Spoken like someone who doesn't have kids. He wasn't line cutting - he just wanted his kids with him so they could sit together.
Yes, he "just wanted his kids with him", so he CUT THE LINE. Hey guess what OTHER way he could have had his kids with him? By getting on board with them in their assigned boarding spot!
Well, at least you've backed off claiming you were looking for the "rules", and that "the rules" should result in criminal prosecutions, when your interest from the beginning was in seeing someone prosecuted.
So you're focused squarely on the wrong point, but at least you're focused.
Congrats. I'm done wrestling the greased pig that is your supposed argument.
So will there be criminal charges? That is what should happen surely?
You didn't inquire (excuse me, "enquire") about "rules" and how they apply, you wanted to know who is going to jail. And the CDC is governed by HHS. While OSHA rules probably apply to most CDC operations, oversight is by HHS, and the OIG (office of the inspector general).
The point is not whether there are "rules". Of course there are rules. The point is that your knee jerk reaction to a report of accidental mishandling of the materials was, "Who's going to be prosecuted?" Not only off point, but not even a sensible reaction to the incident.
...But in principle, physics can be simulated by an algorithm. Therefore a human brain can be modelled at the particle level and run in simulation.
This caught my eye, because it is so far beyond human capability, you might as well say, "unicorns can be wired in series to produce any level of artificial intelligence desired." A simulation running at the particle level, hmm. I think that's in the realm of "not enough time left in the universe to produce a meaningful result before final proton decay."
I'm guessing that there are laws about such things...
And there you have it. You're just guessing, and you have no idea whether a crime was committed. There was no suggestion in the article that any crime *was* committed. A search on "was cdc anthrax exposure a crime?" yielded no front page results even speculating on it.
Yet you took the time to *repeatedly* post the question of prosecution. Did you read the article? Did you do any search to answer your own question? I'm "guessing" no.
Yeah, sure - except that the climate scientists are *actually* correct, and people who are *correct* have to stop responding to the batshit crazy lies from the other side.
You sound like one of those "teach the controversy" ninnies, which is fine, until the only "controversy" left is maintained by people peddling lies motivated by greed and hatred.
You're not getting the point - it's gone on so long, and is so nakedly motivated by greed, manipulation of the media, or hatred, that we should stop giving credence to the willfully ignorant and the outright liars, and spend energy in other pursuits.
You're really not doing anyone any favors by quibbling over the term "deniers". It's accurate.
This is just like Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever we fight the next war to line Halliburton's pockets.
Lets test that.
Reporter - 2004: Why is the US fighting in Afghanistan?
Marine in Afghanistan: Because Afghanistan hosted al Qaeda when it attacked the US, killing as many people as Pearl Harbor.
Reporter - 2014: Why did the US go to war in Afghanistan?
DexterIsADog: Cuz Halliburtonz!
I'm going with the Marines.
You remain adorable! I know, a lesser mind could infer that I claimed Afghanistan was motivated to line Halliburton's pockets, but that's not actually true. Try asking someone with English comprehension skills to read that to you - your conclusion does not logically follow.
Anyway, it was especially endearing that you left out Iraq entirely, which I now explicitly contend WAS stage managed by neocon war criminals looking for some profit.
And while the *proximate* cause of the Afghanistan war was Al Qaeda, even in your fake interview, your imaginary soldier left out the reasons Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. in the first place, as if history began on 9/11/01, so you made your hypothetical marine as ignorant as I contended.
This is just like Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever we fight the next war to line Halliburton's pockets. If you want to know the historical and political factors driving the different factions in the war, are you going to ask a scholar who has researched the history and analyzes news from all sources? No, just ask one of the grunts from some FOB - they know the straight shit.
And to a long, detailed, thought out post we have here the typical follower's knee-jerk response.
This is one of many reasons people are not believing the claims.
The problem is that the deniers keep trotting out the *same* nonsense and outright lies, and at some point we have to say, enough. Saying that people don't believe the science because the scientists don't take every crazy rant seriously and debunk the lies endlessly is to participate in the strategy to keep us from taking action before it's too late.
If you really believe what you said, here's how you can help - post a link about that claim he made that Escondido changed the traffic light patterns to increase their speeding ticket revenue.
Consider the time demands on medical residents.... Medicine, despite requiring science classes and long hours, doesn't carry the same stigma as CS and EE.
I'm not arguing with you, just noting that my wife is a physician, and she carried the load in school and training just fine. And she did manage to overlook the stain of my CS degree.:-)
So in other words, you were wrong, didn't show anything real to prove you're not wrong, but you are confident that you are right.
That's actually a bigger problem in the U.S. these days. People are not actually good at things, but they're very confident that they are.
Yes. I wouldn't say you are immune to it either.
But here's an issue.. (blah, blah, blah, lots of hyperbole and strawmen galore, refutations of opinions not offered, etc., etc.).
Nonsense. I correctly pointed out that the GP claimed something to be true, was refuted, and offered nothing in response, except the opinion that he was *still* right.
You, on the other hand, made a snide remark at me with no basis whatsoever, and then proceeded on a long tangent that had nothing to do with my point. I surmise that you missed my point, and read a lot into my post based on your prejudices, which was not there.
So, congrats. Now there are two of you up on the stage accepting awards for high confidence.
ok. it's even worse. but I still have more propensity to consume than poor dudes.
Probably more than *one* "poor dude". But the marginal propensity to spend money across the large group of "poor dudes" that vastly outnumber *you* leaves you in the dust. Give money to people who have almost nothing, and they are going to spend it, on food, clothing, shelter, transportation, perhaps even some education or meager entertainment. Double the monthly income of people living below the poverty line, and most of that cash will get into the economy immediately.
Do you spend 90% of your income? Doubtful. Myself, I own my house and vacation property outright. I save over 30% of what I earn. How about Warren Buffett? Does he spend even 5% of his income? Very doubtful. Same with the Walmart heirs.
Tax the shit out of that wealth, they'll still have more than they can possibly spend, give that cash to people who have nothing, and the money is out in the economy, where it helps all of us.
find some pictures of early 20th century offices where everyone sits at a desk in a huge room with no dividers.
No, no, that's not a factory, that's an "open plan workspace", which facilitates communication among teams.
When I leave my office to wander the floor doing my exemplary "management by walking around", don't let me catch you posting on/. during working hours.
Hey, I get it. I don't personally write songs or perform them, so I naturally think no one should get any exclusive right to profit from music. You write it, it belongs to the world.
Patents are all bullshit. I recommend going back to a completely patent free trade secret world. If someone reverse engineers your stuff, so be it. Patents are yet another limit on the freedom of do whatever you want as long as it does not hurt the children. It's like somebody is gonna patent having a job.
I imagine there are no patents in your name. Well, feel free to continue not patenting anything you invent. The rest of us will continue to use a flawed system that still provides some promise that if we invent something, we'll get a chance to profit from it.
This is a great idea! It reminds me of my idea to save professional sports: you can only play for teams within either a 30 mile radius of where you were born, or the closest team stadium to where you were born, whichever is farthest.
OR, you can live in a city for 5 years, and then apply.
The quality of the play might go down a little, but then at least the alcohol-fueled idiots aggressively showing their love for their hometown team will at least be worshipping people from their own hometown, not whiny millionaire mercenaries.
Take that idea free of charge, I have a million of them - if you provoke me I will tell you about my great idea for limiting the topics on which musicians can sing.
However, the great thing about art is you're not obliged to agree with anyone.
And the bad thing is that there are those that will tax your wealth to pay for it anyway.
Yes, because people should only be taxed to support things they personally agree with. Where do I get the refund for my share of the $1.1 Trillion the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter?
Slashdot Mirror
Spoken like someone who doesn't have kids. He wasn't line cutting - he just wanted his kids with him so they could sit together.
Yes, he "just wanted his kids with him", so he CUT THE LINE. Hey guess what OTHER way he could have had his kids with him? By getting on board with them in their assigned boarding spot!
I understand your point. Mine was that it's so computationally hard, you may as well talk about using unicorns and blue fairies.
Really, is there any difference if you'd need a computer the size of the galaxy running for 20 billion years to produce a result?
Sure, possible in theory. But so what?
Well, at least you've backed off claiming you were looking for the "rules", and that "the rules" should result in criminal prosecutions, when your interest from the beginning was in seeing someone prosecuted.
So you're focused squarely on the wrong point, but at least you're focused.
Congrats. I'm done wrestling the greased pig that is your supposed argument.
No. Just no.
Remember what you actually wrote?
So will there be criminal charges?
That is what should happen surely?
You didn't inquire (excuse me, "enquire") about "rules" and how they apply, you wanted to know who is going to jail. And the CDC is governed by HHS. While OSHA rules probably apply to most CDC operations, oversight is by HHS, and the OIG (office of the inspector general).
The point is not whether there are "rules". Of course there are rules. The point is that your knee jerk reaction to a report of accidental mishandling of the materials was, "Who's going to be prosecuted?" Not only off point, but not even a sensible reaction to the incident.
Feel free to keep walking that back if you like.
...But in principle, physics can be simulated by an algorithm. Therefore a human brain can be modelled at the particle level and run in simulation.
This caught my eye, because it is so far beyond human capability, you might as well say, "unicorns can be wired in series to produce any level of artificial intelligence desired." A simulation running at the particle level, hmm. I think that's in the realm of "not enough time left in the universe to produce a meaningful result before final proton decay."
Obligatory xkcd: http://www.xkcd.com/505/
I'm guessing that there are laws about such things...
And there you have it. You're just guessing, and you have no idea whether a crime was committed. There was no suggestion in the article that any crime *was* committed. A search on "was cdc anthrax exposure a crime?" yielded no front page results even speculating on it.
Yet you took the time to *repeatedly* post the question of prosecution. Did you read the article? Did you do any search to answer your own question? I'm "guessing" no.
Yeah, sure - except that the climate scientists are *actually* correct, and people who are *correct* have to stop responding to the batshit crazy lies from the other side.
You sound like one of those "teach the controversy" ninnies, which is fine, until the only "controversy" left is maintained by people peddling lies motivated by greed and hatred.
You're not getting the point - it's gone on so long, and is so nakedly motivated by greed, manipulation of the media, or hatred, that we should stop giving credence to the willfully ignorant and the outright liars, and spend energy in other pursuits.
You're really not doing anyone any favors by quibbling over the term "deniers". It's accurate.
This is just like Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever we fight the next war to line Halliburton's pockets.
Lets test that.
Reporter - 2004: Why is the US fighting in Afghanistan? Marine in Afghanistan: Because Afghanistan hosted al Qaeda when it attacked the US, killing as many people as Pearl Harbor.
Reporter - 2014: Why did the US go to war in Afghanistan? DexterIsADog: Cuz Halliburtonz!
I'm going with the Marines.
You remain adorable! I know, a lesser mind could infer that I claimed Afghanistan was motivated to line Halliburton's pockets, but that's not actually true. Try asking someone with English comprehension skills to read that to you - your conclusion does not logically follow.
Anyway, it was especially endearing that you left out Iraq entirely, which I now explicitly contend WAS stage managed by neocon war criminals looking for some profit.
And while the *proximate* cause of the Afghanistan war was Al Qaeda, even in your fake interview, your imaginary soldier left out the reasons Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. in the first place, as if history began on 9/11/01, so you made your hypothetical marine as ignorant as I contended.
Why do you hate our troops?
Exactly, thank you.
This is just like Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever we fight the next war to line Halliburton's pockets. If you want to know the historical and political factors driving the different factions in the war, are you going to ask a scholar who has researched the history and analyzes news from all sources? No, just ask one of the grunts from some FOB - they know the straight shit.
And to a long, detailed, thought out post we have here the typical follower's knee-jerk response.
This is one of many reasons people are not believing the claims.
The problem is that the deniers keep trotting out the *same* nonsense and outright lies, and at some point we have to say, enough. Saying that people don't believe the science because the scientists don't take every crazy rant seriously and debunk the lies endlessly is to participate in the strategy to keep us from taking action before it's too late.
If you really believe what you said, here's how you can help - post a link about that claim he made that Escondido changed the traffic light patterns to increase their speeding ticket revenue.
Hey, Anne Coulter, I thought you only wrote for pay!
Consider the time demands on medical residents. ... Medicine, despite requiring science classes and long hours, doesn't carry the same stigma as CS and EE.
I'm not arguing with you, just noting that my wife is a physician, and she carried the load in school and training just fine. And she did manage to overlook the stain of my CS degree. :-)
So in other words, you were wrong, didn't show anything real to prove you're not wrong, but you are confident that you are right. That's actually a bigger problem in the U.S. these days. People are not actually good at things, but they're very confident that they are.
Yes. I wouldn't say you are immune to it either.
But here's an issue.. (blah, blah, blah, lots of hyperbole and strawmen galore, refutations of opinions not offered, etc., etc.).
Nonsense. I correctly pointed out that the GP claimed something to be true, was refuted, and offered nothing in response, except the opinion that he was *still* right.
You, on the other hand, made a snide remark at me with no basis whatsoever, and then proceeded on a long tangent that had nothing to do with my point. I surmise that you missed my point, and read a lot into my post based on your prejudices, which was not there.
So, congrats. Now there are two of you up on the stage accepting awards for high confidence.
ok. it's even worse. but I still have more propensity to consume than poor dudes.
Probably more than *one* "poor dude". But the marginal propensity to spend money across the large group of "poor dudes" that vastly outnumber *you* leaves you in the dust. Give money to people who have almost nothing, and they are going to spend it, on food, clothing, shelter, transportation, perhaps even some education or meager entertainment. Double the monthly income of people living below the poverty line, and most of that cash will get into the economy immediately.
Do you spend 90% of your income? Doubtful. Myself, I own my house and vacation property outright. I save over 30% of what I earn. How about Warren Buffett? Does he spend even 5% of his income? Very doubtful. Same with the Walmart heirs.
Tax the shit out of that wealth, they'll still have more than they can possibly spend, give that cash to people who have nothing, and the money is out in the economy, where it helps all of us.
Is this clear now?
find some pictures of early 20th century offices where everyone sits at a desk in a huge room with no dividers.
No, no, that's not a factory, that's an "open plan workspace", which facilitates communication among teams.
/. during working hours.
When I leave my office to wander the floor doing my exemplary "management by walking around", don't let me catch you posting on
So in other words, you were wrong, didn't show anything real to prove you're not wrong, but you are confident that you are right.
That's actually a bigger problem in the U.S. these days. People are not actually good at things, but they're very confident that they are.
Posting to undo because I accidentally modded this redundant instead of "Fuckin' Insightful!"
...says the person with no patents to his name.
Hey, I get it. I don't personally write songs or perform them, so I naturally think no one should get any exclusive right to profit from music. You write it, it belongs to the world.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Patents are all bullshit. I recommend going back to a completely patent free trade secret world. If someone reverse engineers your stuff, so be it. Patents are yet another limit on the freedom of do whatever you want as long as it does not hurt the children. It's like somebody is gonna patent having a job.
I imagine there are no patents in your name. Well, feel free to continue not patenting anything you invent. The rest of us will continue to use a flawed system that still provides some promise that if we invent something, we'll get a chance to profit from it.
I think you're trying to nail Jello to a board (which might get you a grant).
This is like arguing religion.
This is a great idea! It reminds me of my idea to save professional sports: you can only play for teams within either a 30 mile radius of where you were born, or the closest team stadium to where you were born, whichever is farthest.
OR, you can live in a city for 5 years, and then apply.
The quality of the play might go down a little, but then at least the alcohol-fueled idiots aggressively showing their love for their hometown team will at least be worshipping people from their own hometown, not whiny millionaire mercenaries.
Take that idea free of charge, I have a million of them - if you provoke me I will tell you about my great idea for limiting the topics on which musicians can sing.
However, the great thing about art is you're not obliged to agree with anyone.
And the bad thing is that there are those that will tax your wealth to pay for it anyway.
Yes, because people should only be taxed to support things they personally agree with. Where do I get the refund for my share of the $1.1 Trillion the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter?
That's quite a useful reply. It doesn't require you to have thought about it at all. Congrats.
You think art that is designed to provoke is not art. Well, then you're probably only half blind. But whatever floats your boat.