Until they dust them with that flavor junk, they consist of oil, corn and water. I've taken a tour of a Doritos plant, and gone through the assembly line. (Fascinating stuff.) They soak corn, mash it into meal, run it through some cutters to cut out triangles, and run them through an oven before tossing them in a cylinder with the flavor-dust. Without the dust, they're actually regular corn chips, and by mass, that's mostly what they are.
Of course, that stuff they spray on it is overpoweringly foul. But it's sprayed on actual food.
Okay, we've got Lincoln, who was possibly covered because of that whole "times of rebellion" thing, and possibly Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese. So... who else?
He's regarded as one of the greatest presidents because of the New Deal, because of his handling of World War II, his skill at international diplomacy at a time when it was sorely needed, and other things. He is not regarded as one of the greatest presidents by anyone other than Michelle Malkin because he interned the Japanese. The Japanese internment is regarded as one of the more shameful periods in our nation's history, especially because it took so long for the government to apologize and make reparations.
So, should Roosevelt have been impeached? Possibly. Does it give current and future presidents a blank check to behave similarly? Not really.
Lying us into the war was a monumentally stupid move, and it may go down in history as the worst foreign policy move in our nation's history, right up there with the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, but it's far from the sum of his malfeasance. Claiming executive power to break laws he doesn't like, disappearing people on his say-so, authorizing torture, making up rules as he goes along, violating an executive order which he himself renewed (the one saying you can't classify information to hide lawbreaking), and breaking our treaty obligations.
So, we've violated the body of the Constitution, several articles of the Bill of Rights, at least one executive order, and a treaty. What exactly does someone have to do to get impeached around here?!
Well, malicious is definitely an option, but there's evidence of stupid as well. The "look into Iraq, Saddam" stuff right after 9/11, showing that he'd made up his mind and didn't want to look at evidence of any sort. The complete denial of the administration that we might not be "greeted as liberators", not only in their own words, but in their lack of a plan to deal with that eventuality. Their credulousness in dealing with Ahmed Chalabi because he told them what they wanted to hear. It all speaks of a "wishing makes it so" attitude, which is more stupid than malicious.
None of this, of course, excuses any of it. But it does, I think, make them more dangerous in some ways.
Man, I hope nobody ever tells you what happens when you buy stock in a company, or put money in a savings account. You're going to be very disappointed.
Oh, the Global Warming Alarmists NEVER do that, do they? Oh no, they never attack their opponents with accusations about being "an ExxonMobil shill" or "being paid off by the oil companies" or ANYTHING like that.
Common in conservative circles, my ass. More like another piece of classic pot/kettle bullshit.
This would likely be because ExxonMobil has engaged in years of faked and/or biased research, about which they dissembled and lied to the public. Sort of like tobacco companies did with their own research, front groups and noise machine. They've worked for years upon years to manufacture a false consensus and sow confusion through the media by gaming the process by which science is reported to the public.
These accusations are thrown because they are frequently accurate as well as relevant. Calling someone a socialist who wants to destroy Western civilization without evidence of a similar conspiracy which has parroted identical propaganda using similar techniques to hide its true origins and intentions isn't the same thing.
Would you be comfortable with them making up facts full of their own brand of truthiness, then passing them off as science backed by empirical evidence? 'Cause that's what we're talking about here. If you'd like to argue about ethical restraints on the actions of scientists, you'll be wanting a different thread.
Prove the supression of scientific results by the Government...last I saw the scientists in the USA were free to publish whatever they found assuming it passes peer review of the Journals.
Were you even paying attention? The whole issue is that the government is having its political appointees alter the results of the research it funds. Try to keep up.
Try publishing any results that may be the slighest bit controversial in China for example. If it can't stand up to peer review then the Gov't should NOT accept it regardless of it Eistein came back from the grave and did the work. That's not supressing good science that is preventing bad science from spreading.
If you're seriously using "but China is worse!" as a defense, perhaps you might want to think about what that says about you, and about the position you're taking.
Regulation, no. Of course they should be regulated. That's why we have IRBs and such. You'll find that no one was contesting the regulations under which researchers do their research. What they are contesting is snot-nosed political appointees sticking their fingers into the process and pretending to speak with the authority of actual scientists. It's a half-step from actual Lysenkoism.
Science does not and should not dictate policy. Science does inform policy. When JFK asked NASA if he could justify the Apollo program on scientific grounds. His advisors told him that for the money, there were ways to get more and better science done. He went ahead with Apollo, but he justified it as being necessary for our pride, to beat the Russians, etc., not as being primarily about the science.
It's fine for the government to ignore the recommendations of scientists. But they absolutely should not pretend that they're doing otherwise by censoring, editing and lying about what said scientists have said. It does nothing in the long run but debase our research institutions in particular and science in general.
So all those programs that used InstallShield or Nullsoft Scriptable Install System over the last six years weren't actually Windows applications? Who knew?
It's _your job_ to resolve the dependencies, not the software's job to go out and download and install random packages that you may not want.
Bullshit. I don't care that the new version of epiphany needs a new version of a certain gnome library, which depends on a bugfix in a network library, and so on. If you have a hard-on for following that mad train of references, be my guest, but the rest of us have other things to do.
Sometimes, it's good to monkey with the internals of a system. Sometimes you need it to Just Work.
Because the maintainers make a point of only upgrading dependencies if there's a reason, it's surprisingly easy to backport packages. I don't need to upgrade a dozen supporting libraries if the updated package doesn't actually require them.
Damn, that's self-referential. I especially like the later journal entry, the one written as a press release decrying CPMO while providing some rather glurgy quotes about how clever they are.
I know it's meant to game the moderation system and not the comments, but my response really was the same as it would have been, with "you" replaced by "he". I thought there was something odd about that when I was replying to it...
Ah, yes. The Grover Norquist model of governance: Gut the State, run it into the ground, then say that the idea of the State was inherently doomed from the beginning.
Look, just because government run by an incompetent megalomaniac for the benefit of his cronies at the expense of the people turns out bad, that doesn't mean government is incapable of being well-run. It means that we shouldn't have an incompetent megalomaniac who runs the government for the benefit of his cronies at the expense of the people in charge. The problem will not be addressed by enriching the mighty few while leaving the incompetent megalomaniac in charge. Is that so hard to understand?
(Also, the President doesn't spend the money. The House of Representatives does the budgeting, and that's no longer controlled by the President's party.)
Indeed, the State can do less harm the less money it has. I encourage you go to to Somalia and meditate on that thought until you understand that perhaps harm can be done by actors not wearing nametags reading "The Government".
You know, when MS bundles software, they get slapped with lawsuits; there's really no way they can win. If someone were to put together a base Windows distribution that included OpenOffice, The Gimp and whatnot, that would be comparable to Linux. But Windows as-is is comparable to a very minimal Linux install which includes X and maybe the base GNOME/KDE components.
Then again, MS got in trouble for enforcing agreements about what OEMs could or could not bundle, didn't they? So it really is their own darn fault.
Well, yes, I'm convinced by the gross structure of the diagram without knowing what the three levels of numbers written around the chromosome diagram mean. As I said, I don't understand the details of it, but the gross structure makes a blindingly good case for the origin of chromosome 2. I don't think I ever represented myself as knowing anything more than that. You're nitpicking, in that the object of your contention has little to nothing to do with the point you're debating. I'm not convinced by the little numbers, and never said I was; I'm convinced by the large, honkingly obvious black and white stripes. (These show up when you use Giemsa staining in the process of making a karyotype, which is a diagram of an organism's chromosomes. Photograph here.)
Also, you have a pretty odd atheist friend; I know a number of atheists, and they've invariably said the opposite of what yours did. Was there context to that?
Slashdot Mirror
Until they dust them with that flavor junk, they consist of oil, corn and water. I've taken a tour of a Doritos plant, and gone through the assembly line. (Fascinating stuff.) They soak corn, mash it into meal, run it through some cutters to cut out triangles, and run them through an oven before tossing them in a cylinder with the flavor-dust. Without the dust, they're actually regular corn chips, and by mass, that's mostly what they are.
Of course, that stuff they spray on it is overpoweringly foul. But it's sprayed on actual food.
Perhaps you'd like to tell of that damage, then? Apart from NAFTA, nothing is springing to mind at the moment.
Okay, we've got Lincoln, who was possibly covered because of that whole "times of rebellion" thing, and possibly Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese. So... who else?
He's regarded as one of the greatest presidents because of the New Deal, because of his handling of World War II, his skill at international diplomacy at a time when it was sorely needed, and other things. He is not regarded as one of the greatest presidents by anyone other than Michelle Malkin because he interned the Japanese. The Japanese internment is regarded as one of the more shameful periods in our nation's history, especially because it took so long for the government to apologize and make reparations.
So, should Roosevelt have been impeached? Possibly. Does it give current and future presidents a blank check to behave similarly? Not really.
Lying us into the war was a monumentally stupid move, and it may go down in history as the worst foreign policy move in our nation's history, right up there with the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, but it's far from the sum of his malfeasance. Claiming executive power to break laws he doesn't like, disappearing people on his say-so, authorizing torture, making up rules as he goes along, violating an executive order which he himself renewed (the one saying you can't classify information to hide lawbreaking), and breaking our treaty obligations.
So, we've violated the body of the Constitution, several articles of the Bill of Rights, at least one executive order, and a treaty. What exactly does someone have to do to get impeached around here?!
Well, malicious is definitely an option, but there's evidence of stupid as well. The "look into Iraq, Saddam" stuff right after 9/11, showing that he'd made up his mind and didn't want to look at evidence of any sort. The complete denial of the administration that we might not be "greeted as liberators", not only in their own words, but in their lack of a plan to deal with that eventuality. Their credulousness in dealing with Ahmed Chalabi because he told them what they wanted to hear. It all speaks of a "wishing makes it so" attitude, which is more stupid than malicious.
None of this, of course, excuses any of it. But it does, I think, make them more dangerous in some ways.
Man, I hope nobody ever tells you what happens when you buy stock in a company, or put money in a savings account. You're going to be very disappointed.
My grampaw weren't no monkey!
No, in Russian it's -(Es)(Ka)(I)(short I). (Stupid Slashdot filtering.) You're free to Romanize it however you see fit.
If you're going to keep reposting this crap, can you at least spell "flamebait" and "entertaining" properly?
These accusations are thrown because they are frequently accurate as well as relevant. Calling someone a socialist who wants to destroy Western civilization without evidence of a similar conspiracy which has parroted identical propaganda using similar techniques to hide its true origins and intentions isn't the same thing.
Would you be comfortable with them making up facts full of their own brand of truthiness, then passing them off as science backed by empirical evidence? 'Cause that's what we're talking about here. If you'd like to argue about ethical restraints on the actions of scientists, you'll be wanting a different thread.
If you're seriously using "but China is worse!" as a defense, perhaps you might want to think about what that says about you, and about the position you're taking.
Regulation, no. Of course they should be regulated. That's why we have IRBs and such. You'll find that no one was contesting the regulations under which researchers do their research. What they are contesting is snot-nosed political appointees sticking their fingers into the process and pretending to speak with the authority of actual scientists. It's a half-step from actual Lysenkoism.
Science does not and should not dictate policy. Science does inform policy. When JFK asked NASA if he could justify the Apollo program on scientific grounds. His advisors told him that for the money, there were ways to get more and better science done. He went ahead with Apollo, but he justified it as being necessary for our pride, to beat the Russians, etc., not as being primarily about the science.
It's fine for the government to ignore the recommendations of scientists. But they absolutely should not pretend that they're doing otherwise by censoring, editing and lying about what said scientists have said. It does nothing in the long run but debase our research institutions in particular and science in general.
So all those programs that used InstallShield or Nullsoft Scriptable Install System over the last six years weren't actually Windows applications? Who knew?
Sometimes, it's good to monkey with the internals of a system. Sometimes you need it to Just Work.
Because the maintainers make a point of only upgrading dependencies if there's a reason, it's surprisingly easy to backport packages. I don't need to upgrade a dozen supporting libraries if the updated package doesn't actually require them.
I think it means "SVG support without a plugin or other hackery", but as you said, it's market-speak, so who knows for sure?
Color management? Expensive calibrated monitors? A broken JPEG decoder on the Windows box?
There are legit possibilities, but it's impossible to know if he meant anything like that or was just grasping his Mac in a religious fashion.
I been had!
Damn, that's self-referential. I especially like the later journal entry, the one written as a press release decrying CPMO while providing some rather glurgy quotes about how clever they are.
I know it's meant to game the moderation system and not the comments, but my response really was the same as it would have been, with "you" replaced by "he". I thought there was something odd about that when I was replying to it...
Ah, yes. The Grover Norquist model of governance: Gut the State, run it into the ground, then say that the idea of the State was inherently doomed from the beginning.
Look, just because government run by an incompetent megalomaniac for the benefit of his cronies at the expense of the people turns out bad, that doesn't mean government is incapable of being well-run. It means that we shouldn't have an incompetent megalomaniac who runs the government for the benefit of his cronies at the expense of the people in charge. The problem will not be addressed by enriching the mighty few while leaving the incompetent megalomaniac in charge. Is that so hard to understand?
(Also, the President doesn't spend the money. The House of Representatives does the budgeting, and that's no longer controlled by the President's party.)
Indeed, the State can do less harm the less money it has. I encourage you go to to Somalia and meditate on that thought until you understand that perhaps harm can be done by actors not wearing nametags reading "The Government".
You know, when MS bundles software, they get slapped with lawsuits; there's really no way they can win. If someone were to put together a base Windows distribution that included OpenOffice, The Gimp and whatnot, that would be comparable to Linux. But Windows as-is is comparable to a very minimal Linux install which includes X and maybe the base GNOME/KDE components.
Then again, MS got in trouble for enforcing agreements about what OEMs could or could not bundle, didn't they? So it really is their own darn fault.
Well, yes, I'm convinced by the gross structure of the diagram without knowing what the three levels of numbers written around the chromosome diagram mean. As I said, I don't understand the details of it, but the gross structure makes a blindingly good case for the origin of chromosome 2. I don't think I ever represented myself as knowing anything more than that. You're nitpicking, in that the object of your contention has little to nothing to do with the point you're debating. I'm not convinced by the little numbers, and never said I was; I'm convinced by the large, honkingly obvious black and white stripes. (These show up when you use Giemsa staining in the process of making a karyotype, which is a diagram of an organism's chromosomes. Photograph here.)
Also, you have a pretty odd atheist friend; I know a number of atheists, and they've invariably said the opposite of what yours did. Was there context to that?