The drone didn't do anything to 'treat' the man, as stated in the article and summary.
The drone spotted him using an infrared camera that could as easily have been mounted on the manned helicopter that didn't, for whatever reason, spot him when it went out. Not sure why the helicopter didn't also check the area where the man's mobile phone signal had last been spotted (which is where the drone went) but whatever.
I see no point in discussing this further with someone who believes that no matter how bad things were handled it wasn't Bush's fault and no matter how well they were handled it wasn't to the credit of Obama.
Of course I'm right. I deal in facts, not fabrications and slander. Too bad you can't say the same. Well, I suppose you *could* say it, but that would be a fabrication.
...who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant during her political campaign
You're wrong again. Bristol Palin gave birth in December 2008. She got pregnant in the spring of 2008, Sarah wasn't a part of the campaign until August 2008. To spell it out for you, she didn't get pregnant during the campaign. Just to save myself the trouble of correcting you later, the election took place in November 2008, so she didn't have her baby out of wedlock during the campaign either.
But don't let facts get in the way of your hate and vitriol.
LK
You focus on the detail of exactly when the events in question happened to try and discredit the statements of them actually happening. Nice try at spin but it doesn't change anything.
Palin failed her children with her abstinence only policies. The daughter, announcing her teenage out of wedlock pregnancy in September of 2008, during the election, the son marrying his already five months pregnant girlfriend later on (and divorcing a year after that), tell us that Palin is not able to manage her own family let alone an entire country.
Her trying to get books that she doesn't approve of banned from the public library and her refusal to believe in evolution, preferring creationism, are even more scary.
I don't hate her. I am afraid of her and the people who support her. Thankfully there weren't enough of you to make it happen though.
And Obama had the good fortune of his disaster being in the far more competent New York City area rather than Louisiana.
Not to mention the good fortune of being born with the intelligence sufficient to enable him to respond quickly when disaster did strike.
If Bush had been competent, he would have taken control of the situation in Louisiana. There is no excuse for such a poor disaster response in the most powerful country in the world.
Whereas you probably preferred an ignorant former alcoholic puppet who couldn't react well in emergencies and an equally ignorant schizophrenic religious nutcase who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant out of wedlock and divorcing a year after the shotgun wedding.
You are not even getting the basic facts right. Bristol Palin was never married to Levi. They had an on again/off again engagement but never married.
I would bet that you're one of those Palin haters who can't identify which quotes were hers and which were Tina Fey's.
LK
Okay you're right they never got married but that does not at all change the substance of what I said. Here, I fixed it for you:
"...an equally ignorant schizophrenic religious nutcase who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant during her political campaign.
Making large salaries is not a privilege, but quite a burden on time and health.. They are earned just like any other. The money's nice, but for anyone besides the multimillionaires, it's a lot of work. Instead of two 8 hr shifts in two crappy jobs, it's one 16hr shift at one crappy job, salaried so you're on it 24/7 until you retire, get fired for losing it to passive aggressive office politics, or die.
The problem is that leftists have convinced the culture that the lifestyle of a $100k/year salary is just as 'privileged' as someone with 50million in the bank.. The latter could retire at any time and live in luxury for life, the former can't.
Don't be ridiculous. No one has ever said that someone making 100k is as privileged as someone with 50 million.
What's most amazing is that your statement is completely 'leftist' right up until you attack leftists.
It is rather sad when many leftists simply write off opponents to the President as racists of some sort... as it does indicate what kind of issues they themselves have with race if that is the first thing that comes to mind.
MLK said:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character
And yet to the left... it is the color of ones skin, what sort of genitals one has, or what kind of genitals they prefer on the person they are with that is more important than the content of their character.
Whereas you probably preferred an ignorant former alcoholic puppet who couldn't react well in emergencies and an equally ignorant schizophrenic religious nutcase who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant out of wedlock and divorcing a year after the shotgun wedding.
Yes, much better judges of character indeed, you right wingers.
Ask a hard core libertarian what they think of a minimum wage
That's a fiscal, not social, issue. Why would a libertarian want to be against hiring teenagers, which is the real-world effect of a high minimum wage? Not everyone needs to live on what they are paid, high minimum wages ignore this fact.
Again a fiscal, not social, issue. Why can you not be fully for abortion without wanting the government to fund them?
Yes social services are never a social issue.
It's a fiscal issue to you but it's a social issue to the society and everyone who lives in it, even if they are too narrow minded to see it.
It would be better that teens be well educated about sex with free access to birth control, which I suppose you would also contest due to the associated cost, unless you're a full on idiot like Sarah Palin that believes that telling kids not to have sex works.
Private groups have proven they can do a far better job of providing social services than the government.
No they haven't. They can be more financially efficient on a small scale but they cannot provide the scope needed to cover the entire population.
Perhaps you would rather live in a country without government provided social services like any third world country where only the wealthy have access to education and medicine, where diseases killed off long ago in our society by social (read free) medicine still run rampant?
go through all the steps that led up to the recent factory collapse in Bangladesh
Corruption is the base of that more than anything else. Libertarians are not "for" corruption thank you very much, and also "thanks" for using 600 dead factory workers as leverage for your arguments.
Of course without government regulation there is no need for corruption. The result would be the same, however.
The point of the original poster was that without government regulation such catastrophes would be widespread as there would be no regulation and no government oversight allowing such business owners to build or put their employees to work in shoddy and unsafe factories to save money.
instead it's just pointing out that they are far too naive to understand what evil
It seems we are far less naive than you.
If you had something to back up your propaganda then perhaps I would agree with you.
It's not because Tea Party groups are fringe elements. It's because the average American is only outraged when they are told to be by the mainstream media. The same media that gives Obama the glory-hole treatment every week isn't going to direct people to be upset about the unfair treatment of the opposition.
LK
Because Fox news, for example, supports Obama...?
Abuse of power by any political party is unacceptable. Of course the Republicans wouldn't know anything about playing dirty though, would they...
You agree not to alter or modify any part of the Service.
Section 4j
YouTube reserves the right to discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time.
Section 5b
Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, make available online or electronically transmit, publish, adapt, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.
I'm sure there are also other sections that could be used as justification by youtube to block MS user's access to the content without any problem at all.
If I were youtube, I would wait awhile and then sue Microsoft for damages.
"Apple's share of the global smartphone market fell from 23% last year to 17% share this year, the largest year-over-year decline in the iPhone's history." According to Sanford Bernstein's Toni Sacconaghi, "if Apple does not introduce a new iPhone or lower-priced phone in CQ3 [Apple's fiscal Q4], it is quite possible that iPhone's smartphone market share could drop into the single digits."
The "Discovery Institute", the leading purveyors of pseudo-science hokum to the Far Right, who have somehow become a "think tank" involved in creating science curriculum in more than 25 states, has started a nationwide campaign on right-wing radio programs, pushing their notion that it's the Christian Conservatives who are the "real protectors of science" not those awful secular scientists (who are probably kenyan muslims too).
I heard their "director of research", a "Dr Stephen Meyer" who wrote a book called Darwinâ(TM)s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design on the radio earlier this week, talking about how the fact that our genes have "digital code" in them is proof of an "intelligent designer" because you can't have things like "circuits and digital code" without someone intelligent to design them.
I'm not joking, they are spending millions on a PR campaign talking about how the Christian Right are the true lovers of science. And exhibit A is how "the science establishment" still teaches evolution.
We are so fucked.
Welcome to The Dark Ages, Part II (The American Saga)
Why are we allowing people who aren't smart enough to decide what's best for children do just that? Why aren't we re-thinking how our government operates to prevent this from happening again?
We are.
On the other hand a lot of Americans are thinking that science is wrong and religion is right and about how our government operates to change things for the better (from their point of view).
The question is how to tip the societal balance back towards rationalism and non-religious education. It is the people that vote the government in, after all.
There is a difference between someone beating their brats and that same person teaching the same brats something stupid.
If you want to teach your kids Christianity, Islam, Marxism or anything else go to it. The smart kids will be better for it, the dumb ones will never matter anyhow.
Even 'dumb' or more accurately 'ignorant and misled' people generally get to vote. When you have a large enough number of ignorant and misled people voting, you have a problem.
A certain set of Republican politicians are very opposed to the National Science Foundation, as far as I can tell for two reasons:
1. For some politicians (and grassroots conservatives), they oppose some of the actual research being done. For example, they do not want to fund global-warming research, do not want to fund studies of gun violence, and do not particularly want there to be social-science research into issues such as racism or economic inequality.
2. For other politicians, it's just a convenient source of material for people who want to pose as cutting government spending without having to propose serious cuts any of the programs that take up more significant parts of the budget, because those are either too popular and/or politically too well-connected. Instead they just try to make political hay out of finding a few programs in the single-digit millions which they can attack as "frivolous". So, for example, Tom Coburn compiles an annual list of NSF-funded research projects he considers frivolous. You know, frivolous stuff like robotics research.
The police weren't there to break up a protest. They were there to remove campers. Just because you are a student you don't have the right to pitch a tent anywhere you wish on campus and have a sleepover with friends. Its the campers that refused to cooperate who were originally taken into custody, not people simply protesting on campus. Things spiraled from there.
The main point is that the police used the pepper spray like children spraying water in a water fight.
Arresting them one at a time would have served the same purpose without resorting to an abusive use of a painful substance.
Whether they intended to do so or not, those blocking effectively assisted those chanting "if you let them go we will let you leave". And those blocking were repeatedly warned and what was about to happen was explained. Its on the video.
I apologize for calling you stupid - I certainly see where you get your viewpoint from.
That being said, I still don't think that (a) the police were in the right for breaking up a peaceful protest by students who had the right to be on their own campus and (b) that the use of pepper spray was appropriate.
Your own link states that students *surounded* the police and *demanded* that those in custody be released. It further states that police ordered people to move and these people *refused*. What I recall from the full videos of the incident is that the police then pepper sprayed those people who refused to move and were *blocking* the path that the police wanted to use to exit the area.
This was *not* police simply walking up to protesters and pepper spraying them. These were people blocking an exit route as police were surrounded.
Are you really so stupid?
The police didn't spray the students 'surrounding' them as they would have had they actually felt threatened by them. They sprayed the ones sitting peacefully on the ground where they presented no threat to anyone and were there before the police or the students 'surrounding' the police arrived. That they were blocking 'an exit route' is as much complete bullshit as using the students 'surrounding' them as an excuse to attack the ones sitting on the ground.
I hope that you're on the receiving end of such beneficial police treatment one day. It might open your eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't hate her. I am afraid of her and the people who support her.
And that's the crux of the matter. Fear is not rational.
LK
Of course fears can be rational. Typical inaccurate generalization.
The story is spin, not to mention inaccurate.
The drone didn't do anything to 'treat' the man, as stated in the article and summary.
The drone spotted him using an infrared camera that could as easily have been mounted on the manned helicopter that didn't, for whatever reason, spot him when it went out. Not sure why the helicopter didn't also check the area where the man's mobile phone signal had last been spotted (which is where the drone went) but whatever.
I see no point in discussing this further with someone who believes that no matter how bad things were handled it wasn't Bush's fault and no matter how well they were handled it wasn't to the credit of Obama.
Of course I'm right. I deal in facts, not fabrications and slander. Too bad you can't say the same. Well, I suppose you *could* say it, but that would be a fabrication.
...who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant during her political campaign
You're wrong again. Bristol Palin gave birth in December 2008. She got pregnant in the spring of 2008, Sarah wasn't a part of the campaign until August 2008. To spell it out for you, she didn't get pregnant during the campaign. Just to save myself the trouble of correcting you later, the election took place in November 2008, so she didn't have her baby out of wedlock during the campaign either.
But don't let facts get in the way of your hate and vitriol.
LK
You focus on the detail of exactly when the events in question happened to try and discredit the statements of them actually happening. Nice try at spin but it doesn't change anything.
Palin failed her children with her abstinence only policies. The daughter, announcing her teenage out of wedlock pregnancy in September of 2008, during the election, the son marrying his already five months pregnant girlfriend later on (and divorcing a year after that), tell us that Palin is not able to manage her own family let alone an entire country.
Her trying to get books that she doesn't approve of banned from the public library and her refusal to believe in evolution, preferring creationism, are even more scary.
I don't hate her. I am afraid of her and the people who support her. Thankfully there weren't enough of you to make it happen though.
And Obama had the good fortune of his disaster being in the far more competent New York City area rather than Louisiana.
Not to mention the good fortune of being born with the intelligence sufficient to enable him to respond quickly when disaster did strike.
If Bush had been competent, he would have taken control of the situation in Louisiana. There is no excuse for such a poor disaster response in the most powerful country in the world.
Whereas you probably preferred an ignorant former alcoholic puppet who couldn't react well in emergencies and an equally ignorant schizophrenic religious nutcase who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant out of wedlock and divorcing a year after the shotgun wedding.
You are not even getting the basic facts right. Bristol Palin was never married to Levi. They had an on again/off again engagement but never married.
I would bet that you're one of those Palin haters who can't identify which quotes were hers and which were Tina Fey's.
LK
Okay you're right they never got married but that does not at all change the substance of what I said. Here, I fixed it for you:
"...an equally ignorant schizophrenic religious nutcase who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant during her political campaign.
It's not difficult to find her quotes: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palinisms.htm
She throws out sound bites well, as many right wingers do, but she's either extremely ignorant or a bald faced liar...or both.
obama didnt do shit up here when sandy hit last year, it was bloomberg and christie who took care of us.
bush fucked up as president, alot but obama makes him look like a saint.
You sound just like every other Obama hating right winger I've ever heard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/krugman-sandy-versus-katrina.html?_r=0
Bush was an absolute idiot. You can't make any reasonable comparison.
Dumb people tend not to stay rich for very long.
Tell it to George W.
Making large salaries is not a privilege, but quite a burden on time and health.. They are earned just like any other. The money's nice, but for anyone besides the multimillionaires, it's a lot of work. Instead of two 8 hr shifts in two crappy jobs, it's one 16hr shift at one crappy job, salaried so you're on it 24/7 until you retire, get fired for losing it to passive aggressive office politics, or die.
The problem is that leftists have convinced the culture that the lifestyle of a $100k/year salary is just as 'privileged' as someone with 50million in the bank.. The latter could retire at any time and live in luxury for life, the former can't.
Don't be ridiculous. No one has ever said that someone making 100k is as privileged as someone with 50 million.
What's most amazing is that your statement is completely 'leftist' right up until you attack leftists.
At least be consistent when you are ranting.
The best part is his username. Really makes the whole thing that much more hilarious.
It's probably our old buddy George W...
Well said!
It is rather sad when many leftists simply write off opponents to the President as racists of some sort... as it does indicate what kind of issues they themselves have with race if that is the first thing that comes to mind.
MLK said:
And yet to the left... it is the color of ones skin, what sort of genitals one has, or what kind of genitals they prefer on the person they are with that is more important than the content of their character.
Whereas you probably preferred an ignorant former alcoholic puppet who couldn't react well in emergencies and an equally ignorant schizophrenic religious nutcase who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant out of wedlock and divorcing a year after the shotgun wedding.
Yes, much better judges of character indeed, you right wingers.
Ask a hard core libertarian what they think of a minimum wage
That's a fiscal, not social, issue. Why would a libertarian want to be against hiring teenagers, which is the real-world effect of a high minimum wage? Not everyone needs to live on what they are paid, high minimum wages ignore this fact.
Exactly the opposite actually: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/the-minimum-wage-and-teenage-jobs/
or government provided social services
Again a fiscal, not social, issue. Why can you not be fully for abortion without wanting the government to fund them?
Yes social services are never a social issue.
It's a fiscal issue to you but it's a social issue to the society and everyone who lives in it, even if they are too narrow minded to see it.
It would be better that teens be well educated about sex with free access to birth control, which I suppose you would also contest due to the associated cost, unless you're a full on idiot like Sarah Palin that believes that telling kids not to have sex works.
Private groups have proven they can do a far better job of providing social services than the government.
No they haven't. They can be more financially efficient on a small scale but they cannot provide the scope needed to cover the entire population.
Perhaps you would rather live in a country without government provided social services like any third world country where only the wealthy have access to education and medicine, where diseases killed off long ago in our society by social (read free) medicine still run rampant?
go through all the steps that led up to the recent factory collapse in Bangladesh
Corruption is the base of that more than anything else. Libertarians are not "for" corruption thank you very much, and also "thanks" for using 600 dead factory workers as leverage for your arguments.
Of course without government regulation there is no need for corruption. The result would be the same, however.
The point of the original poster was that without government regulation such catastrophes would be widespread as there would be no regulation and no government oversight allowing such business owners to build or put their employees to work in shoddy and unsafe factories to save money.
instead it's just pointing out that they are far too naive to understand what evil
It seems we are far less naive than you.
If you had something to back up your propaganda then perhaps I would agree with you.
You're half right.
It's not because Tea Party groups are fringe elements. It's because the average American is only outraged when they are told to be by the mainstream media. The same media that gives Obama the glory-hole treatment every week isn't going to direct people to be upset about the unfair treatment of the opposition.
LK
Because Fox news, for example, supports Obama...?
Abuse of power by any political party is unacceptable. Of course the Republicans wouldn't know anything about playing dirty though, would they...
Bottom left of their page, link: terms.
Section 4b
Section 4j
Section 5b
I'm sure there are also other sections that could be used as justification by youtube to block MS user's access to the content without any problem at all.
If I were youtube, I would wait awhile and then sue Microsoft for damages.
"Apple's share of the global smartphone market fell from 23% last year to 17% share this year, the largest year-over-year decline in the iPhone's history." According to Sanford Bernstein's Toni Sacconaghi, "if Apple does not introduce a new iPhone or lower-priced phone in CQ3 [Apple's fiscal Q4], it is quite possible that iPhone's smartphone market share could drop into the single digits."
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/tag/toni-sacconaghi/
Which I suspect is due more to lack of innovation since the death of Steve Jobs, for whatever reasons, than to a lock-them-in market strategy
The "Discovery Institute", the leading purveyors of pseudo-science hokum to the Far Right, who have somehow become a "think tank" involved in creating science curriculum in more than 25 states, has started a nationwide campaign on right-wing radio programs, pushing their notion that it's the Christian Conservatives who are the "real protectors of science" not those awful secular scientists (who are probably kenyan muslims too).
I heard their "director of research", a "Dr Stephen Meyer" who wrote a book called Darwinâ(TM)s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design on the radio earlier this week, talking about how the fact that our genes have "digital code" in them is proof of an "intelligent designer" because you can't have things like "circuits and digital code" without someone intelligent to design them.
I'm not joking, they are spending millions on a PR campaign talking about how the Christian Right are the true lovers of science. And exhibit A is how "the science establishment" still teaches evolution.
We are so fucked.
Welcome to The Dark Ages, Part II (The American Saga)
Why are we allowing people who aren't smart enough to decide what's best for children do just that? Why aren't we re-thinking how our government operates to prevent this from happening again?
We are.
On the other hand a lot of Americans are thinking that science is wrong and religion is right and about how our government operates to change things for the better (from their point of view).
The question is how to tip the societal balance back towards rationalism and non-religious education. It is the people that vote the government in, after all.
Minding you own business isn't part of yours?
There is a difference between someone beating their brats and that same person teaching the same brats something stupid.
If you want to teach your kids Christianity, Islam, Marxism or anything else go to it. The smart kids will be better for it, the dumb ones will never matter anyhow.
Even 'dumb' or more accurately 'ignorant and misled' people generally get to vote. When you have a large enough number of ignorant and misled people voting, you have a problem.
A certain set of Republican politicians are very opposed to the National Science Foundation, as far as I can tell for two reasons:
1. For some politicians (and grassroots conservatives), they oppose some of the actual research being done. For example, they do not want to fund global-warming research, do not want to fund studies of gun violence, and do not particularly want there to be social-science research into issues such as racism or economic inequality.
2. For other politicians, it's just a convenient source of material for people who want to pose as cutting government spending without having to propose serious cuts any of the programs that take up more significant parts of the budget, because those are either too popular and/or politically too well-connected. Instead they just try to make political hay out of finding a few programs in the single-digit millions which they can attack as "frivolous". So, for example, Tom Coburn compiles an annual list of NSF-funded research projects he considers frivolous. You know, frivolous stuff like robotics research.
It might be worth pointing out that Lama Smith is opposed to abortion, and thus most likely anything to do with stem cell research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_S._Smith#Tenure
Bit of a shame no one thought to make this a rechargable system.
It was a joke. Only an idiot insults waiters...
Of course! Insulting the US patent office is a known technique to guarantee your submission will be calmly and objectively reviewed. Do it now.
It always works for me at restaurants...
The police weren't there to break up a protest. They were there to remove campers. Just because you are a student you don't have the right to pitch a tent anywhere you wish on campus and have a sleepover with friends. Its the campers that refused to cooperate who were originally taken into custody, not people simply protesting on campus. Things spiraled from there.
The main point is that the police used the pepper spray like children spraying water in a water fight.
Arresting them one at a time would have served the same purpose without resorting to an abusive use of a painful substance.
Take your own advice and open your own eyes, watch the full 15 min video: http://ricochet.com/main-feed/UC-Davis-Pepper-Spray-Incident-What-Really-Happened.
Whether they intended to do so or not, those blocking effectively assisted those chanting "if you let them go we will let you leave". And those blocking were repeatedly warned and what was about to happen was explained. Its on the video.
I apologize for calling you stupid - I certainly see where you get your viewpoint from.
That being said, I still don't think that (a) the police were in the right for breaking up a peaceful protest by students who had the right to be on their own campus and (b) that the use of pepper spray was appropriate.
Because of campus police like Lt. John Pike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident
Your own link states that students *surounded* the police and *demanded* that those in custody be released. It further states that police ordered people to move and these people *refused*. What I recall from the full videos of the incident is that the police then pepper sprayed those people who refused to move and were *blocking* the path that the police wanted to use to exit the area.
This was *not* police simply walking up to protesters and pepper spraying them. These were people blocking an exit route as police were surrounded.
Are you really so stupid?
The police didn't spray the students 'surrounding' them as they would have had they actually felt threatened by them. They sprayed the ones sitting peacefully on the ground where they presented no threat to anyone and were there before the police or the students 'surrounding' the police arrived. That they were blocking 'an exit route' is as much complete bullshit as using the students 'surrounding' them as an excuse to attack the ones sitting on the ground.
I hope that you're on the receiving end of such beneficial police treatment one day. It might open your eyes.