I'm pretty sure you don't have any kids in public school. It's fun to say "every kid gets a trophy," but after four kids going through high school? I still haven't seen it happen.
Pittsburgh is a pretty solid arts town, and considering how prominently steel sculpture figures into the story? The writer and editors forgot their national and global audience. They need to get out more.
It's about seven paragraphs in that they tell us which Oakland they're talking about: "Oakland is also more affordable than San Francisco, its bigger, more glamorous sibling across the Bay."
Excellent point. It's not like you can't go up there and check. Sure, it costs money, and the airlanes are regulated so there's the little matter of getting the legal authority to go to the specific places where the "chemtrails" are, but... yeah.
This article is a pretty weak debunking. If the government really wanted to spray chemicals from commercial jets, they wouldn't let a little thing like weight limits stop them. Make shorter flights that require less fuel. Leave a lot of empty seats to provide more slack weight. Spray in really small quantities. Whatever.
Seriously, Occam's Razor debunks better than this. Simply: what the hell makes you think that chemicals are being routinely sprayed out of commercial jets for nefarious purposes? On what basis is the ordinary scientific explanation about vapor condensation not a good enough explanation for the trails? And if the government can spray chemicals in the air on that scale, why can't they make them invisible too?
It's got nothing to do with weight limits and everything to do with unnecessary complexity.
As long as I'm at it, wouldn't you think that if chemtrails were a real thing, Manning and Snowden would have found out and blabbed?
I look back at my decisions and wonder, "How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?"
If you read it straight, Manning is saying that everyone should defer to "proper authority" without any qualifiers or limits, which is a rather authoritarian point of view. He's tweaking the court, the government, and the public there.
There's the problem. What can you explain, out of context, in 90 characters? Think of who will be seeing the message. About all you can do that might be effective is something like: "Girl 9 kidnap by strgr in Smallville drvng blue Focus details on state govt cable channel." It's more important that people have some idea what the hell you're talking about than that you get them the plate number and such. That's what the cable news or website is for.
This is a great example of poor systems thinking. This application doesn't have to reach everyone to be effective, but the people it does reach have to be able to understand and act on an alert. Looks like they got it backwards.
If each of those companies had three or four engineers dedicating a few hours every day to picking off their competitors’ applications, the number of granted patents to those companies would grind to a halt.
The fact that not one of them is doing that is evidence of collusion. They're using patents to protect their circle and keep lesser entities out.
Oh for heaven's sake. Due process is not limited to arrest and trial because that's the direct simple meaning of the fifth amendment. I'm not going to read it to you again. "Least intrusive means" is classic 4th Amendment doctrine. And while strictly speaking the intel agencies are under civilian control, you were the one disparaging "the opinions of those who have never worked in espionage."
This question isn't a matter of proof, it's one of values. Do you want spies to make policy on spying or don't you? Do you have a problem with those policies being set by "those who have never worked in espionage" or do you respect civilian authority? Do you want the courts to be accountable or don't you?
I'm really unclear on what your point is here. I'm arguing for civilian control, and noting that due process isn't limited to arrest and trial. Why the contrary attitude?
The technical answer is "it depends."
The legal answer, I am not a lawyer yadda yadda, is "by the least intrusive means that are practical and fulfill the requirements of the warrant." At least that's how federal courts have usually ruled on how much innocent third-party communication they're allowed to capture.
"Particularly" is a key word there. The amendment was in part a reaction to the Crown's use of "general warrants" that put everyone subject to searches. A warrant to search every private residence in your suburb would fail the "particularity" test. Likewise a warrant to trap and capture every phone call in the United States.
You're being "deprived of life, liberty, or property"--the liberty part specifically--by the government going through your communications. That's not inherently unconstitutional if "due process of law" is applied.
The (implied?) argument here is that it's not "due process" if the government is acting with more secrecy than is absolutely required for legitimate law enforcement purposes.
There is absolutely nothing in the fifth amendment that limits its application to criminal trials. Due process is for everyone, at all times, when "life, liberty, or property" are on the line.
But also more importantly because the insurance only stays cheap if you don't need it much. If the transaction is strictly between you and the insurer, they have an incentive to cut you off when you start to cost too much. If you're in an employee group, at least they have to think about the downside of losing the whole group.
The downside to buying your own health care (insurance) is that it's easy for the insurer to drop you as an individual if you start to cost too much. At least if you're on an employer group plan, they have to weigh the cost of losing the whole group.
Freedom Area School District Superintendent Ron Sofo recounted an experimental program that he said helped to dramatically raise the math scores of struggling sixth-graders. Among other features, the program included "A, B, Not Yet" grading, in which students were required to redo work until it merited an A or B.
My gf teaches English composition, in college classes for both native and non-native English speakers. She usually grades papers as A, B, or R for Rewrite. (There are pluses and minuses too, and there's the C now and then when the student has really done as much as she can.) Students get a lot of extra practice writing, and her grading load is higher than most because of it, but students leave her classes with much-improved skills.
So I understand the usefulness of the "Not Yet" grade. It can be a great teaching tool, if it's used to mean: "You can do better than this. Go back and study some more."
Sure. That's not a crazy point of view, and I get your point. What you're saying is true.
I'm saying that if you're Obama, your whole point is that it's not just about yourself. He's trying to say (even if you disagree, even if you think he's full of crap) that people need to start thinking in terms of a national community that shares significant interests and goals. It's a concept better described if you say "we" a lot.
Even though, yeah, if you were to challenge Obama as to what he, personally is going to do, the "we" word isn't as helpful.
I just don't see anything wrong with a politician using a lot of "we" rhetoric when describing an overall vision. It doesn't have to be "spin" or misleading.
"We Shall Overcome!" works a lot better than "I shall plan a strategy for overcoming!"
Slashdot Mirror
It would have been just as sexist without her there.
I'm pretty sure you don't have any kids in public school. It's fun to say "every kid gets a trophy," but after four kids going through high school? I still haven't seen it happen.
Word. This is way more dangerous than some gas in Syria, and TEPCO is not solving the problem.
Yes, you idiot. The passage you quote is Rabbi Yochanan being slapped down for saying something stupid and wrong.
...it should be keeping corporations from pulling stunts like this. It's not like you and I have the means to confront TEPCO over this.
Apparently clear writing is considered "a lot more than is necessary" these days.
Why be ambiguous when clarity requires one more word?
Pittsburgh is a pretty solid arts town, and considering how prominently steel sculpture figures into the story? The writer and editors forgot their national and global audience. They need to get out more.
There are quite a few cities named Oakland and the references to steel sculptures made suburban Pittsburgh sound reasonable.
It's about seven paragraphs in that they tell us which Oakland they're talking about: "Oakland is also more affordable than San Francisco, its bigger, more glamorous sibling across the Bay."
Oh. Thanks.
Excellent point. It's not like you can't go up there and check. Sure, it costs money, and the airlanes are regulated so there's the little matter of getting the legal authority to go to the specific places where the "chemtrails" are, but... yeah.
This article is a pretty weak debunking. If the government really wanted to spray chemicals from commercial jets, they wouldn't let a little thing like weight limits stop them. Make shorter flights that require less fuel. Leave a lot of empty seats to provide more slack weight. Spray in really small quantities. Whatever.
Seriously, Occam's Razor debunks better than this. Simply: what the hell makes you think that chemicals are being routinely sprayed out of commercial jets for nefarious purposes? On what basis is the ordinary scientific explanation about vapor condensation not a good enough explanation for the trails? And if the government can spray chemicals in the air on that scale, why can't they make them invisible too?
It's got nothing to do with weight limits and everything to do with unnecessary complexity.
As long as I'm at it, wouldn't you think that if chemtrails were a real thing, Manning and Snowden would have found out and blabbed?
If you read it straight, Manning is saying that everyone should defer to "proper authority" without any qualifiers or limits, which is a rather authoritarian point of view. He's tweaking the court, the government, and the public there.
There's the problem. What can you explain, out of context, in 90 characters? Think of who will be seeing the message. About all you can do that might be effective is something like: "Girl 9 kidnap by strgr in Smallville drvng blue Focus details on state govt cable channel." It's more important that people have some idea what the hell you're talking about than that you get them the plate number and such. That's what the cable news or website is for.
This is a great example of poor systems thinking. This application doesn't have to reach everyone to be effective, but the people it does reach have to be able to understand and act on an alert. Looks like they got it backwards.
The fact that not one of them is doing that is evidence of collusion. They're using patents to protect their circle and keep lesser entities out.
Oh for heaven's sake. Due process is not limited to arrest and trial because that's the direct simple meaning of the fifth amendment. I'm not going to read it to you again. "Least intrusive means" is classic 4th Amendment doctrine. And while strictly speaking the intel agencies are under civilian control, you were the one disparaging "the opinions of those who have never worked in espionage." This question isn't a matter of proof, it's one of values. Do you want spies to make policy on spying or don't you? Do you have a problem with those policies being set by "those who have never worked in espionage" or do you respect civilian authority? Do you want the courts to be accountable or don't you?
I'm really unclear on what your point is here. I'm arguing for civilian control, and noting that due process isn't limited to arrest and trial. Why the contrary attitude?
The technical answer is "it depends." The legal answer, I am not a lawyer yadda yadda, is "by the least intrusive means that are practical and fulfill the requirements of the warrant." At least that's how federal courts have usually ruled on how much innocent third-party communication they're allowed to capture.
True, but part of living in a free country is that the spies don't get to make decisions for the rest of us about how much power spies should have.
"Particularly" is a key word there. The amendment was in part a reaction to the Crown's use of "general warrants" that put everyone subject to searches. A warrant to search every private residence in your suburb would fail the "particularity" test. Likewise a warrant to trap and capture every phone call in the United States.
You're being "deprived of life, liberty, or property"--the liberty part specifically--by the government going through your communications. That's not inherently unconstitutional if "due process of law" is applied. The (implied?) argument here is that it's not "due process" if the government is acting with more secrecy than is absolutely required for legitimate law enforcement purposes. There is absolutely nothing in the fifth amendment that limits its application to criminal trials. Due process is for everyone, at all times, when "life, liberty, or property" are on the line.
But also more importantly because the insurance only stays cheap if you don't need it much. If the transaction is strictly between you and the insurer, they have an incentive to cut you off when you start to cost too much. If you're in an employee group, at least they have to think about the downside of losing the whole group.
The downside to buying your own health care (insurance) is that it's easy for the insurer to drop you as an individual if you start to cost too much. At least if you're on an employer group plan, they have to weigh the cost of losing the whole group.
From the article:
My gf teaches English composition, in college classes for both native and non-native English speakers. She usually grades papers as A, B, or R for Rewrite. (There are pluses and minuses too, and there's the C now and then when the student has really done as much as she can.) Students get a lot of extra practice writing, and her grading load is higher than most because of it, but students leave her classes with much-improved skills.
So I understand the usefulness of the "Not Yet" grade. It can be a great teaching tool, if it's used to mean: "You can do better than this. Go back and study some more."
What makes you think Texas won't get its electors?
Sure. That's not a crazy point of view, and I get your point. What you're saying is true.
I'm saying that if you're Obama, your whole point is that it's not just about yourself. He's trying to say (even if you disagree, even if you think he's full of crap) that people need to start thinking in terms of a national community that shares significant interests and goals. It's a concept better described if you say "we" a lot.
Even though, yeah, if you were to challenge Obama as to what he, personally is going to do, the "we" word isn't as helpful.
I just don't see anything wrong with a politician using a lot of "we" rhetoric when describing an overall vision. It doesn't have to be "spin" or misleading.
"We Shall Overcome!" works a lot better than "I shall plan a strategy for overcoming!"