed similar crimes before: militant, anti-government white guys.
Law enforcement, at all levels, must deal with a finite amount of resources. Profiling only makes sense as a solid means of figuring out the best way to apply those resources when prevent or investigating crime.
I'm sure that you have no problems with white males facing a bit more scrutiny when boarding a plane or entering this fine county....and yes, I have no problems with white males facing a bit more scrutiny when boarding a plan or entering this fine country if it does, indeed, make us safer. If white males were the most likely types to hijack planes then airport security would be foolish not to scrutinize white males a bit heavier than other people.
Racism is racism is racism. There are no justifications for it.
Absolutely. But this is not racism. Profiling does not espouse, in any way, that one race is intrinisically superior or inferior to another based on the color of one's skin.
Yours got organized, mine got put "up". If I can ever manage to figure out where this wonderful, secret place called "up" is, I'll be in business. My wife has managed to store quite a bit of good stuff there.
We are being told what to do be a single entity (the current regime), we are having the FBI look into demonstrations and their leaders as to stop possible terroism during those (and of course it is under the guise that it is for the good of the people protesting), we are told to go to a country and fight for its freedom to protect our own, and I don't even want to get into the racial profiling going on everyday regarind terrorism.
Then your co-workers think you are ridiculous because you don't have a very solid grasp on reality, because that definition simply does not fit what is going on in the United States today.
Any why is racial profiling bad when it comes to terrorism? It would be intellectual dishonest at best and complete idiocy at worst to suggest that there isn't a pattern as to what types of people are more likely to be terrorists. Profiling, when done correctly, is simply a means of committing resources in places where success is more likely. It is, most certainly, unfortunate that good people of Arabic descent might face a bit more scrutiny when boarding a plane or entering this fine country, but it is a small price to pay if it deters a repeat of 9/11, the Khobar towers bombing, the WTC bombing of '93, the attack on the Israeli hotel in Kenya, or any of the many other attacks attributed to Middle Eastern terrorists.
It is truly a sad day when people choose to ignore history and believe that flag waving, rights waiving, non-sense that is fed to us daily by a near facist government.
Judging by your eloquence in the statement above, it's really no wonder your co-workers think you're insane. To suggest that the United States goverment is 'near facist [sic]' shows your own lack of knowledge when it comes to history and shows your lack of understanding as to what the word 'fascist' really means and represents.
What is the nature of intelligence? Can someone give a concrete definition of it, including all aspects such as creativity and inspiration?
A definition for intelligence has been given many times in many different ways by a number of brilliant people. The problem is that each definition discounted too many members of the human race.
It looks like you opened a can of worms and hopefully, the mod trolls won't mod you down simply because they disagree with you, because I think you do make an excellent point. Whether the disdain you talked about is justified is another point entirely, and you shouldn't be modded down simply because some mod thinks all Christians are simple-minded fools (the biggest mistake anyone can make when studying widely held philosophies is thinking that the philosophy is simple...all major philosophies and worldviews, including Christianity, are extremely complex).
Regarding your post: Which brand of creationism are you talking about? I am a devout Christian and creationist, but when I think of the term creationist I think in terms of God being the designer behind the world we enjoy today. Some view creationists in the 6 days, something from absolutely nothing sense. That doesn't mean that the world wasn't indeed fully formed in 6 Earth days and there are many who truly believe that. Many creationists believe the 6 days in Genesis 1 were the 6 days in which the creation was revealed to Moses or that a "day" to an eternal entity like God
For many, evolution has become used as a tool of the atheist to disprove the need for God in terms of creation, when I find they complement each other remarkably well. What we observe as evolutionary theory (which is far, far from being proven) could just our perspective on the method God used to create life. Either way, Darwinian evolution is neither a proof of the existence of God or proof of the nonexistence of God (and yes, the very same one revealed in the Bible) and as a Christian, I wish atheists and agnostics would quit throwing it out there like it is.
The fact is, no matter what worldview you hold, its presuppositions are faith based.
Now, would Newton experience disdain for his beliefs? Probably by some, but if he is honest and intellectual with his beliefs he will be received well by those who are honest and intellectual with their own beliefs. It's been my experience that no matter what you believe, somewhere, someone will scorn you for it.
Could Isaac Newton get a faculty job, or is modern society too intolerant of eccentricity?
Modern society might be, and often for good reason, but if there's any place where eccentricity is tolerated, or promoted even, it's academia. I often think that many of the professors are purposefully eccentric. It's almost become something expected of the truly gifted, and many fraudulently flaunt their own eccentricity for the express purpose of making others think they are gifted. They've heard too many stores about Einstein, Turing, and Newton and get delusions of grandeur.
The fact is, most Universities won't care if you wear your underwear outside of your pants if you manage to do something truly brilliant. You won't be hired to teach, you'll be hired simply so the University can advertise that you're on staff.
Slashdot Mirror
And had he been nominated, he would've probably toppled ONE tyranny.
Terry McAuliffe?
The cash credits will cost the company at least $15 million, and allowing for the fact that some of the coupons will be unused the PPV movie offer should cost the company about $10-15 million.
...and if memory serves correct, the $25-30 million Viacom wanted was not the total for the entire contract. It was in the hundreds of millions range.
$15 million a company won't make is not $15 million lost. The fact is, 95% of those receiving the coupon wouldn't have bought a movie anyway. This also gives Echostar a way to advertise the ease-of-use of Dish-on-demand, meaning that some people will become Dish-on-demand customers that would have never considered it before.
Hell, in that case I've got around 14 machines strewn around in the closet, attic, under the bed, and out in the garage. I'll be sure to mark them all down on my renters insurance.
The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
I don't think Mr. Stallman defines freedom in the same way I do. I don't think Mr. Stallman's concept of morality is anywhere near mine either. I just can't take someone seriously who tells me that non-free software is morally unnacceptable. I think Mr. Stallman is a bit out of touch with reality and with his importance to the world.
The open source community is much better off gaining credibility and notoriety by making better software and being an inclusive place where developers and tinkerers hone their craft than by suggesting non-free software is immoral.
Yeah heaven forbid that the US govt lied to the world about WMD so they could invade a foreign land, get cheap gas, pump up the military, look good for the cameras and get a re-elect.
You need to pick, I'm tired of this crap. Is Bush:
A) The mastermind of an international junta and leader of the illuminati that wants to control the world.
B) A simpleton puppet who has to wear velcro shoes.
Seriously though, you've been all over this thread dismissing today's news. Maybe you should really do some introspection. When Saddam's capture seems to be bad news for your views on the conflict in Iraq then something is very, very wrong.
1. "Hundreds of thousands" might be a slight exaggeration.
Latest estimates put the numbers from mass graves, that's just mass graves, at 300,000.
2. All that went on with the blessing of the US, UK and the most of rest of the world
Hardly. It went on, but most certainly neither the U.S. or the U.K. put their blessing on such an event. By the standard you seem to hold, the fact that hit happened meant it went on with the "blessing" of ALL of the world.
You see, back then Saddam Hussein was a Good Guy (TM), because he was fighting those nasty Ayatollahs in Iran that gave the US such a bloody nose at the start of the 1980s. That he was a brutal dictator didn't matter then because he was the West's brutal dictator.
You accuse those who disagree with you of simplifying the issue ("Perhaps you should switch off Fox News, pick up a history book, blah blah...") when you do the exact same thing. Saddam was an ally of convenience. In spite of your assertions, the United States only provided Saddam with around 1% of his armaments during the period from 1973-1992.
He was not placed in power by the U.S. and the U.K. and he helped turn back the Ayatollah and, ultimately, the spread of Soviet influence in the Middle East. It was thinking just like yours that got us into the situation with Iran in the first place. Jimmy Carter, whose good intentions and blatant idiocy virtually destroyed our intelligence gathering capabilities during his presidency (gasp! We had dealings with unbecoming people!), got us into that mess in the first place.
For bonus points, find out where else this kind of oppression is going on and how long it's been ignored by the Western world.
Then what should have been done? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have done anything in Iraq because bad things are going on elsewhere? I really don't why you take the position you have. It would be logically consistent to instead be petitioning for the removal of other murderous regimes such as in Sudan and Zimbabwe instead of bitching about the removal of Saddam.
Maybe it is you who should study history a bit better. I'll let Mr. Bush help you:
The roots of our democracy can be traced to England, and to its Parliament -- and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared, the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed, precisely because it did not respect its own people -- their creativity, their genius and their rights.
President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today. (Applause.)
A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the President. According to one editorial of the time, "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan." (Laughter.) Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous. In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct. (Applause.)
The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well underway. In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia. This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America* had collapsed. Within another year, the South African government released Ne
"I am not trying to say that [the Americans] are angels! They have their interests; they came to Iraq for that reason, not to free the Iraqis. But the fruit is, in fact, liberation." - Chaldean Bishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk, speaking to an Italian journalist.
Read it for yourself.
The most important issue here is that the Iraqi people are free and their future just got brighter. It is unfortunate that the first reaction by so many wasn't to be happy for the Iraqi people but to, instead, spin this against Bush.
Let's go look at the Presidential race, since that's the issue of discussion here, not party contributions...
More avoidance...no surprise. I read some of your previous posts, and just like in this thread, you immediately retreat with either a personal insult or "propoganda" line any time someone challenges your Democratic rhetoric.
First, $200 is not "big donor", and honestly $2000 is not "big donor". The soft money is "big donor" money, but even by your own criteria you have to do some serious spinning to draw the conclusion you've drawn.
Second, the statistic you harped manages to omit any discussion of the average donation given to each candidate. You ignore what you don't like and call the rest "propoganda".
Third, party contributions and presidential race contributions are closely wedded, so your dismissal of them is disingenuous (seems to be a habit of yours, Mr. Democratic demagogue).
Fourth, you'll see that by your own criteria, Bush had a larger contribution of funds by "small donors" both in numbers and as a percentage of his overall monies raised. Considering Gore received more than 15 million more federal dollars, this total is exascerbated further.
The fact that you use such ridiculous intellectual gymnastics to support your arguments is not surprising, especially considering the candidate you support in the Democratic primary couldn't figure out what party he was in until recently. He even said that he was a Democrat because "the Whitehouse wouldn't return his calls". The man picked his party before picking his philosophy, for goodness sakes! How embarrassing.
There is nothing you've posted that wasn't spin. Nothing.
So you won't present any more red herrings, I offer just this:
Democrats receive more "big money" than Republicans
It is from the same site you used. Now let's hear your spin.
Anyway, I'm not cynical like you. I just don't like people distorting the truth. Just give me the raw facts and I'll make up my own mind.
Yes, you are very cynical. After all, the Washington Times is an arm of the RNC and everything posted in refutation to what you posted is "propoganda". You can call yourself an optimist all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you come off like a bitter, cynical partisan.
What you don't seem to understand is that you admittedly apply a filter to everything you get, so any statistic is considered a fact by you if it comes from the right source or supports that right cause. As a result, you never really know what the facts are. You just know what statistics you like to use to support your own previously drawn conclusions.
With your post and others in reply to refutations to your parent post, you've shown that you cannot be reasoned with. You quickly retreat to the "bullshit, lies, and propaganda" mantra, even when countered with a link (that you chose not to even address) from the same very organization you cited as support for your position.
The fact is, as many have pointed out, you compared apples and oranges. You were given facts, but you won't address them or you scream conspiracy. Hell, you dismissed the Washington Times, one of the five most respected newspapers in the world, out of hand without even addressing where they might have gotten the data.
And I'm sorry, but even $280 cannot be considered a "big fund-raiser" contribution, and Howard Dean's average will change DRASTICALLY if he is declared the Democratic nominee. You have to understand, most big money donors won't be putting their money in play until after the nomination has been made. THAT is why you are comparing apples and oranges, although I'm confident that you still won't "get" it.
You have proven yourself an unreasonable fool and a bitter partisan. Get over yourself. You're wrong.
You do realize that the conclusion you've drawn from your above link is a bit disingenuous, don't you? You've got 1 Republican candidate versus 10 Democratic candidates in that graph. The parent poster was correct, the Democrats do indeed have more money from large organizations, such as unions and PACs than any other party. For example, consider this link from the very same site:
Large contributors: Dem vs. Rep
One of the biggest embarassments to the Democratic party is that the size of the average donation to their party is larger than the average size contributed to the Republican party. In fact, the mean size of political donations to the RNC during the past election cycle (2000) was about $50. The Democrats claim that the mean size of contributions is unimportant and will not publish it for that reason and because it somehow would invade the privacy of their contributing base in aggregate.
And if you think that McCain-Feingold has "negated" the impact of unions and PACs, you are very mistaken.
Why did we know nothing about this until after we took over the country?
I'm not sure what you are positing here.
So are you suggesting that Saddam did not execute hundreds of thousands of his own people? Maybe one of the individuals who found this comment insightful can enlighten me here.
Okay then, if the number is 28,000, 32,000, or 51,000...does that make my point any different? The fact is, the article puts a human perspective on the ouster of Saddam, and that is woefully needed in a time when the opposition scratches and claws for every bit of news that can be spun politically. That is essentially the hypocrisy of the liberal mantra when it comes to the war in Iraq: they politicize every event, whether it be directly related to the war or peripherally related to the war, into something that can be used to amass politicaly capital when the crux of the liberal argument against the war is that Bush was politically motivated in taking us there in the first place!
I'm as excited as anyone about the prospects of sending humans to Mars and beyond, and I sorely wish the replies had stayed on topic. I stopped reading kuro5hin because it became an extension of indymedia or moveon.org. It's a shame that Slashdot is declining in the very same way.
61,000 dead Baghdad residents disagree with you.
Well.. Before 9-11, the last major U.S. terrorist act was done a white male!
...and yes, I have no problems with white males facing a bit more scrutiny when boarding a plan or entering this fine country if it does, indeed, make us safer. If white males were the most likely types to hijack planes then airport security would be foolish not to scrutinize white males a bit heavier than other people.
I assume you are talking about Tim McVeigh and the OKC bombing of the federal office building. That was not the last major terrorist act on U.S. interests but rather, on U.S. soil. The terrorist act on U.S. soil prior to that was the WTC bombing in 1993 by Islamic extremists of Arabic descent.
You know, Mr. McVeigh fit a common profile the FBI uses when investigating cases like that: the militant, anti-government white guy. While investigating the Mohammed-Malvo sniper case, which made the investigation drag out a bit longer than it could have had the culprits actually fit the profile. Even though the FBI got it wrong in that particular case, it made perfect sense that they should be looking for the same type of person who had committed similar crimes before: militant, anti-government white guys.
Law enforcement, at all levels, must deal with a finite amount of resources. Profiling only makes sense as a solid means of figuring out the best way to apply those resources when prevent or investigating crime.
I'm sure that you have no problems with white males facing a bit more scrutiny when boarding a plane or entering this fine county.
Racism is racism is racism. There are no justifications for it.
Absolutely. But this is not racism. Profiling does not espouse, in any way, that one race is intrinisically superior or inferior to another based on the color of one's skin.
Yours got organized, mine got put "up". If I can ever manage to figure out where this wonderful, secret place called "up" is, I'll be in business. My wife has managed to store quite a bit of good stuff there.
We are being told what to do be a single entity (the current regime), we are having the FBI look into demonstrations and their leaders as to stop possible terroism during those (and of course it is under the guise that it is for the good of the people protesting), we are told to go to a country and fight for its freedom to protect our own, and I don't even want to get into the racial profiling going on everyday regarind terrorism.
Then your co-workers think you are ridiculous because you don't have a very solid grasp on reality, because that definition simply does not fit what is going on in the United States today.
Any why is racial profiling bad when it comes to terrorism? It would be intellectual dishonest at best and complete idiocy at worst to suggest that there isn't a pattern as to what types of people are more likely to be terrorists. Profiling, when done correctly, is simply a means of committing resources in places where success is more likely. It is, most certainly, unfortunate that good people of Arabic descent might face a bit more scrutiny when boarding a plane or entering this fine country, but it is a small price to pay if it deters a repeat of 9/11, the Khobar towers bombing, the WTC bombing of '93, the attack on the Israeli hotel in Kenya, or any of the many other attacks attributed to Middle Eastern terrorists.
It is truly a sad day when people choose to ignore history and believe that flag waving, rights waiving, non-sense that is fed to us daily by a near facist government.
Judging by your eloquence in the statement above, it's really no wonder your co-workers think you're insane. To suggest that the United States goverment is 'near facist [sic]' shows your own lack of knowledge when it comes to history and shows your lack of understanding as to what the word 'fascist' really means and represents.
It was compiled by researchers at the Midvale School for the Gifted.
What is the nature of intelligence? Can someone give a concrete definition of it, including all aspects such as creativity and inspiration?
A definition for intelligence has been given many times in many different ways by a number of brilliant people. The problem is that each definition discounted too many members of the human race.
Yep, you're right. We Americans gumped our way into the greatest empire in the history of mankind. Lucky us!
Newton was a devout Christian and a creationist.
It looks like you opened a can of worms and hopefully, the mod trolls won't mod you down simply because they disagree with you, because I think you do make an excellent point. Whether the disdain you talked about is justified is another point entirely, and you shouldn't be modded down simply because some mod thinks all Christians are simple-minded fools (the biggest mistake anyone can make when studying widely held philosophies is thinking that the philosophy is simple...all major philosophies and worldviews, including Christianity, are extremely complex).
Regarding your post: Which brand of creationism are you talking about? I am a devout Christian and creationist, but when I think of the term creationist I think in terms of God being the designer behind the world we enjoy today. Some view creationists in the 6 days, something from absolutely nothing sense. That doesn't mean that the world wasn't indeed fully formed in 6 Earth days and there are many who truly believe that. Many creationists believe the 6 days in Genesis 1 were the 6 days in which the creation was revealed to Moses or that a "day" to an eternal entity like God
For many, evolution has become used as a tool of the atheist to disprove the need for God in terms of creation, when I find they complement each other remarkably well. What we observe as evolutionary theory (which is far, far from being proven) could just our perspective on the method God used to create life. Either way, Darwinian evolution is neither a proof of the existence of God or proof of the nonexistence of God (and yes, the very same one revealed in the Bible) and as a Christian, I wish atheists and agnostics would quit throwing it out there like it is.
The fact is, no matter what worldview you hold, its presuppositions are faith based.
Now, would Newton experience disdain for his beliefs? Probably by some, but if he is honest and intellectual with his beliefs he will be received well by those who are honest and intellectual with their own beliefs. It's been my experience that no matter what you believe, somewhere, someone will scorn you for it.
Could Isaac Newton get a faculty job, or is modern society too intolerant of eccentricity?
Modern society might be, and often for good reason, but if there's any place where eccentricity is tolerated, or promoted even, it's academia. I often think that many of the professors are purposefully eccentric. It's almost become something expected of the truly gifted, and many fraudulently flaunt their own eccentricity for the express purpose of making others think they are gifted. They've heard too many stores about Einstein, Turing, and Newton and get delusions of grandeur.
The fact is, most Universities won't care if you wear your underwear outside of your pants if you manage to do something truly brilliant. You won't be hired to teach, you'll be hired simply so the University can advertise that you're on staff.
Ahhh, I know it was Lansdale but it seems my brain was taking a vacation. Thanks for the correction. If I see him, I'll tell him!