Whenever Merkel makes a comment, I instantly wonder what her real intentions are. And this time it didn't take long, she wants control over what information is coming into her area of reign.
If she was honest about wanting the US spying to end she'd first of all ferret out and shut down the various spying locations still scattered across Germany. It's not like the US never had bases there or shut them all down...
It's not about spying but about getting caught at it. Everyone needs to get all up in arms while still letting the work go on behind the scenes. I would not be surprised in the EU nation's intelligence community has redoubled efforts to stop their own potential Snowdens from going public; or if they looked at what the US is dining and said "Damn. We need to get some of that capability as well..."
At the same time, these guys complain that they can't run their offices with Linux: "It's too complicated for our staff. Give us back our Windows XP, our MS Office, our Internet Explorer."
May I remind you of projects like LiMux, which involved bringing the entire Infrastructure of the city of Munich over from Microsoft products to open source products based on and around Linux?
Given the failure of similar projects in other cities it would seem a concerted effort to develop a city solution would greatly help future success. Of course, that means getting bureaucrats across Europe to agree on a standard when it would probably take a year just to agree on a name.
Projects that instead of failing, succeeded quite well. Where the users -- after an initial grumbling -- not only accepted it, but gave it quite better usability marks than the MS products. Users that are governmental offices, who are not exactly known for quickly embracing new ideas. In a federal state that's Germany's equivalent of Texas in terms of conservativeness.
In fairness to Bavarians, they also have a bit of the Texan's contrarian and independent streak as well. Heck, they even issue Bavarian passports. So it doesn't surprise me that a state where "die uhern laufen ein bissen anders" went with Linux.
You don't even have to RTFA to see that the court, and the appeal court, threw out the charge relating to downloading the documents. The only charges that stuck were related to reproduction, something that is illegal in one way or another in most places.
What's wrong with, actually RTFA and then bringing up facts on/.? You've been around here ling enough to now that's not how/. works.
Seriously, he also admitted after he got the documents that he went to the home page and discovered it required authentication and thus new the documents were meant to be protected. As you pointed out, the court didn't take issue with his stumbling upon the documents but what he did after he apparently realized they were not meant to be publicly accessed.
Also, some airliners (KLM, I'm looking at you), charge you MORE for a single flight than they do for a return flight. When I moved country (and consequently only wanted to book a single), I had to book a return ticket which I simply didn't turn up for, otherwise it would have cost me £500 more. There may be some logic in what KLM is doing, but it feels like a big "fuck you" to me.
The "hidden city" fare. As long as you used it on a return or one way with no checked luggage you were OK even ift the airlines didn't like it. Although they could catch it they never seemed to do anything. Back to backs ( booking a trip for two weeks and another round trip back and forth from the origin) to take advantage of Saturday stay fares designed to make business travel expensive and leisure cheap were another story. We used them a lot until our airline of choice caught on and threatened to cancel future trips using them. Technically it violated their tariffs, but we simply booked the mid week on another airline in a big FU to them. After they saw our revenue dropped by 50% which cost them a lot of money when you have 200 trips a week they called us and said "belay my last" and we went back to using them for all my trips. Competition is a good thing.
So are they considering interrogations a "performance" that needs to be licensed?
And this would be different from playing it in a bar how?
Unless there is an explicit exemption in copyright law which says "except during interrogations", the copyright laws as bought by the media lobby still apply.
If we can be sued by the copyright holders for crap like this, I fail to see why it should be any different for the feds.
I guess they could claim an exemption under this part of the US copyright code:
(A) the performance or display is made by, at the direction of, or under the actual supervision of an instructor as an integral part of a class session offered as a regular part of the systematic mediated instructional activities of a governmental body or an accredited nonprofit educational institution;
Oh, I was simply referring to the attack on motives earlier. At the time, your argument sounded like something along the lines of, "because they aren't coming into this with the right motives, there's no point in listening to what they have to say." That may be a misstatement of what you intended, but that's how it came across.
No worries. I can see where it can be interpreted that way; one of the challenges with writing a quick reply to a comment.
Certainly. And that is a concern with these debates in general and the impact they'll have on the public at large. Even so, I'll go back to what I said: "what they choose to believe doesn't mean that you or anyone else has been freed from your responsibility to be intellectually honest in objectively assessing the points they made."
Considering the points they usually raise have already been discussed and proven not to be valid. At some point, you can simply say "Bring up some new evidence and we'll talk; but if all you are going to do is rehash what has been said, and shown why it is not a valid criticism of evolutionary theory, before then there is no reason to have the discussion."
Put differently, while what you've said is almost certainly true, we shouldn't allow ourselves to use it as an excuse to abandon reason.
Sure. Bring up some new evidence evolution is wrong or that provides verifiable evidence for your theory and I'll listen. However, "anything this complicated couldn't have happened by chance" is not a valid point.
Let me restate my concluding point in light of that statement: use valid reasoning, whatever your purpose may be.
Whether you're seeking to discredit them or not, you were providing invalid reasoning. Few things annoy me more than people I agree with giving the other side valid ammunition to make an invalid point.:P
So here is my reasoning:
Evolution is a theory that uses the scientific method to test it. Creationism as a belief that can neither be proved or disproved.
If you want to debate X vs Y you need a common reference to use for comparison so you can reach some conclusion on which side has better made their argument. If it is the scientific method, then both sides must be able to use it to test their theory.
Since that is not possible in this case because each side bases their conclusions on a different frame of reference, a debate accomplishes nothing in terms of which theory (in scientific terms - which I use here since Creationists argue their theory is equally valid as evolution since both are "theories" and neither can be conclusively proven correct) is a better model of observed phenomena and more predictive. Therefore, why debate?
Since one side's POV is predicated on a belief that can be neither proven nor disproven, there isn't a question of validity of the belief because, well, they believe it is true. Since you cannot prove it isn't true, there is nothing to discredit since it is simply what they believe. When any points can be explained away by "It's God's will" or "God did that to test us and our faith" there really isn't room for a reasoned discussion. Again, why debate?
Finally, the existence of a creator in no way means evolution cannot be the mechanism which resulted in life as we know it today. If you did debate, you could end it at the start by saying"Sure, God could have created man; he simply used evolution to do so. After all, who are we to question how God does what God does; we must just seek to understand how God does it. Now, let's discuss why God created the earth more than 6000 years ago and dinosaurs didn't coexist with "modern" mankind."
In the end, faith and science can, and do, coexist quite nicely. So, to answer "why debate?," ask "Who gains from it?" Creationists want to make their position appear to be worthy of the same consideration as the scientific theory of evolution. Not just to believe in one and not the other, but to give their POV equal time in scientific debate. Debating recognizable figures form science helps accomplish that and I think it is wrong for scientists to do so. That's my belief
So, to close, I am genuinely curious what you find invalid in my reasoning.
However, the creationists are not interested in being proved wrong as much as punching holes in the other side's arguments so they can say they "won" and gain legitimacy for their point of view. They are not interested in the scientific method, as far as they are concerned the Bible says it so it must be true.
If you're talking about Ken Ham, I agree with you. Just be careful not to paint everyone with that stereotype.
Certainly. Having strong religious beliefs do not automatically me nay you are ant-evolution or anti-science. As one put it, one is about why (religion) and the other how (science) and both can coexist nicely.
My point was that framing the argument is folly, because the sides simply don't exist. You may already realize this, but why would you continue ot propagate such a big lie? The sides don't exist, and don't change the laws being proposed.
When sides don't exist you must create them. This isn't about right and wrong, but winning and losing. My point is not who is on what side but how to win.
Who makes the argument is irrelevant to how it is framed. It so happens that it's a Democratic'a bill so you need to frame it as a fight against Republicans.
I'm not suggesting that poking a hole in current evolutionary theory somehow proves or validates Creationism, after all, that would suggest a false dilemma: that either current evolutionary theory is exactly correct or Creationism is exactly correct, thus requiring that a hole in one would confirm the veracity of the other. Clearly, that isn't actually the case, since evolutionary theory is undergoing tweaks on a regular basis. I am also not arguing that they're going in without an agenda. They are (though I don't see the relevance).
All I'm arguing is that if you want to discredit them, do so on valid grounds.
There is no need to discredit since they aren't a valid scientific theory. There is no prove or disprove since sit is based on a belief; one that is quite compatible with evolution. Unfortunately, many creationists seem to need to disprove evolution under the false assumption that proves them right.
Regardless of motives, if side A can present facts that punch holes in side B's argument, shouldn't a scientist sit up and take note? And that's true no matter which side is which.
Sure, scientists listen when someone spots a potential flaw or inconsistency in theory. However, that neither invalidates the theory nor provides any support for alternate theories in the evolution vs creationism argument. Creationist want people to think because they can point out what they consider as flaws in evolutionary theory, such as gaps in the fossil trail, that their theory is thus equally valid. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. If it did, then the theory we were put here by ancient astronauts would be equally valid yet the creationist i've meet recoil at the idea that it is an equally valid theory as biblical based creationism. They have no interest in real scientific debate but merely want to give credence to their world view.
However, the creationists are not interested in being proved wrong as much as punching holes in the other side's arguments so they can say they "won" and gain legitimacy for their point of view.
Keep telling yourself that so that you don't ever have to challenge anyone. You clearly are not familiar with Ken Ham, and think he is some inbred redneck or internet troll to be easily dismissed.
Actually, I simply think there is no reason to engage in this particular debate because it is of no value and simply gives credence to creationists that they somehow have a theory that is equally as valid as evolution. Quite frankly, if you want to believe God created the universe then the evolution vs. creation debate ended when the Catholic Church stated there is no conflict between evolution and the concept of God as the creator; since Genesis is not a literal description of the earth's creation.
It's not Net Neutrality, but "Republicans want to take away your Netflix..." People dislike losing something tangible much more than gaining some important, but hard to quantify item. Change the debate; just like the natural food industry who says "The government wants to take away your vitamins..." to the opposing argument of "We want to be sure you aren't getting ripped off by spurious claims..." Guess which one wins?
Ken Ham is well spoken and should provide a reasonable point-counterpoint.
I don't think that the idea that we should not wrestle with pigs is the attitude of a responsible scientist. Eventually, all conventional wisdom needs to be challenged. At one time, you'd have been laughed out of a room of distinguished scientists for rejecting geocentricity. An idea has nothing to fear from examination if it is sound.
The problem with your point is you expect both sides to act like responsible scientists and approach the debate with an open mind. However, the creationists are not interested in being proved wrong as much as punching holes in the other side's arguments so they can say they "won" and gain legitimacy for their point of view. They are not interested in the scientific method, as far as they are concerned the Bible says it so it must be true. That is not a debate. Scientists test theories and see if they continue to explain what they observe, creationists have a belief and anything contrary to that is incorrect. Scientists, by nature, are open to new ideas and generally don't speak in absolutes, which put stem at a disadvantage to those who believe in absolutes. Even scientific language, such as theory, is used to argue that the creationists viewpoint is equally valid since sit is a theory as well; although the creationists generally leave out the crackpot in from of their theory.
the first discovery request. The recordings and data would be a potential goldmine for attorneys. Not just employment cases but criminal as well. So, Mr. CEO, how do you explain your employees talking about how you were able to fix prices? How about your admin talking about the stock tips you get from friends?
Twitter controls @N. Once he has his domains back and secured twitter should be able to transfer control of #N back to him. It's not lil ether can't reset passwords and registration data. Whomever took it might even have useful info to track them down.
They're still around and own Gatewy as well. While Schiller was probably correct in the sense most of the dozens of PC makers of any size from the early Mac era have come and gone he was not correct in saying none still exist. Of course, what constitutes still existing is a bit vague since many have been acquired or exit but have exited the PC business.
This time they got caught out in a few emails, next time they will just keep it to verbal agreements on the country club golf course. The "exposure" is not going to come from a few or even many Engineers complaining in isolation that there might be some collusion going on as the alternative offers are drying up.
They obviously believe the hype the new world of tech is somehow different than the old world and are about to discover it often just make sit easier to find out stuff to use against you.
I had a mac at home that had the add on card to run windows/dos. it was an actual 386 computer on an expansion card and it's output was piped to the video board via a 15 pin jumper cable.
Brings back memories - I had a PC Transporter in my Apple][gs that let me run MS-DOS so I could emulate a VT100 and dial in to my wok mainframe. As a side note, the color finder first appeared on the Apple][gs via GS/OS. A great machine, but Apple was already moving away from the ][ series in favor of Mac. As i recall, there even was an Apple/e/ hardware board for the LC.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
We are cool hipsters with disposable income to burn. Macs give us that air of cool superiority to go with our turtlenecks and sandals.; and allow us to scoff at those great brainwashed masses who hew to Microsoft's corporate line. We have Steve Jobs; you have a nerdy guy with glasses.
MS has brainwashed you to prefer a perception of speed over elegance and design; Steve has said elegance and esthetics are what counts and he said it so we believe it. Besides, your tests are run on benchmarks optimized for Wintel so the mean nothing to use, we will continue to have the luxury of enjoying our mocha latte duple grande overpriced vent while we bask in the beauty of MacOS.
Even MS has realized the inherent advantage of the Mac interface and has made week attempts to copy it with Windoze; btw we're V10 and your only on what, 8? How 1997 of you. While you double right click mouse up to d something we have buttonless mice, and we know less is more.
So while you sheep blindly follow MS we know we are ones who slay Big brother, the crazy ones who make a difference, the cool Mac next to the nerdy corporate PC, toasting your bunnies (mmm tasty, as are the escargot); and simply Think Different. So crawl back under the bridge, troll, and let us enjoy our smug superiority as we bask in the glory of Macintosh
Point still stands: bitcoins aren't going to show up on a boat and net you a phone call demanding you come get this stuff and pay warehousing fees. Stocks cannot be sold unless there is liquidity; and there are a great many stocks that aren't liquid enough to withstand your average day-trader's funds, whereby a NYSE listed security can't handle a $25,000 sell order in a day. Build-a-Bear Workshop can't do it, for example. I've had trouble buying and selling Sinclair Broadcast Group (SBGI), and they own oh... better than 60% of all the television broadcast stations in the United States? Four trading days for a market sell of 5000 shares to go through completely, for a $2 BILLION a year revenue company!
While there certainly are fringe cases of illiquid stocks or difficulties making trades the simple fact is stocks (and bonds) are generally cash equivalents because they can be readily converted to cash; unlike Bitcoins which we seem to agree are illiquid and thus not cash equivalents. So my point stands as well, Bitcoins are a highly speculative play because of their ill liquidity and volatility; claims that they are like stocks or they are currency because someone converted Bitcoins to cash and bought a car are incorrect.
Stocks are NOT a liquid investment because you cannot buy (most) things with them. They must first be sold. A liquid asset is petty cash; a checking account is liquid; a line of credit has liquidity; bonds are illiquid, stocks are illiquid.
Liquid asserts are those you can readily convert to cash. Stocks and bonds are generally liquid investments; they are carried on books as cash and cash equivalents. Bitcoin clearly are not. The Bility to purchase anything with them is irrelevant.
Did you not take Economics in high school, or Accounting in college?
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever Merkel makes a comment, I instantly wonder what her real intentions are. And this time it didn't take long, she wants control over what information is coming into her area of reign.
If she was honest about wanting the US spying to end she'd first of all ferret out and shut down the various spying locations still scattered across Germany. It's not like the US never had bases there or shut them all down...
It's not about spying but about getting caught at it. Everyone needs to get all up in arms while still letting the work go on behind the scenes. I would not be surprised in the EU nation's intelligence community has redoubled efforts to stop their own potential Snowdens from going public; or if they looked at what the US is dining and said "Damn. We need to get some of that capability as well..."
At the same time, these guys complain that they can't run their offices with Linux: "It's too complicated for our staff. Give us back our Windows XP, our MS Office, our Internet Explorer."
May I remind you of projects like LiMux, which involved bringing the entire Infrastructure of the city of Munich over from Microsoft products to open source products based on and around Linux?
Given the failure of similar projects in other cities it would seem a concerted effort to develop a city solution would greatly help future success. Of course, that means getting bureaucrats across Europe to agree on a standard when it would probably take a year just to agree on a name.
Projects that instead of failing, succeeded quite well. Where the users -- after an initial grumbling -- not only accepted it, but gave it quite better usability marks than the MS products. Users that are governmental offices, who are not exactly known for quickly embracing new ideas. In a federal state that's Germany's equivalent of Texas in terms of conservativeness.
In fairness to Bavarians, they also have a bit of the Texan's contrarian and independent streak as well. Heck, they even issue Bavarian passports. So it doesn't surprise me that a state where "die uhern laufen ein bissen anders" went with Linux.
You don't even have to RTFA to see that the court, and the appeal court, threw out the charge relating to downloading the documents. The only charges that stuck were related to reproduction, something that is illegal in one way or another in most places.
What's wrong with, actually RTFA and then bringing up facts on /.? You've been around here ling enough to now that's not how /. works.
Seriously, he also admitted after he got the documents that he went to the home page and discovered it required authentication and thus new the documents were meant to be protected. As you pointed out, the court didn't take issue with his stumbling upon the documents but what he did after he apparently realized they were not meant to be publicly accessed.
Also, some airliners (KLM, I'm looking at you), charge you MORE for a single flight than they do for a return flight. When I moved country (and consequently only wanted to book a single), I had to book a return ticket which I simply didn't turn up for, otherwise it would have cost me £500 more. There may be some logic in what KLM is doing, but it feels like a big "fuck you" to me.
The "hidden city" fare. As long as you used it on a return or one way with no checked luggage you were OK even ift the airlines didn't like it. Although they could catch it they never seemed to do anything. Back to backs ( booking a trip for two weeks and another round trip back and forth from the origin) to take advantage of Saturday stay fares designed to make business travel expensive and leisure cheap were another story. We used them a lot until our airline of choice caught on and threatened to cancel future trips using them. Technically it violated their tariffs, but we simply booked the mid week on another airline in a big FU to them. After they saw our revenue dropped by 50% which cost them a lot of money when you have 200 trips a week they called us and said "belay my last" and we went back to using them for all my trips. Competition is a good thing.
And this would be different from playing it in a bar how?
Unless there is an explicit exemption in copyright law which says "except during interrogations", the copyright laws as bought by the media lobby still apply.
If we can be sued by the copyright holders for crap like this, I fail to see why it should be any different for the feds.
I guess they could claim an exemption under this part of the US copyright code:
(A) the performance or display is made by, at the direction of, or under the actual supervision of an instructor as an integral part of a class session offered as a regular part of the systematic mediated instructional activities of a governmental body or an accredited nonprofit educational institution;
Oh, I was simply referring to the attack on motives earlier. At the time, your argument sounded like something along the lines of, "because they aren't coming into this with the right motives, there's no point in listening to what they have to say." That may be a misstatement of what you intended, but that's how it came across.
No worries. I can see where it can be interpreted that way; one of the challenges with writing a quick reply to a comment.
Certainly. And that is a concern with these debates in general and the impact they'll have on the public at large. Even so, I'll go back to what I said: "what they choose to believe doesn't mean that you or anyone else has been freed from your responsibility to be intellectually honest in objectively assessing the points they made."
Considering the points they usually raise have already been discussed and proven not to be valid. At some point, you can simply say "Bring up some new evidence and we'll talk; but if all you are going to do is rehash what has been said, and shown why it is not a valid criticism of evolutionary theory, before then there is no reason to have the discussion."
Put differently, while what you've said is almost certainly true, we shouldn't allow ourselves to use it as an excuse to abandon reason.
Sure. Bring up some new evidence evolution is wrong or that provides verifiable evidence for your theory and I'll listen. However, "anything this complicated couldn't have happened by chance" is not a valid point.
There is no need to discredit
Let me restate my concluding point in light of that statement: use valid reasoning, whatever your purpose may be.
Whether you're seeking to discredit them or not, you were providing invalid reasoning. Few things annoy me more than people I agree with giving the other side valid ammunition to make an invalid point. :P
So here is my reasoning:
Evolution is a theory that uses the scientific method to test it. Creationism as a belief that can neither be proved or disproved.
If you want to debate X vs Y you need a common reference to use for comparison so you can reach some conclusion on which side has better made their argument. If it is the scientific method, then both sides must be able to use it to test their theory.
Since that is not possible in this case because each side bases their conclusions on a different frame of reference, a debate accomplishes nothing in terms of which theory (in scientific terms - which I use here since Creationists argue their theory is equally valid as evolution since both are "theories" and neither can be conclusively proven correct) is a better model of observed phenomena and more predictive. Therefore, why debate?
Since one side's POV is predicated on a belief that can be neither proven nor disproven, there isn't a question of validity of the belief because, well, they believe it is true. Since you cannot prove it isn't true, there is nothing to discredit since it is simply what they believe. When any points can be explained away by "It's God's will" or "God did that to test us and our faith" there really isn't room for a reasoned discussion. Again, why debate?
Finally, the existence of a creator in no way means evolution cannot be the mechanism which resulted in life as we know it today. If you did debate, you could end it at the start by saying"Sure, God could have created man; he simply used evolution to do so. After all, who are we to question how God does what God does; we must just seek to understand how God does it. Now, let's discuss why God created the earth more than 6000 years ago and dinosaurs didn't coexist with "modern" mankind."
In the end, faith and science can, and do, coexist quite nicely. So, to answer "why debate?," ask "Who gains from it?" Creationists want to make their position appear to be worthy of the same consideration as the scientific theory of evolution. Not just to believe in one and not the other, but to give their POV equal time in scientific debate. Debating recognizable figures form science helps accomplish that and I think it is wrong for scientists to do so. That's my belief
So, to close, I am genuinely curious what you find invalid in my reasoning.
However, the creationists are not interested in being proved wrong as much as punching holes in the other side's arguments so they can say they "won" and gain legitimacy for their point of view. They are not interested in the scientific method, as far as they are concerned the Bible says it so it must be true.
If you're talking about Ken Ham, I agree with you. Just be careful not to paint everyone with that stereotype.
Certainly. Having strong religious beliefs do not automatically me nay you are ant-evolution or anti-science. As one put it, one is about why (religion) and the other how (science) and both can coexist nicely.
My point was that framing the argument is folly, because the sides simply don't exist. You may already realize this, but why would you continue ot propagate such a big lie? The sides don't exist, and don't change the laws being proposed.
When sides don't exist you must create them. This isn't about right and wrong, but winning and losing. My point is not who is on what side but how to win.
Who makes the argument is irrelevant to how it is framed. It so happens that it's a Democratic'a bill so you need to frame it as a fight against Republicans.
I'm not suggesting that poking a hole in current evolutionary theory somehow proves or validates Creationism, after all, that would suggest a false dilemma: that either current evolutionary theory is exactly correct or Creationism is exactly correct, thus requiring that a hole in one would confirm the veracity of the other. Clearly, that isn't actually the case, since evolutionary theory is undergoing tweaks on a regular basis. I am also not arguing that they're going in without an agenda. They are (though I don't see the relevance).
All I'm arguing is that if you want to discredit them, do so on valid grounds.
There is no need to discredit since they aren't a valid scientific theory. There is no prove or disprove since sit is based on a belief; one that is quite compatible with evolution. Unfortunately, many creationists seem to need to disprove evolution under the false assumption that proves them right.
Regardless of motives, if side A can present facts that punch holes in side B's argument, shouldn't a scientist sit up and take note? And that's true no matter which side is which.
Sure, scientists listen when someone spots a potential flaw or inconsistency in theory. However, that neither invalidates the theory nor provides any support for alternate theories in the evolution vs creationism argument. Creationist want people to think because they can point out what they consider as flaws in evolutionary theory, such as gaps in the fossil trail, that their theory is thus equally valid. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. If it did, then the theory we were put here by ancient astronauts would be equally valid yet the creationist i've meet recoil at the idea that it is an equally valid theory as biblical based creationism. They have no interest in real scientific debate but merely want to give credence to their world view.
Keep telling yourself that so that you don't ever have to challenge anyone. You clearly are not familiar with Ken Ham, and think he is some inbred redneck or internet troll to be easily dismissed.
Actually, I simply think there is no reason to engage in this particular debate because it is of no value and simply gives credence to creationists that they somehow have a theory that is equally as valid as evolution. Quite frankly, if you want to believe God created the universe then the evolution vs. creation debate ended when the Catholic Church stated there is no conflict between evolution and the concept of God as the creator; since Genesis is not a literal description of the earth's creation.
It's not Net Neutrality, but "Republicans want to take away your Netflix..." People dislike losing something tangible much more than gaining some important, but hard to quantify item. Change the debate; just like the natural food industry who says "The government wants to take away your vitamins..." to the opposing argument of "We want to be sure you aren't getting ripped off by spurious claims..." Guess which one wins?
Ken Ham is well spoken and should provide a reasonable point-counterpoint.
I don't think that the idea that we should not wrestle with pigs is the attitude of a responsible scientist. Eventually, all conventional wisdom needs to be challenged. At one time, you'd have been laughed out of a room of distinguished scientists for rejecting geocentricity. An idea has nothing to fear from examination if it is sound.
The problem with your point is you expect both sides to act like responsible scientists and approach the debate with an open mind. However, the creationists are not interested in being proved wrong as much as punching holes in the other side's arguments so they can say they "won" and gain legitimacy for their point of view. They are not interested in the scientific method, as far as they are concerned the Bible says it so it must be true. That is not a debate. Scientists test theories and see if they continue to explain what they observe, creationists have a belief and anything contrary to that is incorrect. Scientists, by nature, are open to new ideas and generally don't speak in absolutes, which put stem at a disadvantage to those who believe in absolutes. Even scientific language, such as theory, is used to argue that the creationists viewpoint is equally valid since sit is a theory as well; although the creationists generally leave out the crackpot in from of their theory.
the first discovery request. The recordings and data would be a potential goldmine for attorneys. Not just employment cases but criminal as well. So, Mr. CEO, how do you explain your employees talking about how you were able to fix prices? How about your admin talking about the stock tips you get from friends?
No.
ensure that every K-12 student in the US has the opportunity to study computer science
Yes.
As well as art, music, history, a foreign language, literature, pays ed, etc. It's called getting a well rounded education.
Twitter controls @N. Once he has his domains back and secured twitter should be able to transfer control of #N back to him. It's not lil ether can't reset passwords and registration data. Whomever took it might even have useful info to track them down.
They're still around and own Gatewy as well. While Schiller was probably correct in the sense most of the dozens of PC makers of any size from the early Mac era have come and gone he was not correct in saying none still exist. Of course, what constitutes still existing is a bit vague since many have been acquired or exit but have exited the PC business.
This time they got caught out in a few emails, next time they will just keep it to verbal agreements on the country club golf course. The "exposure" is not going to come from a few or even many Engineers complaining in isolation that there might be some collusion going on as the alternative offers are drying up.
They obviously believe the hype the new world of tech is somehow different than the old world and are about to discover it often just make sit easier to find out stuff to use against you.
I had a mac at home that had the add on card to run windows/dos. it was an actual 386 computer on an expansion card and it's output was piped to the video board via a 15 pin jumper cable.
Brings back memories - I had a PC Transporter in my Apple][gs that let me run MS-DOS so I could emulate a VT100 and dial in to my wok mainframe. As a side note, the color finder first appeared on the Apple][gs via GS/OS. A great machine, but Apple was already moving away from the ][ series in favor of Mac. As i recall, there even was an Apple /e/ hardware board for the LC.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
We are cool hipsters with disposable income to burn. Macs give us that air of cool superiority to go with our turtlenecks and sandals.; and allow us to scoff at those great brainwashed masses who hew to Microsoft's corporate line. We have Steve Jobs; you have a nerdy guy with glasses.
MS has brainwashed you to prefer a perception of speed over elegance and design; Steve has said elegance and esthetics are what counts and he said it so we believe it. Besides, your tests are run on benchmarks optimized for Wintel so the mean nothing to use, we will continue to have the luxury of enjoying our mocha latte duple grande overpriced vent while we bask in the beauty of MacOS.
Even MS has realized the inherent advantage of the Mac interface and has made week attempts to copy it with Windoze; btw we're V10 and your only on what, 8? How 1997 of you. While you double right click mouse up to d something we have buttonless mice, and we know less is more.
So while you sheep blindly follow MS we know we are ones who slay Big brother, the crazy ones who make a difference, the cool Mac next to the nerdy corporate PC, toasting your bunnies (mmm tasty, as are the escargot); and simply Think Different. So crawl back under the bridge, troll, and let us enjoy our smug superiority as we bask in the glory of Macintosh
Point still stands: bitcoins aren't going to show up on a boat and net you a phone call demanding you come get this stuff and pay warehousing fees. Stocks cannot be sold unless there is liquidity; and there are a great many stocks that aren't liquid enough to withstand your average day-trader's funds, whereby a NYSE listed security can't handle a $25,000 sell order in a day. Build-a-Bear Workshop can't do it, for example. I've had trouble buying and selling Sinclair Broadcast Group (SBGI), and they own oh... better than 60% of all the television broadcast stations in the United States? Four trading days for a market sell of 5000 shares to go through completely, for a $2 BILLION a year revenue company!
While there certainly are fringe cases of illiquid stocks or difficulties making trades the simple fact is stocks (and bonds) are generally cash equivalents because they can be readily converted to cash; unlike Bitcoins which we seem to agree are illiquid and thus not cash equivalents. So my point stands as well, Bitcoins are a highly speculative play because of their ill liquidity and volatility; claims that they are like stocks or they are currency because someone converted Bitcoins to cash and bought a car are incorrect.
Nonsensical rant deleted
Stocks are NOT a liquid investment because you cannot buy (most) things with them. They must first be sold. A liquid asset is petty cash; a checking account is liquid; a line of credit has liquidity; bonds are illiquid, stocks are illiquid.
Liquid asserts are those you can readily convert to cash. Stocks and bonds are generally liquid investments; they are carried on books as cash and cash equivalents. Bitcoin clearly are not. The Bility to purchase anything with them is irrelevant.
Did you not take Economics in high school, or Accounting in college?
It's clear you didn't.