it'as easy to challenge something someone does, isn't it? now that you have discovered this, what have you done lately? it's hard to do something interesting yourself, huh?
there's people who dress up like characters from dead tv shows, people who try to grow giant pumpkins, people who bend giant steel beams and call it art, and people who spend years of their lives leveling MMORPG characters. why? why not?
and, i suppose, there are people who try very hard to comment on slashdot forums in the negative, regardless of intellectual or probative value
hmmm, maybe you understand the esotericity of human endeavour after all
i changed the masculinity to agree with berlusconi being a male, but that's based on my limited knowledge of spanish grammar, which not even be the right way to do it. fuck romance languages and their stupid masculine/ feminine rules. english has plenty of problems, but that shit's ridiculous. and for all i know masculine is "une" or "un" in italian, not "uno"
i've only been to italy twice, it's a gorgeous country, and all i really learned is that bad spanish is passable and you just say "prego" to everything else
sorry, not much of a linguist, and as you can tell by my lack of capitalization, i hold most silly grammar and linguistic rules in open contempt as so much silly extraneous unnecessary junk rules that have zero value for effective communication (yes, i know, some assholes are wedded to these extra rules, and their brittle brains scream when they see no capitalization, but they aren't reading by this point in this comment, already driven away are they, so fuck them)
and what i mean by that is, natural mutations in cone pigments means that 2-3% of women are tetrachromatic. only women can achieve this, with their two X chromosomes. the inference is that half their brothers would be somewhat colorblind, with a pigment with a skewed sensitivity range overlapping with normal ranges
for these rare women, the new sensitivity range falls in between existing blue/ green, or red/ green pigment ranges, not outside the normal human range into the ultraviolet. this is still important and potentially useful: looking at a simple vista of foliage or swirling river water, the tetrachromatic woman would theoretically see color patterns a normal human cannot
it is even more theoretical as to whether or not human neurology can support a fourth color channel, but normally dichromatic mice have been mutated to express a third channel, and further tests show that these mice can take advantage of the new color information. so at least mice brains can support the bandwidth for a new color channel
i suppose every superhero needs a supervillian, yours is obviously some chick somewhere. cue the softcore fan fiction
Variation in cone pigment genes is widespread in most human populations, but the most prevalent and pronounced tetrachromacy would derive from female carriers of major red-green pigment anomalies, usually classed as forms of "color blindness" (protanomaly or deuteranomaly). The biological basis for this phenomenon is X-inactivation of heterozygotic alleles for retinal pigment genes, which is the same mechanism that gives the majority of female new-world monkeys trichromatic vision. In humans, preliminary visual processing occurs within the neurons of the retina. It is not known how these nerves would respond to a new color channel, that is, whether they could handle it separately or just lump it in with an existing channel. Visual information leaves the eye by way of the optic nerve; it is not known whether the optic nerve has the spare capacity to handle a new color channel. A variety of final image processing takes place in the brain; it is not known how the various areas of the brain would respond if presented with a new color channel. Mice, which normally have only two cone pigments, can be engineered to express a third cone pigment, and appear to demonstrate increased chromatic discrimination,[14] arguing against some of these obstacles; however, the original publication's claims about plasticity in the optic nerve have also been disputed.[15] People with four photopigments have been shown to have increased chromatic discrimination in comparison to trichromats.[11] Each of the three cone types in a trichromatic human retina can pick up about 100 different gradations of color, and the brain can combine those variations so that the average human can distinguish about a million different colors; a true human tetrachromat would have another type of cone, and its 100 shades theoretically would allow them to see 100 million different colors.[12][16]
you're a simpleton. you really think it's that pat and done with?
the issue is these pictures go far and wide, out of simple high school meanness. you act like these pictures are exchanged in a philosopher's lounge between consenting parties. you're an idiot for thinking of this problem like that
you attempted to redefine his terms, and then you attempted to change the topic. in other words, you don't have an answer
aka, incomprehensibility by affability
because the real answer would be to concede that icebraining is correct: it's just a matter of perspective of what security is, and what obscurity is, and, on some philosophical level, they are indeed the same concept after all. not that this is a mighty a thunderclap of a realization, and not that it completely changes security paradigms. but it is indeed and interesting, noteworthy platitude, a musing you might have while sitting on the toilet: security IS obscurity, after everything is said and done
so just admit the simple platitude is true on some abstract, unuseful and inconsequential level, and move on with your life
awlaki was fighting to reinstate the islamic caliphate. this is a fringe group within the muslim world that no one supports, save a few ultraconservative and violent people. their means for achieving their goal is mass murder of civilians in peacetime, not least of which is hundreds of thousands of muslims. if the usa ceased to exist tomorrow, they would not retire and become shepherds, they would continue right on with their murderous agenda in the name of their demented cause. because the usa is not the point, the usa is merely a roadblock and a convenient scapegoat for the achievement of their goal
now, i'm sure you are a brilliant fellow, and i would like to use the vast quantities of genius you possess, and compare and contrast with the goals of what the founding fathers were fighting for. i'm sure somewhere on the edges of your boundless imagination and stunning intellect, you might discover that the goals are gee, i dunno, slightly different
maybe you should read then constitution and understand the people who wrote it were labelled terrorists too
i stopped reading here. anyone whose idea of logic involves such a sentence is without intellectual merit. but i will say this: if this mental diarrhea is something you actually believe, i encourage you to put your money where your mouth is and go to yemen and fight with those who stand with awlaki
there is plenty of legal precedent for the treatment of traitors during military conflict. awlaki clearly and multiply invoked his desire to kill americans en masse. yes, awlaki doesn't represent the military establishment of a real country. but the existence of nonstate militaries in lawless lands and weak states able to wage war remotely anywhere on the globe: THAT is the only new legal precedent here
i'm really sick of people unable to appreciate the idea that the police summarily executing you for running a red light is somewhat slightly different than the treatment of mass murderers clearly intent on the slaughter of ordinary citizens. if you can't appreciate all of the nuance of a situation, you really shouldn't be commenting on legal issues, as you clearly do not understand that every single vital legal concept in the constitution has exceptions. freedom of speech? not if you threaten to kill someone. freedom from unlawful search and seizure? not if its plutonium. habeas corpus? not if you are hiding abroad to wage mass murder
you only make yourself look stupid if you can't understand nuance. there are exceptions to every principle you hold dear, legal or not (you never murder? what if someone is about to kill your family). when you comment on legal principles, try to understand they are complex, and not blockhead simple concepts that apply without thought or exception. the idea that habeas corpus means we actually have to give someone, citizen or not, hiding abroad in open military conflict, a fair trial, is a joke
Regarding "public danger", your chance of being killed by a terrorist has never been greater than your chance of being killed by a washing machine.
i've heard this argument before. it always makes me giggle. the "statistical probability" argument against concerning yourself with terrorism. i suppose this argument works, personally, if you live in omaha. but it certainly doesn't apply to the policies of the united states
look: there is really only way to address a comment like this: if this is an argument that you think actually has merit whe commenting on a subject like this, you far outside the bounds of understanding the topic you are commenting on. i have no more intellectual charity to explain it to you, and simply ask that you consider that you are woefully outside logic and reason and an appreciation of the concepts in play if this is an argument that actually appeals to you. just try to understand why you are wrong, because you are certainly wrong if you actually think like this
it's funny that the tech industry holds some of the most privacy-concerned individuals, yet all their dedication to their craft has done is provide the most privacy destroying entity ever to exist
privacy is dead as a doorknob. just forget about the concept. really, you needn't bother about privacy anymore, it's a nonstarter in today's world. big brother? try little brother: every joe shmoe with a smart phone with a camera has more power than the NSA, KGB, MI6, MSS: those guys are amateur hour
i'm not saying it's wrong, i'm not saying it's right. i'm just saying it's the simple truth of the matter, right or wrong: privacy is dead. acceptance is your only option now. you simply can't fight this
and government didn't kill it, you paranoid schizophrenic goons
they literally shoot passing squid with little sperm packets that embed themselves permanently. the investigators determined that these squid mate indiscriminately because they counted just as many rocket injection sites on males as on females
so these squid aren't bisexual or gay, they are kineto-sexual. they just sexually shoot other squid
it says that we do not want our older generations, and, by reference, our older selves, to die in the street
anxiety over how the system actually works financially is a red herring: it doesn't matter how it works. what matters is that you agree it is wrong that our older people should suffer because the society they live in is callous and brutal. once you agree that such a callous society does not represent the sort of society that shares your values, there is no anxiety about how it works financially. you just agree it is supposed to work and should therefore be funded
i have no problem with people who complain about the details of how social security works, or what it should fund and what it should not fund
i have a problem with those who use their lack of trust and anxiety as a cover for doubting the entire legitimacy of social security itself
if such people prevail on the national debate over this and other related issues, the united states is doomed to second class or third class status in the world, and our best and brightest children and grandchildren will surely leave for wiser and more humane societies that actually cares about its citizens' well being. those who are left will lead brutal lives, due to the opinions of people like you see posting here, and, for some reason, loudly and proudly trumpeting their inhumanity on the political stage without apparent shame or self-awareness about what callous and ugly people they are. whatever they are, they aren't americans and they don't represent american values as far as this american and the majority of americans are concerned
Slashdot Mirror
why not?
it'as easy to challenge something someone does, isn't it? now that you have discovered this, what have you done lately? it's hard to do something interesting yourself, huh?
there's people who dress up like characters from dead tv shows, people who try to grow giant pumpkins, people who bend giant steel beams and call it art, and people who spend years of their lives leveling MMORPG characters. why? why not?
and, i suppose, there are people who try very hard to comment on slashdot forums in the negative, regardless of intellectual or probative value
hmmm, maybe you understand the esotericity of human endeavour after all
i just went to google translate, but since it won't translate cunt, i spliced in the italian swear word: "pussy" from here
http://www.gambino.com/curse.htm
i changed the masculinity to agree with berlusconi being a male, but that's based on my limited knowledge of spanish grammar, which not even be the right way to do it. fuck romance languages and their stupid masculine/ feminine rules. english has plenty of problems, but that shit's ridiculous. and for all i know masculine is "une" or "un" in italian, not "uno"
i've only been to italy twice, it's a gorgeous country, and all i really learned is that bad spanish is passable and you just say "prego" to everything else
sorry, not much of a linguist, and as you can tell by my lack of capitalization, i hold most silly grammar and linguistic rules in open contempt as so much silly extraneous unnecessary junk rules that have zero value for effective communication (yes, i know, some assholes are wedded to these extra rules, and their brittle brains scream when they see no capitalization, but they aren't reading by this point in this comment, already driven away are they, so fuck them)
Berlusconi è uno sticchiu
fixed it for you
and what i mean by that is, natural mutations in cone pigments means that 2-3% of women are tetrachromatic. only women can achieve this, with their two X chromosomes. the inference is that half their brothers would be somewhat colorblind, with a pigment with a skewed sensitivity range overlapping with normal ranges
for these rare women, the new sensitivity range falls in between existing blue/ green, or red/ green pigment ranges, not outside the normal human range into the ultraviolet. this is still important and potentially useful: looking at a simple vista of foliage or swirling river water, the tetrachromatic woman would theoretically see color patterns a normal human cannot
it is even more theoretical as to whether or not human neurology can support a fourth color channel, but normally dichromatic mice have been mutated to express a third channel, and further tests show that these mice can take advantage of the new color information. so at least mice brains can support the bandwidth for a new color channel
i suppose every superhero needs a supervillian, yours is obviously some chick somewhere. cue the softcore fan fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy
if Putin crossed paths with Chuck Norris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin
you're a simpleton. you really think it's that pat and done with?
the issue is these pictures go far and wide, out of simple high school meanness. you act like these pictures are exchanged in a philosopher's lounge between consenting parties. you're an idiot for thinking of this problem like that
start here, for what is really going on:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/27sexting.html
get your head out of your ass with your ignorant's understanding of the issues in play here
i feel like i am a room full of 45 year old pedophiles
the tenor of concerns here skews far away from actual parental concerns
yes, you can do all of those things
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2455818&cid=37579932
read it again
go "yeah sure, on an abstract and inconsequential level," and move on. why is that so difficult for you
you keep resisting son. all you have to do is admit the abstract and inconsequential truth
you attempted to redefine his terms, and then you attempted to change the topic. in other words, you don't have an answer
aka, incomprehensibility by affability
because the real answer would be to concede that icebraining is correct: it's just a matter of perspective of what security is, and what obscurity is, and, on some philosophical level, they are indeed the same concept after all. not that this is a mighty a thunderclap of a realization, and not that it completely changes security paradigms. but it is indeed and interesting, noteworthy platitude, a musing you might have while sitting on the toilet: security IS obscurity, after everything is said and done
so just admit the simple platitude is true on some abstract, unuseful and inconsequential level, and move on with your life
can be unmade by another man
it's that simple
the rest is just an arms race to keep one slight step ahead in constant effort and constant motion
awlaki was fighting to reinstate the islamic caliphate. this is a fringe group within the muslim world that no one supports, save a few ultraconservative and violent people. their means for achieving their goal is mass murder of civilians in peacetime, not least of which is hundreds of thousands of muslims. if the usa ceased to exist tomorrow, they would not retire and become shepherds, they would continue right on with their murderous agenda in the name of their demented cause. because the usa is not the point, the usa is merely a roadblock and a convenient scapegoat for the achievement of their goal
now, i'm sure you are a brilliant fellow, and i would like to use the vast quantities of genius you possess, and compare and contrast with the goals of what the founding fathers were fighting for. i'm sure somewhere on the edges of your boundless imagination and stunning intellect, you might discover that the goals are gee, i dunno, slightly different
what a moron
all sorts of people propose the violent overthrow of all sorts of states, all the time, everywhere
so what? doesn't mean anything. the question becomes: what kind of state are they trying to create?
on that basis, your false equivalency simply reveals your intellectual shortcomings
i stopped reading here. anyone whose idea of logic involves such a sentence is without intellectual merit. but i will say this: if this mental diarrhea is something you actually believe, i encourage you to put your money where your mouth is and go to yemen and fight with those who stand with awlaki
moron
there is plenty of legal precedent for the treatment of traitors during military conflict. awlaki clearly and multiply invoked his desire to kill americans en masse. yes, awlaki doesn't represent the military establishment of a real country. but the existence of nonstate militaries in lawless lands and weak states able to wage war remotely anywhere on the globe: THAT is the only new legal precedent here
i'm really sick of people unable to appreciate the idea that the police summarily executing you for running a red light is somewhat slightly different than the treatment of mass murderers clearly intent on the slaughter of ordinary citizens. if you can't appreciate all of the nuance of a situation, you really shouldn't be commenting on legal issues, as you clearly do not understand that every single vital legal concept in the constitution has exceptions. freedom of speech? not if you threaten to kill someone. freedom from unlawful search and seizure? not if its plutonium. habeas corpus? not if you are hiding abroad to wage mass murder
you only make yourself look stupid if you can't understand nuance. there are exceptions to every principle you hold dear, legal or not (you never murder? what if someone is about to kill your family). when you comment on legal principles, try to understand they are complex, and not blockhead simple concepts that apply without thought or exception. the idea that habeas corpus means we actually have to give someone, citizen or not, hiding abroad in open military conflict, a fair trial, is a joke
i've heard this argument before. it always makes me giggle. the "statistical probability" argument against concerning yourself with terrorism. i suppose this argument works, personally, if you live in omaha. but it certainly doesn't apply to the policies of the united states
look: there is really only way to address a comment like this: if this is an argument that you think actually has merit whe commenting on a subject like this, you far outside the bounds of understanding the topic you are commenting on. i have no more intellectual charity to explain it to you, and simply ask that you consider that you are woefully outside logic and reason and an appreciation of the concepts in play if this is an argument that actually appeals to you. just try to understand why you are wrong, because you are certainly wrong if you actually think like this
i am very impressed with your life size replica of me in lego bricks. however, i don't know why you positioned me facing the television
you did
it's funny that the tech industry holds some of the most privacy-concerned individuals, yet all their dedication to their craft has done is provide the most privacy destroying entity ever to exist
privacy is dead as a doorknob. just forget about the concept. really, you needn't bother about privacy anymore, it's a nonstarter in today's world. big brother? try little brother: every joe shmoe with a smart phone with a camera has more power than the NSA, KGB, MI6, MSS: those guys are amateur hour
i'm not saying it's wrong, i'm not saying it's right. i'm just saying it's the simple truth of the matter, right or wrong: privacy is dead. acceptance is your only option now. you simply can't fight this
and government didn't kill it, you paranoid schizophrenic goons
your technolust did
"My point, is that the "Government" is the problem"
no, that was my point
you were whining about Obama
but i'm glad i've turned you around
the same was true under bush
it doesn't speak very highly of your intelligence that you blame a charismatic person instead of the system itself
go back to reading celebrity gossip. it is a subject matter more in tune with your mentality
or, to put it more succinctly:
Small minds discuss people.
Average minds discuss events.
Great minds discuss ideas.
you are a small mind
the USA is a corporatocracy.
The corporations are its government.
Yahoo is a de facto government agency in this regard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy
these squid don't mate at all
they literally shoot passing squid with little sperm packets that embed themselves permanently. the investigators determined that these squid mate indiscriminately because they counted just as many rocket injection sites on males as on females
so these squid aren't bisexual or gay, they are kineto-sexual. they just sexually shoot other squid
lol
idiocy needs to be attacked on all fronts ;-)
you take the logic argument, i'll take the moral argument
is a social trust
it says that we do not want our older generations, and, by reference, our older selves, to die in the street
anxiety over how the system actually works financially is a red herring: it doesn't matter how it works. what matters is that you agree it is wrong that our older people should suffer because the society they live in is callous and brutal. once you agree that such a callous society does not represent the sort of society that shares your values, there is no anxiety about how it works financially. you just agree it is supposed to work and should therefore be funded
i have no problem with people who complain about the details of how social security works, or what it should fund and what it should not fund
i have a problem with those who use their lack of trust and anxiety as a cover for doubting the entire legitimacy of social security itself
if such people prevail on the national debate over this and other related issues, the united states is doomed to second class or third class status in the world, and our best and brightest children and grandchildren will surely leave for wiser and more humane societies that actually cares about its citizens' well being. those who are left will lead brutal lives, due to the opinions of people like you see posting here, and, for some reason, loudly and proudly trumpeting their inhumanity on the political stage without apparent shame or self-awareness about what callous and ugly people they are. whatever they are, they aren't americans and they don't represent american values as far as this american and the majority of americans are concerned