That's not very accurate. What he said was that the right to habeas corpus isn't granted by the Constitution, only the ability of the President to suspend it in time of invasion or insurrection. He could have meant anything from habeas is a natural right that predates the Constitution, to habeas doesn't exist unless the President says it does. It's not clear from the quote what he's trying to say, which is simply more evidence the man is an idiot who has no ability to express a clear, intelligent, statement.
Yea you probably wouldn't want to shop at a store I ran since I wouldn't carry alcohol, tobacco, or firearms. What the hell kind of store is that, ya damn Communist?!
Rather than arguing about the cause of climate change, we need to focus on solutions to the problems it is creating, and monitoring of the climate. You're half right: rather than arguing about the cause of climate change, we should be arguing about whether or not it's a problem in the first place. Longer growing seasons in the extreme north, a wetter Sahara, these are good things.
Besides which, you're assuming that humans can control the weather. That's a pretty bold assumption, and until there's definitive evidence that we can actually change the weather, I'm going to remain a skeptic on anthropogenic global warming (and if it isn't anthropogenic, then there's nothing we can do to stop it, either).
From the article: "Vying for a seat the (sic) has been held by a Republican for all but two years since 1935, Smith won the Republican primary with 39% of the vote in a field of five candidates."
Nice job of monitoring the article's grammar, there!
Science is a consensus endeavor. No, it's not. It's a search for truth and understanding of the physical world. It's doesn't matter if people agree with you if your evidence supports your theory.
Politics is a consensus endeavor.
Any time I hear someone talk about the "scientific consensus", I know I can safely ignore everything they say after that, because they clearly don't understand what science is.
I guess maybe Lomborg has done some good things, started some good things, but all in all he did nothing good for the global warming debate but make it less scientific and more political. You misspelled "Gore".
Right. Because that's the side that is substantiated by scientific evidence, and the position against anthropogenic climate change is substantiated by no facts. Except for the correlation between the Sun's magnetic field strength and climate. And the evidence of climate change occurring in the past before humans had modern technology, or had even evolved in the first place.
We should really be asking instead "What can humans do to stop it?" Before we ask that, we have to ask "Is it more or less desirable for the earth to be a bit warmer?" I'm sure lots of farmers in Russia, Canada, and Alaska would prefer a longer growing season and warmer winters.
Actually, an even better way to prevent crime is to make sure everyone has a good job and a nice place to live and is content with life. Yeah, make everyone CEOs or CFOs of powerful companies, I'm sure they won't commit any crimes!
it takes a college degree to get any sort of decent job I dropped out of high school and earn $83,000 as my base salary, plus bonus. I know that's just one anecdote, but to say you "have" to have a college degree to have a good living is inaccurate. The only thing you "have" to have is a good work ethic (or luck, of course).
You don't have to verify who someone is, as long as you verify that the From and Reply-To address(es) associated with an email are valid for the sending MTA. If not, drop the email.
Yes, I know this would impact mailing lists, but I think that's a small price to pay to help stop spam.
It's not enough to make spam unprofitable. Not just that, it has to be seen as unglamorous. If the image of a typical spammer was changed from being a millionaire playboy to an Earl Hickey, that would help tremendously.
People with actual ability to use statistics know that it's unlikely that anyone will be killed by an asteroid for hundreds of years, if not thousands or even millions. You've obviously never been tasked with creating a disaster recovery/business continuity plan for your organization. If you had, you would understand that concept of risk, and why just looking at the likelihood of an event is insufficient to judge the risk of that event. You have to look at the potential damage to the organization, and couple that with the likelihood of it happening. Something that is extremely unlikely to happen, but would end the organization if it did, still has to be prepared for if you want to have a meaningful DR/BC plan in place. If that works for corporate America, I see no reason why the same principle should not be applied to the human race and our home.
(b) fucking up the magnetosphere, and possibly reducing the Earth's shielding from cosmic radiation I'm no physicist, but my bullshit detector is clanging pretty damn loudly right now. I have a hard time believing that a single nuke, even one on the order of the Tsar Bomba (100 megatons) would do anything substantial or lasting to the magnetosphere. This just sounds like fear mongering.
Just treat your female colleagues the same as you do your male ones: slap 'em on the ass and call 'em your bitch when you prove them wrong in something. What's so wrong with that?
Gotta go, I have a meeting with HR, not sure what about. Shouldn't take long, though.
On top of which, you can create a MySpace account and leave it open to the world. Or, gee, maybe create your own web site and/or blog yourself or one of a billion services. I don't get what problem this guy thinks exists.
They might have been more blatant about it while they controlled both the Executive and Legislative (and Judicial) branches, but don't for a second think that any of the Democrats are one iota better than their colleagues across the aisle.
I see W, Cheney, and Rove STILL in office. Bad examples, none of them have even been indicted for anything yet.
A number of republicans connected with Abramhoff is [sic] still awaiting to be tried (and I doubt that much will happen). So are a number of Democrats involved in that scandal. Methinks the political class are just hoping it all goes away and we all forget about it.
All in all, the republicans are FAR more corrupt than the dems. Why can't we all agree that politicians, regardless of party, are lying, murderous, backstabbing fiends, and that anyone who desires to hold elective office should be automatically barred from ever holding elective office based simply on their desire to do so?
What makes you think they didn't do that with Jefferson, and he was just too stupid to get rid of the money? Or maybe he was just convinced nothing would come of it. After all, so far, he'd be right.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not very accurate. What he said was that the right to habeas corpus isn't granted by the Constitution, only the ability of the President to suspend it in time of invasion or insurrection. He could have meant anything from habeas is a natural right that predates the Constitution, to habeas doesn't exist unless the President says it does. It's not clear from the quote what he's trying to say, which is simply more evidence the man is an idiot who has no ability to express a clear, intelligent, statement.
Besides which, you're assuming that humans can control the weather. That's a pretty bold assumption, and until there's definitive evidence that we can actually change the weather, I'm going to remain a skeptic on anthropogenic global warming (and if it isn't anthropogenic, then there's nothing we can do to stop it, either).
From the article:
"Vying for a seat the (sic) has been held by a Republican for all but two years since 1935, Smith won the Republican primary with 39% of the vote in a field of five candidates."
Nice job of monitoring the article's grammar, there!
Could not have put it better myself.
Politics is a consensus endeavor.
Any time I hear someone talk about the "scientific consensus", I know I can safely ignore everything they say after that, because they clearly don't understand what science is.
I think President Bush suggested something like this. And he's good!
You don't have to verify who someone is, as long as you verify that the From and Reply-To address(es) associated with an email are valid for the sending MTA. If not, drop the email.
Yes, I know this would impact mailing lists, but I think that's a small price to pay to help stop spam.
Just treat your female colleagues the same as you do your male ones: slap 'em on the ass and call 'em your bitch when you prove them wrong in something. What's so wrong with that?
Gotta go, I have a meeting with HR, not sure what about. Shouldn't take long, though.
On top of which, you can create a MySpace account and leave it open to the world. Or, gee, maybe create your own web site and/or blog yourself or one of a billion services. I don't get what problem this guy thinks exists.
That's right. And don't forget to start smoking, since teenagers all smoke, and they seem pretty on the ball.
They might have been more blatant about it while they controlled both the Executive and Legislative (and Judicial) branches, but don't for a second think that any of the Democrats are one iota better than their colleagues across the aisle.
What makes you think they didn't do that with Jefferson, and he was just too stupid to get rid of the money? Or maybe he was just convinced nothing would come of it. After all, so far, he'd be right.