I think eliminating the obvious fakes, collecting the ones with experience, and then discarding resumes at random would be better than their current foolish nonsense.
Greed, and people's lack of desire to actually solve the problem.
The same thing could be said about the government following the constitution. Why bother trying to fix the situation when we know from history that all governments are corrupt? The problem is that suggesting an alternative and trying to fix the problem to the best of your ability is not the same as ignoring reality.
Whenever someone questions whether an article is news for nerds, someone usually comes out and uses silly and trivial excuses to justify why the article is here.
I'd suggest that evidence of creation is found in the fact that anything exists at all
Ignorance is not evidence. The fact that you cannot conceive of any other possibility does not mean it is rational to make up an answer (or believe someone else's made up answer) and claim it is the real answer.
in the same way that the existence of anything which appears organized enough to convey information implies that an intelligence was behind it
'organized' is subjective. We merely evolved in our environment, and there are countless places in the universe that don't seem so 'organized.'
But if you think that faith isn't worth actually basing any beliefs off of, then one is advocating, for instance, that it would be unwise for any married person to believe in the fidelity of their spouse, for example, without almost constant supervision and routine physical exams.
Well-earned trust is different from faith. If you marry someone you don't know, then that's quite foolish.
Then again, I'd say marriage is foolish in general.
Riiiight... the auto industry is unregulated and free market...
How does that debunk what he said at all? More choices would make it *more* like a real free market, so it makes no sense to legally limit people's choices from a free marketeer's perspective.
That court decision led to war protestors being arrested, and was a 'creative' interpretation of the first amendment. Or rather, it was a modification.
Furthermore, even if I look at it from the perspective of someone who supports such a restriction on free speech, the two situations aren't even remotely the same. Some say one puts people in clear and immediate danger, while the other merely offends people. Big difference. Colossal, in fact.
not all speech is free.
The first amendment makes no such distinctions. I suggest reading it. The fact is, the government is attempting to punish people because they find their speech offensive. I don't agree with trademarks, but I don't think they should be arbitrarily taking them away for certain people.
you won't find The Jihad Channel on your local cable box.
If that's not allowed, then it is indeed a free speech issue. Next.
I was stating that even compared the low bar set by the standards of the class, I was horrible, even in relation to my peers, who were being taught in the same way and came from the same background.
Yes, I saw that. So? Some people aren't cut out for sitting in a classroom and do worse than others, even if just for specific subjects.
My one exception was foreign languages; I have absolutely no ability whatsoever in foreign languages. In American, I can speed-read, and have reasonable facility with writing. In any other language, it mattered not at all how much I studied, practiced, or did my homework, I was horrible, even by the low standards of an American high-school foreign language class. French, Latin, even American Sign Language as an adult, and I was hopeless. I got barely passing grades in French and Latin out of pity more than anything else.
Have you considered that your education was poor, and that it's not very efficient to learn a foreign language by just sitting in a classroom and simply doing what they tell you?
Because I don't want us to be the world police, but to focus on our own problems. The less important point is, as you admitted, we don't actually fix anything ever.
It is. Trying to 'fix' these countries is just a waste of money. And since we're the ones who often cause the problems to begin with, I seriously don't think it's a good idea to try to 'fix' them any more than we already did.
Slashdot Mirror
If you make it non-partsian and say both sides are equally bad, that gives everyone a free pass because they just say the other guy would do it too.
"Everybody's doing it!" is not a defense.
Besides, this is no reason to ignore the truth: The government is full of evil scumbags, and it's a non-partisan issue.
Throw the guy currently doing wrong in jail and you break the chain of corruption.
Doesn't work. Never worked.
Defend the guy currently doing it saying both sides are bad and you give both a free pass to continue.
No one is defending him.
Not sure why that is difficult to understand.
Because it's illogical.
I think eliminating the obvious fakes, collecting the ones with experience, and then discarding resumes at random would be better than their current foolish nonsense.
Nobody did that in this case.
Even if they didn't, it still wouldn't count as ignoring reality, since they're identifying a problem.
People have suggested we place severe restrictions on who can get loans or grants.
In actual reality, you cannot deny away the effects that increasing costs has.
I suppose not.
Its no different than all the youtube videos that show people how to break the law and start off with a "this is for education purposes only" line.
It's significantly different, because these people are in positions of power in the government and have the ability to easily ruin people's lives.
It is also a set of methods and values that pass on from teacher to pupil.
A set of methods and values that can be communicated.
If its misguided then why is it true in practice?
Greed, and people's lack of desire to actually solve the problem.
The same thing could be said about the government following the constitution. Why bother trying to fix the situation when we know from history that all governments are corrupt? The problem is that suggesting an alternative and trying to fix the problem to the best of your ability is not the same as ignoring reality.
"the" alternative? There is only one alternative, or just that you (or we) have not thought of another?
and why I consider the notion that this universe came into existence from nothing and caused by nothing
Who made that claim?
In the end, we choose which insane theory to accept as fact
What's wrong with, "I don't know."?
Whenever someone questions whether an article is news for nerds, someone usually comes out and uses silly and trivial excuses to justify why the article is here.
but its implication is still not proof.
I see. In that case, the existence of anything can imply just about any insane idea one can come up with.
I only suggest it to note that once a person has fully considered the possibilities
Seems like a waste of time to me.
Some of the best test scores on the planet
People take test scores seriously?
Great. More "X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad" logic.
But they never seem to actually go to these countries to enjoy these benefits.
Perhaps they'd rather improve the country they were born in?
Nah, here in America, we don't allow that. Get out, complainers!
I'd suggest that evidence of creation is found in the fact that anything exists at all
Ignorance is not evidence. The fact that you cannot conceive of any other possibility does not mean it is rational to make up an answer (or believe someone else's made up answer) and claim it is the real answer.
in the same way that the existence of anything which appears organized enough to convey information implies that an intelligence was behind it
'organized' is subjective. We merely evolved in our environment, and there are countless places in the universe that don't seem so 'organized.'
But if you think that faith isn't worth actually basing any beliefs off of, then one is advocating, for instance, that it would be unwise for any married person to believe in the fidelity of their spouse, for example, without almost constant supervision and routine physical exams.
Well-earned trust is different from faith. If you marry someone you don't know, then that's quite foolish.
Then again, I'd say marriage is foolish in general.
You lose the argument.
What does that even mean?
Riiiight... the auto industry is unregulated and free market...
How does that debunk what he said at all? More choices would make it *more* like a real free market, so it makes no sense to legally limit people's choices from a free marketeer's perspective.
so shout "fire" in a crowded theater
That court decision led to war protestors being arrested, and was a 'creative' interpretation of the first amendment. Or rather, it was a modification.
Furthermore, even if I look at it from the perspective of someone who supports such a restriction on free speech, the two situations aren't even remotely the same. Some say one puts people in clear and immediate danger, while the other merely offends people. Big difference. Colossal, in fact.
not all speech is free.
The first amendment makes no such distinctions. I suggest reading it. The fact is, the government is attempting to punish people because they find their speech offensive. I don't agree with trademarks, but I don't think they should be arbitrarily taking them away for certain people.
you won't find The Jihad Channel on your local cable box.
If that's not allowed, then it is indeed a free speech issue. Next.
be it true crimes like CP
True crimes like looking at images.
Does anyone really get emotional about that 'for the children' garbage? I just can't fathom how stupid people are.
You can also have a facebook account and still stay sane
Nope, because Facebook is a scumbag company and privacy is important.
nor was expressly illegal due to the Patriot Act
The Patriot Act does not override the highest law of the land in the US.
don't think that a good education is ever likely to make me a sociable person, and a lot of careers require being sociable.
Nor does it need to. If you can learn one language, you can learn another one at least to some degree.
I was stating that even compared the low bar set by the standards of the class, I was horrible, even in relation to my peers, who were being taught in the same way and came from the same background.
Yes, I saw that. So? Some people aren't cut out for sitting in a classroom and do worse than others, even if just for specific subjects.
My one exception was foreign languages; I have absolutely no ability whatsoever in foreign languages. In American, I can speed-read, and have reasonable facility with writing. In any other language, it mattered not at all how much I studied, practiced, or did my homework, I was horrible, even by the low standards of an American high-school foreign language class. French, Latin, even American Sign Language as an adult, and I was hopeless. I got barely passing grades in French and Latin out of pity more than anything else.
Have you considered that your education was poor, and that it's not very efficient to learn a foreign language by just sitting in a classroom and simply doing what they tell you?
How would you know?
Because I don't want us to be the world police, but to focus on our own problems. The less important point is, as you admitted, we don't actually fix anything ever.
It's not actually on them.
It is. Trying to 'fix' these countries is just a waste of money. And since we're the ones who often cause the problems to begin with, I seriously don't think it's a good idea to try to 'fix' them any more than we already did.