Some other misnomers taught to us through our *great* K-12 educational system about the American Revolution.... I could go on and on.
And while I could take time to respond to most, if not all, of your assertions, I think it is only necessary to respond to one:
Ben Franklin. Great guy. He was the North American Colonies agent in London. Dealt with the King. Was liked by the Court. He even had his son made the Royal Governor of New Jersey. The Court thought he was an honest representative, but the man changed sides. When his son refused to change sides, Franklin had his own son locked up in prison. After the war, Franklin's son moved to England. They never spoke again. Franklin left his son out of his will.
When a "great guy" who is "liked by the court" and considered to be an "honest representative" decides to "change sides" and believes so strongly in that decision that he refuses to ever talk to his son again, perhaps you should ask yourself why? If the English were such great people given the total shaft by a bunch of smuggling, radical colinists, why would such an honest and respected man "change sides?"
I suspect the truth is somewhere between the two extremes, but "your" extreme is certainly no closer to the truth than the one taught in K-12.
Hint: America is one of the most under-represented forms of representative government in the world. To bring us up to the average number of capita per representative (or is that fraction-of-a-representative per capita?
And that's a bad thing? I believe Argentina just down-sized their Congress a few years ago. I heard talk about Mexico doing the same a year or two ago (though I'm sure they won't actually do it).
Everyone's downsizing and you want to double the size of Congress? They do enough damage as it is, we don't need twice as many of them trying to secure their pork for the four blocks of the city that they'd represent. That's what the State legislatures are for. Did you factor those representatives in?
No, I agree, the left generally prefers not to deal in absolutes. They profess (though don't always practice) a general "whatever you think is right is ok" attitude where there are no absolutes, moral or otherwise, and no-one should judge anyone else. It's attractive for the "living for today" crowd since it sort of gives them a license to do pretty much anything they want. But it's a recipe for gradual decay of civilization.
Ben Kenobi's absurd back-assword comment in Episode III not withstanding (*), moral absolutes are generally promoted by the "good guys" while lax, non-absolutes are generally preached by those that tend to be not quite as pure as the wind-driven snow. Because once you start "letting things slide", the person doing the sliding moves further and further away from what it is moral and what is correct. Eventually, that person is so far gone that he or she wouldn't even recognize the person they've become. What started as a "trivial" exception in their moral compass has lead to more and more exceptions.
I know I'll get slammed and moderated for this, but it's the honest truth. There are moral absolutes on this planet and many things are either good or they are bad. One should not be afraid to say so.
(*) That stupid politically-motivated line in Episode III was all the more distracting precisely because it was completely backwards. The "dark side" (or liberalism) is an incremental, slow slide to doom. Only those that walk the straight line of the good side of the force (conservatism) will be able to resist the temptations of the dark side (or liberalism).
Please excuse me while I put my anti-flame-thrower suit on.:)
Meaning = focused energy. One word is meaningless without other words surrounding it and giving it focus. Mearly by using words at all, you are actually creating reality, rather then observing it.
Put DOWN the joint and step back from the keyboard. NOW!
Me: "We have 3 Sun E450 servers running our site."
Her: "What are those?"
You should have mentioned the Mac angle. Even if she doesn't use a Mac, at least most people know and understand what it is and know that Windows software doesn't run on a Mac and vice versa. Sure, someone that doesn't know about technology shouldn't be writing an article on this topic but you definitely need to frame your examples for the intended audience.
You start dropping Sun servers that even most technical people have never used and it's not surprisingly you only got one mangled line in the article.
Yet another example where the punishment does not fit the crime. You're willing to take away 10 years of some punk kid's life because him and his friends went out one night, got a little toasted, and painted somebody's garage?
Yes! It's called deterrent. That happens a few times and you're going to find far fewer punk kids are going to do that. I, for one, would be absolutely furious if I wake up, go out to get my paper, and find my house vandalized for absolutely no purpose. And the chances of finding the ***hole that did it are virtually nil. So if we get a break and do find the punk, yes, he absolutely needs to be thrown in jail for 10 years and other punk kids need to realize they have absolutely no right to deface the property of others. If they want to paint garages they can either buy their own garage or get a job as a painter.
If you REALLY want to punish people do it properly. Chain the fucker to the garage, give him some paint thinner and a toothbrush. Don't let him leave until the graffiti is gone.
That would be fine if we caught 90% of the people the created graffiti. But since there's a very low probability of actually catching them (and they KNOW that), the potential penalty MUST be increased to compensate for the decreased probability of actually catching the person.
Have some sense, and have some creativity please.
As soon as we have 90%+ aprehension rate for those that engage in graffiti, I'd be more than happy to entertain your solution. Until then, the potential penalty MUST be significantly increased to provide an adequate deterrent.
Criminal punishment isn't just about seeking revenge for crimes already committed. It's about implementing a deterrent so that they don't happen in the first place.
Does the statement, "We should put to death people who create griffiti." even sound slightly rational?
No. But I wouldn't mind throwing those that create graffiti in jail for a good 10 years.
Quite frankly, I find it disgusting when people harm others (or their property) for no purpose whatsoever. At least when someone steals 20 bucks from a convenience store, you understand why... they needed money and while it is completely unacceptable, they were doing something to help themselves. With things like graffiti or viruses, you're harming others for the sheer joy of harming others. There's no benefit to the person doing the harm. That's just sick and should be punished as such. Maybe they should be sent to a mental institution.
(and let's face it, virus infestations are fairly minor compared to the gamut of actual crimes that people are let off the hook with much less punishment)
Virus infestations are NOT minor. There is no excuse to writing and releasing a virus. Absolutely none. It's willful destruction of the property of potentially millions of other people for no particular reason.
And the potential loss caused by that can be the in millions or even billions of dollars. And sometimes the destruction isn't even fixable if the poor schmucks didn't have backups. And I'm not just talking about rich corporations here... don't forget the tens of thousands or even millions of individuals who don't have an IT department to fix the mess for them.
Martha Stuart got, what, 3 or 6 months for something that potentially cost others less than $100,000. Of course hackers and virus-writers shouldn't get the death penalty, but you better believe they deserve to do some very serious time for causing so much destruction... and again, with no useful purpose.
Think about where the closest world-class opera house, ballet theater, symphony orchestra, art museum,..., well you get the idea, are to you. Chances are it will be hard to find parking, and rush hour will be a major nightmare.
Who cares? Is someone a better person because they go to the opera, ballet, or symphony? These things bore me. Sure, I'll enjoy listening to a symphony while I do something else. Like drive to the mountains to enjoy a weekend of camping, or hiking through the desert and enjoying what nature has to offer along with my friends and family.
Some of the best things this world has to offer are most decidedly not in the city. And, for that matter, public transportation is available to very few of the best things this world has to offer.
Sure, you can park your SUV in your driveway, park your wide ass on your sofa, and tune in "American Idol" 15 minutes after leaving work. But some of us aspire to something more.
Huh? How did you get to this psuedo-conclusion from my original posting saying that maybe I prefer to drive a SUV than to take public transportation?
So you are willing to appease the aggressors (by abandoning our ally Israel) in an effort to achieve peace? You need look no further than WWII to see how well appeasement (doesn't) work.
FWIW, mass transit just isn't looking as appealing as it used to. Let's see 9/11 (4 planes). Madrid (multiple trains). London (trains and bus). Israel (buses on a regular basis).
All in all, driving my own SUV or car-pooling with the neighbor is really looking pretty attractive.
Democrats who believe the one-sided Republican view of history you reported are #2 reason they lose elections by 1.5%. Republicans who believe it are the #1 reason. Otherwise, there would be at least 10% margins for Democrats, despite the 20% of voters who are racicst sadists who don't know nuthin' 'bout nuthin', except who's promising them more unaccountable violence and handouts.
You forgot the zero-based #0 reason: Arrogant Democrats like you who talk down to others and are quickly identified by the public at large. As long as people like you exist and keep talking like you do, the #1 and #2 reason will take a major backseat to the #0 reason and you will keep losing elections. So please keep it up!
Truth be told, America is a conservative nation. I know it pains the liberals to hear that, but it's the truth. No, maybe not as conservative as the most conservative Republicans, but yes, the nation is more conservative than it is liberal. Deal with it.
Hopefully we can replace this swing vote with another justice that will vote to protect property rights. We definitely need more conservative justices as the propery rights decision shows.
"Take for instance the Siebel database. Now I've never used that interface. But I'd love to go to it and say 'who is the account manager for the Commonwealth Bank of Australia?'," Ballmer told the partners.
Microsoft's vision for search would eventually make such data discoverable, without using the [actual] application.
Ooohh, ahhh. Talk about "innovation." Palm OS has been doing that since at least, what, 1999 or so?
Amazing... give Windows a few more years and it'll catch up with Palm OS.:)
You have on the one hand a peer reviewed, falsifiable, reproducible study that says one thing by a bunch of folks (perhaps in lab coats) who studied and workd 8-10 years of their lives to get to the point where they could be 'peer' reviewed.
Hahah, I'm going to assume (based on the tone of hte rest of your message) that you're referring to pro-global warming "studies.
I'd like to know which of them are reproducible. On what planet were they able to reproduce the conditions of the earth? Or are they "reproducible" in the sense that when they run their broken model more than once, they can get the same result twice?
And you can bet the press will present that story with two nicely balanced sides, as well.
As well? That implies that the press is currently presenting both sides of the global warming debate in a balanced fashion. If you believe that, I have a bridge in San Francisco I'd like to sell you. Please buy it now while it's still above sea level.:):):):)
Really the only debate in "scientific circles" are the scientists under the payroll of big companies that create pollution.
Well then I guess we should thank the big companies that create pollution, because it will be a very sad and worrisome day when science is only investigating one possible side of an issue. They'll have to make a new version of American Pie that goes, "The day the science died... And I was singin'..."
If we are wrong, and we really weren't changing the planets climate, we still get the benfit of a cleaner environment.
This kind of thinking absolutely drives me crazy. It's essentially a politcal group (environmentalists) admitting they can't win on the basis of the facts, so they just claim that we should follow their guidelines "just in case." Sorry, it doesn't work that way in science or politics. You make your case and your case lives or dies on the merits.
I do not believe that humans are having a major impact on the atmosphere, at least not inasmuch as CO2 goes. I fully support efforts to eliminate "brown clouds" and "acid rain" or other things that we pollute, absolutely! But CO2 is not a pollutant. It's not poisonous. And it's a distant #2 after water vapor in being a greenhouse gas!
In short, if you want me to make major changes in the amount of non-poisonous, non-pollutant, pro-plant-growth chemical I produce, you're going to have to show we some damned good evidence. That evidence has NOT been forthcoming. The case for human-induced climate change as a consequence of CO2 is weak, and even if the case were strong, there's no real proof that the ultimate effects of some global warming would necessarily be bad. The world would just be different.
Anyway, no thanks. If you have a scientific case to make, make the case and let the world decide on the merits. But don't cop out and expect the world to adopt your recommendations even though you can't demonstrate you're right.
Many people think that's a kind of good thing in and of itself.
And many other people think that the best way to reduce CO2 production would be if those that are opposed to CO2 would just stop breathing.
Do deniers believe that there is some political conspiracy among climate scientist?
Yes. Not an organized conspiracy where they get together in dark corners and plot things out, but a common need for acceptance and funding.
Or that the journals Nature and Science are deliberatly attacking/suppresing climate scientist that have other evidence than what is published in the major science journals of the world?
Uh, yes. This was covered on Slashdot not too long ago, too.
Maybe it is you who only adopt supporting theories that probably are comforting to you, that climate change will not happen in my life time and I will not have to change my life style because of it?
It's always entertaining watching environmentalist wackos accusing others of not being willing to "change their lifestyle" and that's why thinking people are unwilling to accept psuedo-science about climate change (previously "global warming").
The global warming PAC is falling apart. From having to go from "global warming" to "climate change" (since there is less and less evidence that it's really warming, let alone globally), and with nonsense such as "global warming may cause localized cooling", etc. It's all smoke and mirrors.
The sad thing is that the whole global warming fiasco has lasted so much longer than the previous "we're heading for an ice age!" scare in the late 70's. But I'll bet in another 10 or 20 years the whole global warming movement will be laughed off much in the way the "ice age" scare is laughed off now.
And, no, that's not because I'm afraid of a change in lifestyle. It's because I don't base decisions on psuedo-science, period.
Slashdot Mirror
And while I could take time to respond to most, if not all, of your assertions, I think it is only necessary to respond to one:
Ben Franklin. Great guy. He was the North American Colonies agent in London. Dealt with the King. Was liked by the Court. He even had his son made the Royal Governor of New Jersey. The Court thought he was an honest representative, but the man changed sides. When his son refused to change sides, Franklin had his own son locked up in prison. After the war, Franklin's son moved to England. They never spoke again. Franklin left his son out of his will.
When a "great guy" who is "liked by the court" and considered to be an "honest representative" decides to "change sides" and believes so strongly in that decision that he refuses to ever talk to his son again, perhaps you should ask yourself why? If the English were such great people given the total shaft by a bunch of smuggling, radical colinists, why would such an honest and respected man "change sides?"
I suspect the truth is somewhere between the two extremes, but "your" extreme is certainly no closer to the truth than the one taught in K-12.
And that's a bad thing? I believe Argentina just down-sized their Congress a few years ago. I heard talk about Mexico doing the same a year or two ago (though I'm sure they won't actually do it).
Everyone's downsizing and you want to double the size of Congress? They do enough damage as it is, we don't need twice as many of them trying to secure their pork for the four blocks of the city that they'd represent. That's what the State legislatures are for. Did you factor those representatives in?
Ben Kenobi's absurd back-assword comment in Episode III not withstanding (*), moral absolutes are generally promoted by the "good guys" while lax, non-absolutes are generally preached by those that tend to be not quite as pure as the wind-driven snow. Because once you start "letting things slide", the person doing the sliding moves further and further away from what it is moral and what is correct. Eventually, that person is so far gone that he or she wouldn't even recognize the person they've become. What started as a "trivial" exception in their moral compass has lead to more and more exceptions.
I know I'll get slammed and moderated for this, but it's the honest truth. There are moral absolutes on this planet and many things are either good or they are bad. One should not be afraid to say so.
(*) That stupid politically-motivated line in Episode III was all the more distracting precisely because it was completely backwards. The "dark side" (or liberalism) is an incremental, slow slide to doom. Only those that walk the straight line of the good side of the force (conservatism) will be able to resist the temptations of the dark side (or liberalism).
Please excuse me while I put my anti-flame-thrower suit on. :)
Put DOWN the joint and step back from the keyboard. NOW!
You should have mentioned the Mac angle. Even if she doesn't use a Mac, at least most people know and understand what it is and know that Windows software doesn't run on a Mac and vice versa. Sure, someone that doesn't know about technology shouldn't be writing an article on this topic but you definitely need to frame your examples for the intended audience.
You start dropping Sun servers that even most technical people have never used and it's not surprisingly you only got one mangled line in the article.
Yes! It's called deterrent. That happens a few times and you're going to find far fewer punk kids are going to do that. I, for one, would be absolutely furious if I wake up, go out to get my paper, and find my house vandalized for absolutely no purpose. And the chances of finding the ***hole that did it are virtually nil. So if we get a break and do find the punk, yes, he absolutely needs to be thrown in jail for 10 years and other punk kids need to realize they have absolutely no right to deface the property of others. If they want to paint garages they can either buy their own garage or get a job as a painter.
If you REALLY want to punish people do it properly. Chain the fucker to the garage, give him some paint thinner and a toothbrush. Don't let him leave until the graffiti is gone.
That would be fine if we caught 90% of the people the created graffiti. But since there's a very low probability of actually catching them (and they KNOW that), the potential penalty MUST be increased to compensate for the decreased probability of actually catching the person.
Have some sense, and have some creativity please.
As soon as we have 90%+ aprehension rate for those that engage in graffiti, I'd be more than happy to entertain your solution. Until then, the potential penalty MUST be significantly increased to provide an adequate deterrent.
Criminal punishment isn't just about seeking revenge for crimes already committed. It's about implementing a deterrent so that they don't happen in the first place.
No. But I wouldn't mind throwing those that create graffiti in jail for a good 10 years.
Quite frankly, I find it disgusting when people harm others (or their property) for no purpose whatsoever. At least when someone steals 20 bucks from a convenience store, you understand why... they needed money and while it is completely unacceptable, they were doing something to help themselves. With things like graffiti or viruses, you're harming others for the sheer joy of harming others. There's no benefit to the person doing the harm. That's just sick and should be punished as such. Maybe they should be sent to a mental institution.
Virus infestations are NOT minor. There is no excuse to writing and releasing a virus. Absolutely none. It's willful destruction of the property of potentially millions of other people for no particular reason.
And the potential loss caused by that can be the in millions or even billions of dollars. And sometimes the destruction isn't even fixable if the poor schmucks didn't have backups. And I'm not just talking about rich corporations here... don't forget the tens of thousands or even millions of individuals who don't have an IT department to fix the mess for them.
Martha Stuart got, what, 3 or 6 months for something that potentially cost others less than $100,000. Of course hackers and virus-writers shouldn't get the death penalty, but you better believe they deserve to do some very serious time for causing so much destruction... and again, with no useful purpose.
Who cares? Is someone a better person because they go to the opera, ballet, or symphony? These things bore me. Sure, I'll enjoy listening to a symphony while I do something else. Like drive to the mountains to enjoy a weekend of camping, or hiking through the desert and enjoying what nature has to offer along with my friends and family.
Some of the best things this world has to offer are most decidedly not in the city. And, for that matter, public transportation is available to very few of the best things this world has to offer.
Sure, you can park your SUV in your driveway, park your wide ass on your sofa, and tune in "American Idol" 15 minutes after leaving work. But some of us aspire to something more.
Huh? How did you get to this psuedo-conclusion from my original posting saying that maybe I prefer to drive a SUV than to take public transportation?
All in all, driving my own SUV or car-pooling with the neighbor is really looking pretty attractive.
Ok, now, do you have any realistic solutions?
49 MHz I believe.
You forgot the zero-based #0 reason: Arrogant Democrats like you who talk down to others and are quickly identified by the public at large. As long as people like you exist and keep talking like you do, the #1 and #2 reason will take a major backseat to the #0 reason and you will keep losing elections. So please keep it up!
Truth be told, America is a conservative nation. I know it pains the liberals to hear that, but it's the truth. No, maybe not as conservative as the most conservative Republicans, but yes, the nation is more conservative than it is liberal. Deal with it.
And refusing to accept that it was liberals who arrived at that decision shows that you have a deep failure to understand reality.
And that was, what, 15 years ago???
"Take for instance the Siebel database. Now I've never used that interface. But I'd love to go to it and say 'who is the account manager for the Commonwealth Bank of Australia?'," Ballmer told the partners. Microsoft's vision for search would eventually make such data discoverable, without using the [actual] application.
Ooohh, ahhh. Talk about "innovation." Palm OS has been doing that since at least, what, 1999 or so?
Amazing... give Windows a few more years and it'll catch up with Palm OS. :)
Hahah, I'm going to assume (based on the tone of hte rest of your message) that you're referring to pro-global warming "studies.
I'd like to know which of them are reproducible. On what planet were they able to reproduce the conditions of the earth? Or are they "reproducible" in the sense that when they run their broken model more than once, they can get the same result twice?
And you can bet the press will present that story with two nicely balanced sides, as well.
As well? That implies that the press is currently presenting both sides of the global warming debate in a balanced fashion. If you believe that, I have a bridge in San Francisco I'd like to sell you. Please buy it now while it's still above sea level. :) :) :) :)
Well then I guess we should thank the big companies that create pollution, because it will be a very sad and worrisome day when science is only investigating one possible side of an issue. They'll have to make a new version of American Pie that goes, "The day the science died... And I was singin'..."
This kind of thinking absolutely drives me crazy. It's essentially a politcal group (environmentalists) admitting they can't win on the basis of the facts, so they just claim that we should follow their guidelines "just in case." Sorry, it doesn't work that way in science or politics. You make your case and your case lives or dies on the merits.
I do not believe that humans are having a major impact on the atmosphere, at least not inasmuch as CO2 goes. I fully support efforts to eliminate "brown clouds" and "acid rain" or other things that we pollute, absolutely! But CO2 is not a pollutant. It's not poisonous. And it's a distant #2 after water vapor in being a greenhouse gas!
In short, if you want me to make major changes in the amount of non-poisonous, non-pollutant, pro-plant-growth chemical I produce, you're going to have to show we some damned good evidence. That evidence has NOT been forthcoming. The case for human-induced climate change as a consequence of CO2 is weak, and even if the case were strong, there's no real proof that the ultimate effects of some global warming would necessarily be bad. The world would just be different.
Anyway, no thanks. If you have a scientific case to make, make the case and let the world decide on the merits. But don't cop out and expect the world to adopt your recommendations even though you can't demonstrate you're right.
Many people think that's a kind of good thing in and of itself.
And many other people think that the best way to reduce CO2 production would be if those that are opposed to CO2 would just stop breathing.
Yes. Not an organized conspiracy where they get together in dark corners and plot things out, but a common need for acceptance and funding.
Or that the journals Nature and Science are deliberatly attacking/suppresing climate scientist that have other evidence than what is published in the major science journals of the world?
Uh, yes. This was covered on Slashdot not too long ago, too.
It's always entertaining watching environmentalist wackos accusing others of not being willing to "change their lifestyle" and that's why thinking people are unwilling to accept psuedo-science about climate change (previously "global warming").
The global warming PAC is falling apart. From having to go from "global warming" to "climate change" (since there is less and less evidence that it's really warming, let alone globally), and with nonsense such as "global warming may cause localized cooling", etc. It's all smoke and mirrors.
The sad thing is that the whole global warming fiasco has lasted so much longer than the previous "we're heading for an ice age!" scare in the late 70's. But I'll bet in another 10 or 20 years the whole global warming movement will be laughed off much in the way the "ice age" scare is laughed off now.
And, no, that's not because I'm afraid of a change in lifestyle. It's because I don't base decisions on psuedo-science, period.