Well, I suppose to someone whose "social network" is the collection of anime figurines in their Mom's basement, Facebook and other services seem "empty."
Got news for you, "Hikiko Morey", there is a world of human interaction out there, and humans will interact using whatever means we find, despite your denigratory remarks.
I'd say the point is the poster gets to decide what's important and what's not, not you. And claiming that "irrelevant" posts are the majority of Facebook postings is hyperbole, or even demagoguery. Or worse, trollery of the lamest kind.
Vetoing a bill that was passed by a "veto-proof majority" is still possible, it means that if the Legislative branch wants to override the veto, they have to actually vote to override. It's not automatically overridden, and there's a chance that some of the former majority won't vote to overrride.
Civics 101, which has been replaced by "American Idol Studies"
I want old fashioned metal detector scans for people who can still wear their shoes and jackets, wanding for those who fail it, and bag x-rays (with no liquid restrction) handled by private, sue-able security, and drug sniffing dogs handled by actual police (who can then pat you down if the dog detects something on you, just like they could anywhere else in the US)
Oddly enough, this is exactly what they're planning for those that sign up for the Trusted Traveler plan offered by the Feds to anyone who wants to sign up for and pay for a background check. They're rolling it out now, and even though I hate the idea of paying the government to stop doing something they shouldn't be doing in the first place, I prefer to not be treated like a terrorist each time. I've had to get background checks before for various clearances I've had, so I have no problem with that, as long as it's something I volunteer for, not something that's demanded of me without choice.
Hell, I'd sign a waiver saying I accept the risks of flying without screening by the TSA Gestapo.
On a side note to your side note, as a Christian it gets tiresome on Slashdot to be automatically prejudged to be an idiotic, moronic, simple-minded, racist, sexist homophobe, just because of my belief, which for the record does not include racism, sexism or homophobia. As for being an idiot, that's likely going to be true regardless of my beliefs rather than caused by them.
That's called a circular definition. "Truth is that which is true." And the second part of your definition also reinforces mine, which is the "or reality" part.
Are opinions about reality fact? "I hate apples." Is that a fact? Can it be measured, sensed, weighed, or in any respect independently validated by anyone other than the person who stated it?
For that person, is that not a statement of truth?
I'm a Christian, so if you need to instantly discount anything I have to say because of that, please go to the next article.
The biggest problem I have with arguments about belief is the conflation in English of "truth" and "fact". Often times when someone says "truth" they're really meaning to say "fact", as in "actual, provable occurrence". Facts can be measured, scaled, repeated, seen, felt, sensed, etc. Truth and falsity are terms related to the judgements we apply to both facts and non-facts. It is a fact that repeated blows to the head will cause an individual to die. Truth is that beating someone to death is bad. A story can be told that contains no facts, in other words, complete fiction, but the content of the story can contain truths. Fact-fiction and true-false are orthogonal axes because they describe different aspects of our experiences. We tend to want to align "fact" with "true" and "fiction" with "false", but that's a simple way of looking at it. More thought, whether strictly analytical or otherwise, and more experience can reveal the truth as more nuanced.
DYSWIDT?
Anyway, if you bothered to read this after the first sentence, flame away. If you just skipped to this sentence without reading the middle, you just want to argue at a kindergarten level, you doody-head.
Nice theory, except there are so many holes in airport "security" now that aren't being exploited, it makes your theory wildly overblown. The sole intent and purpose of the TSA is to give us reason to fear each other, because if we are too afraid to count on our fellow Americans, then we have no choice but to trust the nearest uniformed "agent" of our Benevolent Father Government. And do exactly what they say, no questions or arguments or disagreement allowed. Constitutional freedoms void where prohibited by law.
100 million would just about pay the insurance premiums needed to pay for the nuisance lawsuits posted by NIMBYs and the green NukeFUD complex of organizations.
You're obviously listening to some bizarro version of "t-baggers" if you think stopping progress is why NASA has to keep fighting for a budget. There is a huge vocal cadre of people who claim "we shouldn't be wasting so much on space when we have so many poor people here on Earth to help first." I doubt you'd be calling those people "t-baggers", since they're from your side of the aisle.
NukeFUD will never be overcome in the world, the threshold for self-sustaining fear reaction was reached back in the 70's, as long as there are new generations of people taught to fear anything with the word "nuclear" in it. Changing the name of "MRI" machines from "NMRI" was pure marketing to avoid having to call them "nuclear magnetic resonance imaging" which would have terrified the masses and led to mass protests against the "horrible consequences" of its use.
Too many people are too terrified for this to ever catch on. Most would rather "freeze to death in the dark" than to have anything to do with nuclear power.
Couldn't they have contacted the parent and expressed concern from adult to adult rather than from adult to 4 year old? Perhaps offered the parent the opportunity to supplement the kid's lunch through school-provided food?
That's not how bureaucracies work. The rules are there in order to prevent the bad consequences of lower-level bureaucrats or implementers thinking for themselves and possibly acting in ways that go against the direction the top-level bureaucrats have decided upon.
Apparently not, it's important for people to accept what government representatives tell us, for our own good. They must know better than us, or else they wouldn't be in positions of authority. "Shut up", Slashdot explained.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I suppose to someone whose "social network" is the collection of anime figurines in their Mom's basement, Facebook and other services seem "empty."
Got news for you, "Hikiko Morey", there is a world of human interaction out there, and humans will interact using whatever means we find, despite your denigratory remarks.
I'd say the point is the poster gets to decide what's important and what's not, not you. And claiming that "irrelevant" posts are the majority of Facebook postings is hyperbole, or even demagoguery. Or worse, trollery of the lamest kind.
Vetoing a bill that was passed by a "veto-proof majority" is still possible, it means that if the Legislative branch wants to override the veto, they have to actually vote to override. It's not automatically overridden, and there's a chance that some of the former majority won't vote to overrride.
Civics 101, which has been replaced by "American Idol Studies"
That example makes ObjC start to look like Perl...
And not in a good way.
pics or it didn't happen...
Everyone demagogues this but no one ever proves it.
http://reno4governor.tripod.com/index-8.html
Oddly enough, this is exactly what they're planning for those that sign up for the Trusted Traveler plan offered by the Feds to anyone who wants to sign up for and pay for a background check. They're rolling it out now, and even though I hate the idea of paying the government to stop doing something they shouldn't be doing in the first place, I prefer to not be treated like a terrorist each time. I've had to get background checks before for various clearances I've had, so I have no problem with that, as long as it's something I volunteer for, not something that's demanded of me without choice. Hell, I'd sign a waiver saying I accept the risks of flying without screening by the TSA Gestapo.
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/testimony/testimony_1304456565968.shtm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_and_Response_team
On a side note to your side note, as a Christian it gets tiresome on Slashdot to be automatically prejudged to be an idiotic, moronic, simple-minded, racist, sexist homophobe, just because of my belief, which for the record does not include racism, sexism or homophobia. As for being an idiot, that's likely going to be true regardless of my beliefs rather than caused by them.
That's called a circular definition. "Truth is that which is true." And the second part of your definition also reinforces mine, which is the "or reality" part.
Are opinions about reality fact? "I hate apples." Is that a fact? Can it be measured, sensed, weighed, or in any respect independently validated by anyone other than the person who stated it?
For that person, is that not a statement of truth?
I'm a Christian, so if you need to instantly discount anything I have to say because of that, please go to the next article.
The biggest problem I have with arguments about belief is the conflation in English of "truth" and "fact". Often times when someone says "truth" they're really meaning to say "fact", as in "actual, provable occurrence". Facts can be measured, scaled, repeated, seen, felt, sensed, etc. Truth and falsity are terms related to the judgements we apply to both facts and non-facts. It is a fact that repeated blows to the head will cause an individual to die. Truth is that beating someone to death is bad. A story can be told that contains no facts, in other words, complete fiction, but the content of the story can contain truths. Fact-fiction and true-false are orthogonal axes because they describe different aspects of our experiences. We tend to want to align "fact" with "true" and "fiction" with "false", but that's a simple way of looking at it. More thought, whether strictly analytical or otherwise, and more experience can reveal the truth as more nuanced.
DYSWIDT?
Anyway, if you bothered to read this after the first sentence, flame away. If you just skipped to this sentence without reading the middle, you just want to argue at a kindergarten level, you doody-head.
Nice theory, except there are so many holes in airport "security" now that aren't being exploited, it makes your theory wildly overblown. The sole intent and purpose of the TSA is to give us reason to fear each other, because if we are too afraid to count on our fellow Americans, then we have no choice but to trust the nearest uniformed "agent" of our Benevolent Father Government. And do exactly what they say, no questions or arguments or disagreement allowed. Constitutional freedoms void where prohibited by law.
100 million would just about pay the insurance premiums needed to pay for the nuisance lawsuits posted by NIMBYs and the green NukeFUD complex of organizations.
Yep. Like making a spacingm istake.
You're obviously listening to some bizarro version of "t-baggers" if you think stopping progress is why NASA has to keep fighting for a budget. There is a huge vocal cadre of people who claim "we shouldn't be wasting so much on space when we have so many poor people here on Earth to help first." I doubt you'd be calling those people "t-baggers", since they're from your side of the aisle.
And universal food care, universal housing, universal transportation, universal happiness.
I used to tell Chuck Norris jokes until I took an arrow in my knee.
Syntactically, yes. Semantically, no.
Yeah, put those wind farms on the coastline that's subject to horrendous tsunami.
If Marketwatch recommends that a company do something, the company is pretty much guaranteed to succeed by doing everything except that something.
NukeFUD will never be overcome in the world, the threshold for self-sustaining fear reaction was reached back in the 70's, as long as there are new generations of people taught to fear anything with the word "nuclear" in it. Changing the name of "MRI" machines from "NMRI" was pure marketing to avoid having to call them "nuclear magnetic resonance imaging" which would have terrified the masses and led to mass protests against the "horrible consequences" of its use.
Too many people are too terrified for this to ever catch on. Most would rather "freeze to death in the dark" than to have anything to do with nuclear power.
I once had 6 months of expenses in savings. Then I was unemployed (contractor, no UI for me) for 12 months.
That's not how bureaucracies work. The rules are there in order to prevent the bad consequences of lower-level bureaucrats or implementers thinking for themselves and possibly acting in ways that go against the direction the top-level bureaucrats have decided upon.
Apparently not, it's important for people to accept what government representatives tell us, for our own good. They must know better than us, or else they wouldn't be in positions of authority. "Shut up", Slashdot explained.