shutup. just shut the fuck up. you neither know you are talking about, nor have any valid point to make.
its not about solving the digital divide any more than the housing thing is about solving poverty. its been widely and clearly shown that there is an increase in opportunity and outcomes between homes with and home without internet access.
you're essentially complaining about improving someones potential opportunities to enrich themselves and make their life better and maybe even get out of that housing you mock. but again, you have no valid point, so therefore theres little sense in talking sense, like pointing out to you that without subsidized housing many of these people would be on street, homeless, increasing both crime rates and homeless and deaths among the impoverished.
Theoretically we are a civilized nation. But a civilized nation doesnt advocate intentionally making it harder if not impossible for those most disadvantaged to improve themselves, nor advocate for them to die quickly and get out of the way.
it was a mental shortcut i admit, though it does describe the majority of such folks that i have met who talked on such matters: self-described evangelical protestants who think evolution is a lie from satan.
granted ive spent the several yers living in the deep south.
i know quite a few conservatives who are all ove the antigmo antivax bandwagons as well (and those two beliefs seem to go together a lot we well in my experience). as far ive seen it doesnt really have a right/left divide but is fairly equally represented on both sides.
which really says more about our education system, particularly of science, than anything.
you're are certifiably insane and doing nothing but fearmongering based on your own ignorance and distrust.
gene splicing is more likely to create a dud (a dead lump of cells that dont function) or even have no effect, than to achieve the desired changes.
i suggest you learn a bit about genetics before commenting. it takes considerably more effort than just cutting and paste a sequence of proteins from one creature to another to get a result.
A gene is a protein. As a protein it will be broken down and digested or passed out the other end, and thus poses zero threat. No genes enter your body when you eat something, GMO or not.
The most an introduced gene could do is cause the plant to concentrate or synthesize harmful chemicals/toxins, such as alkaloids (already common in the plant world).
Take corn: Corn doesn't naturally produce those things. Unless you use something like hemlock as the source of your drought tolerance gene and include the sequences controlling toxin production/storage, introducing drought tolerance from a drought tolerant plant is unlikely to magically confer on the corn any harmful attributes.
The most harm I worry about coming frm GMO is the so called Roundup Ready GMOs and their brethren. Not because the plants themselves are harmful, but because they encourage even more liberal usage of pesticides and herbicides, which is neither good for hte local envirnment, or longterm consumer health.
But GMOs created for drought tolerance, or reduced resource use, or improved nutrional value are largely not a concern and will be vital in the coming years.
you didnt even read what i wrote did you? in fact, you are the perfect illustration of what i meant. you are the one who doesnt know what he's talking about. I was talking about -actual- Catholic doctrine. You know, since I am one, albeit very poor one that rarely practices and goes to the cafeteria.
Yes, the general idea for government to pick winners and losers in the market place is wrong because it doesn't work.
Actual history says it does.
If it didnt, the concept would have gone away years ago. It hasnt, and its a pretty uncontroversial concept. it only ever actually becomes an issue when they pick something that -you- dont support, regardless of actual winner/loser status.
Case in point, the DOE loan program. People like you like to cry "solyndra" all day long, but you conveniently ignore that the entire program on the whole has been an unqualified success, making back far more money they it spent and outperforming hte equivalent private investment market with a >90% investment success rate ("success" in the private market being if roughly 30% of your investments succeed).
So your stance is that Kentucky citizens should all just sit there, being unhappy and grumpy about their poor economy, and do nothing to fix it or foster growth?
Repeat after me: Investment. It's not a hard concept to grasp. Spend a little money, make a lot of money.
Your tax dollars have given you: -Roads and interstates -Food safety -Computers -Internet -Air travel
Ah, who am I kidding? I'm stopping hte list there. Weve played this liltle charade before. You've proven before that you dont care and think the magical IHOTM will solve it all, even though history has shown that it never, ever, does.
No, the tourism board, in a state with a poor economy, is supporting a theme park for tourism and job creation purposes. As part of the deal certain promies regarding nondiscrimination were made (probably some standard boilerplate about "comply with all applicable state and local laws"). Promise which apparently have been broken.
You may not like the theme of hte park, and I have no intentions of going there, but its hardly the establishment of a state religion.
that's not what he said. he said what the Church has said for some time now: if evolution does exist, it exists God created it. Regardless of certain American Catholics who have more in common with evangelicals in their rejection of the science, the Catholic Church itself has not had a conflict with scientific theory for some time now.
I have a feeling this only seems newsworthy because most folks here are more acquainted with American Catholicism, which tends be very very influenced by American protestentism (ie, evangelicals) and thus very very conservative in some areas (especially science).
The Catholic Church has not been opposed to these things for some time, regardless of the feelings of certain members of the Church who didn't bother to learn their Catechism very well. Granted, the Church does an end run around them by essentially saying "if it is so, then it is so because God made it so", which is fairly standard religious belief around and not really out of hte ordinary.
But the point is, the Church's actual teaching is that there is no conflict between the Church's spiritual beliefs and teachings and these sciences, and thus the Church does not reject these scientific theories.
doesnt matter. not their motives nor your opinion on it.
and you still dont seem to understand. they arent getting space for free, out of entitlement to public spaces. its a service the university provides in exchange for money. that is the ONLY relevant fact.
the only solution to your complaint is for the university to stop renting out space at all, which means no one gets to hold conferences there. And other people could make the exact same complaints you're making about other conferences they dont agree with. this isnt an argument you can win.
wow. its like you read the headline, of a blog post, and decided that was all you needed to hear, so didnt bother to RTFA.
Voter impersonation, the only kind of fraud that Voter ID laws can possibly prevent, is the stupidiest, most costly and least rewarding form of voter fraud.
A lot of people, particularly low income folks working multiple minimum wage jobs, barely have time to wait in line to vote ONCE, let alone repeat the process somewhere here. And for all that effort they get....one extra vote.
There are other much better and easier ways to committ vote fraud than in-person voter impersonation or multiple voting. They're also much more common for that reason. And Voter ID does precisely squat to prevent them.
And yet, these states with really restrictive Voter ID arent running around trying to stop those methods with really draconian laws. no, just Voter ID, cause that's all they apparently think is important when it comes to "protecting the integrity of the elections".... or maybe the disparity could more easily be explained by "if we make it hard for the poors to vote, we have a better chance at winning". care to take a wager?
You toss wikipedia links around like confetti, as if they prove something, when it is appparent that you dont even bother to read them first because thus far they have contradicted you each and every time.
The only revisionist here is you. The only liar here is you. The only person getting his history wrong here is YOU.
then the university needs to stop offering any conference, to anyone, period. as long as they offer it to anyone as a publicly available service for a fee, they must offer it to everyone. the group's motive in choosig the university over some other venue is irrelelvent.
the homeless guy on the street isnt paying for conference space. but if he did, he'd have just as much right to it as these folks.
the only way to stop the university from allowing it is to stop the university from granting ANYONE the right to use their empty spaces for conferences.
and face it, that's not going to happen. universities are perfect places for conferences, often already having auditoriums setup with display boards, AV equipment, etc. And there are many hours of the day when those spaces sit unused, allowing a perfect opportunity for the university to add some additional cashflow (which if they were funded properly they wouldnt necessarily need, but that's beside the point).
It may be a stupid conference, they are a paying stupid conference using a publicly available service of the university.
They owe them a platform because like many universities, they have space is available for use for conferences for a fee.
In that sense its no different than any other conference, and as a public institution they'd have 1st Amendment legal problems if they tried to deny this group use specifically because of religious content.
Slashdot Mirror
shutup. just shut the fuck up.
you neither know you are talking about, nor have any valid point to make.
its not about solving the digital divide any more than the housing thing is about solving poverty.
its been widely and clearly shown that there is an increase in opportunity and outcomes between homes with and home without internet access.
you're essentially complaining about improving someones potential opportunities to enrich themselves and make their life better and maybe even get out of that housing you mock. but again, you have no valid point, so therefore theres little sense in talking sense, like pointing out to you that without subsidized housing many of these people would be on street, homeless, increasing both crime rates and homeless and deaths among the impoverished.
Theoretically we are a civilized nation.
But a civilized nation doesnt advocate intentionally making it harder if not impossible for those most disadvantaged to improve themselves, nor advocate for them to die quickly and get out of the way.
it was a mental shortcut i admit, though it does describe the majority of such folks that i have met who talked on such matters: self-described evangelical protestants who think evolution is a lie from satan.
granted ive spent the several yers living in the deep south.
monocrops and corproate controls are a reasonable worry.
the rest though, not so much.
Like all things, moderation is key.
But we put sugar is bloody everything.
Jon Oliver did a good bit on it just last Sunday.
you are the biggest troll and spreading the most fear and ignorance of anyone in this entire comments section.
i know quite a few conservatives who are all ove the antigmo antivax bandwagons as well (and those two beliefs seem to go together a lot we well in my experience).
as far ive seen it doesnt really have a right/left divide but is fairly equally represented on both sides.
which really says more about our education system, particularly of science, than anything.
you're are certifiably insane and doing nothing but fearmongering based on your own ignorance and distrust.
gene splicing is more likely to create a dud (a dead lump of cells that dont function) or even have no effect, than to achieve the desired changes.
i suggest you learn a bit about genetics before commenting. it takes considerably more effort than just cutting and paste a sequence of proteins from one creature to another to get a result.
Except not even that will happen.
A gene is a protein. As a protein it will be broken down and digested or passed out the other end, and thus poses zero threat.
No genes enter your body when you eat something, GMO or not.
The most an introduced gene could do is cause the plant to concentrate or synthesize harmful chemicals/toxins, such as alkaloids (already common in the plant world).
Take corn: Corn doesn't naturally produce those things. Unless you use something like hemlock as the source of your drought tolerance gene and include the sequences controlling toxin production/storage, introducing drought tolerance from a drought tolerant plant is unlikely to magically confer on the corn any harmful attributes.
The most harm I worry about coming frm GMO is the so called Roundup Ready GMOs and their brethren. Not because the plants themselves are harmful, but because they encourage even more liberal usage of pesticides and herbicides, which is neither good for hte local envirnment, or longterm consumer health.
But GMOs created for drought tolerance, or reduced resource use, or improved nutrional value are largely not a concern and will be vital in the coming years.
what it "does" will likely be to, if anything, cause the plant to fail and die and probably not even germinate.
this fearmongering rooted in ignorance is silly.
why have experts if their opinion has no special weight?
you didnt even read what i wrote did you?
in fact, you are the perfect illustration of what i meant.
you are the one who doesnt know what he's talking about.
I was talking about -actual- Catholic doctrine.
You know, since I am one, albeit very poor one that rarely practices and goes to the cafeteria.
Yes, the general idea for government to pick winners and losers in the market place is wrong because it doesn't work.
Actual history says it does.
If it didnt, the concept would have gone away years ago. It hasnt, and its a pretty uncontroversial concept. it only ever actually becomes an issue when they pick something that -you- dont support, regardless of actual winner/loser status.
Case in point, the DOE loan program. People like you like to cry "solyndra" all day long, but you conveniently ignore that the entire program on the whole has been an unqualified success, making back far more money they it spent and outperforming hte equivalent private investment market with a >90% investment success rate ("success" in the private market being if roughly 30% of your investments succeed).
But again, you dont care about reality.
So your stance is that Kentucky citizens should all just sit there, being unhappy and grumpy about their poor economy, and do nothing to fix it or foster growth?
Repeat after me: Investment. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
Spend a little money, make a lot of money.
Your tax dollars have given you:
-Roads and interstates
-Food safety
-Computers
-Internet
-Air travel
Ah, who am I kidding? I'm stopping hte list there. Weve played this liltle charade before. You've proven before that you dont care and think the magical IHOTM will solve it all, even though history has shown that it never, ever, does.
Which is precisely why theyre in trouble and why the state is now stopping those incentives.
No, the tourism board, in a state with a poor economy, is supporting a theme park for tourism and job creation purposes.
As part of the deal certain promies regarding nondiscrimination were made (probably some standard boilerplate about "comply with all applicable state and local laws").
Promise which apparently have been broken.
You may not like the theme of hte park, and I have no intentions of going there, but its hardly the establishment of a state religion.
that's not what he said.
he said what the Church has said for some time now: if evolution does exist, it exists God created it.
Regardless of certain American Catholics who have more in common with evangelicals in their rejection of the science, the Catholic Church itself has not had a conflict with scientific theory for some time now.
I have a feeling this only seems newsworthy because most folks here are more acquainted with American Catholicism, which tends be very very influenced by American protestentism (ie, evangelicals) and thus very very conservative in some areas (especially science).
The Catholic Church has not been opposed to these things for some time, regardless of the feelings of certain members of the Church who didn't bother to learn their Catechism very well. Granted, the Church does an end run around them by essentially saying "if it is so, then it is so because God made it so", which is fairly standard religious belief around and not really out of hte ordinary.
But the point is, the Church's actual teaching is that there is no conflict between the Church's spiritual beliefs and teachings and these sciences, and thus the Church does not reject these scientific theories.
doesnt matter. not their motives nor your opinion on it.
and you still dont seem to understand. they arent getting space for free, out of entitlement to public spaces.
its a service the university provides in exchange for money. that is the ONLY relevant fact.
the only solution to your complaint is for the university to stop renting out space at all, which means no one gets to hold conferences there.
And other people could make the exact same complaints you're making about other conferences they dont agree with.
this isnt an argument you can win.
wow. its like you read the headline, of a blog post, and decided that was all you needed to hear, so didnt bother to RTFA.
Voter impersonation, the only kind of fraud that Voter ID laws can possibly prevent, is the stupidiest, most costly and least rewarding form of voter fraud.
A lot of people, particularly low income folks working multiple minimum wage jobs, barely have time to wait in line to vote ONCE, let alone repeat the process somewhere here. And for all that effort they get....one extra vote.
There are other much better and easier ways to committ vote fraud than in-person voter impersonation or multiple voting.
They're also much more common for that reason.
And Voter ID does precisely squat to prevent them.
And yet, these states with really restrictive Voter ID arent running around trying to stop those methods with really draconian laws. no, just Voter ID, cause that's all they apparently think is important when it comes to "protecting the integrity of the elections".... or maybe the disparity could more easily be explained by "if we make it hard for the poors to vote, we have a better chance at winning". care to take a wager?
Nothing you have stated today is factual.
You toss wikipedia links around like confetti, as if they prove something, when it is appparent that
you dont even bother to read them first because thus far they have contradicted you each and every time.
The only revisionist here is you.
The only liar here is you.
The only person getting his history wrong here is YOU.
then the university needs to stop offering any conference space, to anyone, period.
as long as they offer it to anyone as a publicly available service for a fee, they must offer it to everyone.
the group's motive in choosing the university over some other venue is irrelevent.
as long as they offer conference space to anyone as a publicly available service for a fee, they must offer it to everyone.
the group's motive in choosig the university over some other venue is irrelelvent.
then the university needs to stop offering any conference, to anyone, period.
as long as they offer it to anyone as a publicly available service for a fee, they must offer it to everyone.
the group's motive in choosig the university over some other venue is irrelelvent.
the homeless guy on the street isnt paying for conference space.
but if he did, he'd have just as much right to it as these folks.
the only way to stop the university from allowing it is to stop the university from granting ANYONE the right to use their empty spaces for conferences.
and face it, that's not going to happen. universities are perfect places for conferences, often already having auditoriums setup with display boards, AV equipment, etc. And there are many hours of the day when those spaces sit unused, allowing a perfect opportunity for the university to add some additional cashflow (which if they were funded properly they wouldnt necessarily need, but that's beside the point).
It may be a stupid conference, they are a paying stupid conference using a publicly available service of the university.
They owe them a platform because like many universities, they have space is available for use for conferences for a fee.
In that sense its no different than any other conference, and as a public institution they'd have 1st Amendment legal problems if they tried to deny this group use specifically because of religious content.