I don't think you are understanding what he is quoted as having said. To me, it reads as though he is saying it is a misuse of deductive reasoning. Given the ellipses and his own statements about how he was quoted, I'd say it's reasonable to conclude that the quote here is not a good or real accurate quote. But, regardless, it is faulty logic to say "object ergo creator." He never denies cause and effect, as you suggest. He says that it is faulty logic to say that there is an agent of change (a god) based on the presence of matter in the universe (stuff). Who put all this stuff here? No one. Or someone. But the mere presence of stuff does not allow one to make a deductive judgement.
And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not "reductio ad absurdum." No doubt it is absurd, but it is simply a straight forward juxtaposition of religious dogma onto an obviously made up religion. It makes the dogma stand on its own for the ridiculous line of reasoning that it is. A great example of a reductio ad absurdum argument is the Ontological argument for the existence of God. "If we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then it must exist." That is straight up Jesus-on-a-stick talk, not Flying Spaghetti Monster. The FSM is just a mirror. If you think it is absurd... well, good, it is supposed to be.
Yes, you can sue for that. That has been well established. TFA actually mentions such a case from 1994.
The misleading thing here is that when people read that a teacher "may not be sued for making hostile remarks about religion" one assumes that the remarks were actually hostile. The court basically said that the teacher has no reason to believe that what he said should be taken as hostile. The teacher, for his part, never mentioned a specific creationist theory, but rather said this:
Aristotle argued, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense.... That’s what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic. The other possibility is, it’s always been there. Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic. All I’m saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it.
And one more graph from the article:
Corbett told his students that “real” scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. “Contrast that with creationists,” he told his students. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”
james corbett | 12-February-2011 at 12:09 pm | I’m Dr. Corbett. One thing readers should understand is that when my school-provided attorney made the decision to ask a judge rather than a judge decide the case, the law required that all the “facts” be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (Chad). That meant that we could not challenge the validity of the recordings, which were heavily edited. It meant that we could not point out how each and every comment clearly related to the curriculum. I might add, Chad’s recording were in violation of California law. This case was never about religion. It was about a whiny little boy who admitted he didn’t do his homework and who’s helicopter parents intervened so often in school and on the water polo team that other students called him “princess.” Neither Chad, his parents nor his lawyers, the so called “Advocates for Faith and Freedom,” ever made an attempt to even talk to me or attempt to resolve the issues prior to filing a lawsuit. It is my opinion that the “Advocates” were far more interested in having a case they could use for fundraising than they were in dealing with the issues. They are a textbook example of exactly what I commented on in class, that some people use the faith of others to line their pockets with gold or to gain political power. I believe such use of religion is vastly more offensive than calling Biblical creation “superstitious, religious nonsense,” which is obviously true.”
I'm saying that Mars is warming for entirely different reasons than the Earth. Just because two things are similar does not mean they are the same, or even related. For the Earth's rise in temp to be caused by the same as Mars', the conditions would have to be the same or similar. They aren't. Apples and oranges.
Yes, NDT will be good. He's an ass kicker. He'd probably quickly point out that they Martian temp rise has been attributed to a slight increase in radiation (sunlight) on a mostly CO2 atmosphere (heat trapping) that has led to a great increase in dust clouds (making the atmosphere denser and more heat absorbing) and at the same time the soil left behind after the dust is kicked up is darker, which means that it's also more heat absorbing. So the mechanism is entirely different. The minor increase in solar radiation just wouldn't have that effect on the Earth — not without massive deforestation and a huge outpouring of CO2 (even more massive than what we've done already).
No, how Fox will screw this up is by ordering 13 episodes, airing them out of order (so that ape-like creatures evolve from liberals, perhaps) and then only airing about eight or so before canceling the series. But then it has the rights and no one else can show them.
That is actually how my elementry school worked. By the time I was half way through sixth grade, me and two of my friends had exhausted the educational materials, which only covered up to the eighth grade. When I went to a normal Jr. high in the 7th grade, I fell on my face. I was sooooo goddamned bored. I didn't do the most basic assignments. Can't we just agree that I know this and let me move on?
Why is it that every time the French see a problem, they throw red wine at it? I'm not being mean, just curious. They make fine cheeses, too, but you never see them suggesting cheese for bone-mass loss.
The best thing about roundabouts is that vehicles only have one choice: turn right (in America) or not. It makes things incredibly predictable. When a car enters one, the only choice is to turn; when a car is in the roundabout, the only choice is *when* to turn. And because of the structure of the roundabout, a car trying to enter only has to look one way — to the left (in America) — to see if there is any on-coming traffic.
Compare that to a four-way stop where cars from all four directions can have three choices that can happen simultaneously. The cars may or may not single properly. And while you may know the rules for how to use a four-way stop, you can bet your sweet bippy that two of the three other cars sitting at the intersection have a different understanding of the rules than you do.
I live in Wichita, Kansas, in a neighborhood full of big parks with two roundabouts and two four-way stops. There are also curved roads because of the rivers coming together there. I can't tell you how many stupid, stupid Sunday drivers we get in this neighborhood. They clearly don't understand how to use the roundabouts. They scare the hell out of them and they move very slowly through them. The same people clearly don't understand how to use four-way stops, and they boldly drive through them at break-neck speeds and nearly kill themselves and others. There is no cure for stupid, but there are ways to mitigate it.
The anonymous post that is the parent of this comment is marked as a troll, but, honestly, it's just a statement of fact. The truth is that in the U.S. politicians are afraid of offending the majority of people, and a significant amount of them are just a bunch of redneck morons. We tried this in the 1970s, when the President was from Georgia and we thought we might be able to sell it to the rednecks, but they went apeshit. The only thing we got out of that was soda in two-liter bottles. (Glass in '76... plastic in the early 80s.) But you can't blame this problem on urban drug dealers. They sell their coke in grams and kilos.
In 1994, I was editor of the third daily online newspaper in the world (the Kansas State eCollegian). This not only wasn't funny, but really, really common. I had conversations with people like this all the time for at least a year. Mostly alumni calling over the phone, trying to find out how to read the college newspaper. And it was way more difficult to try to tell someone that, no, having a subscription to AOL is not Internet access but a closed BBS. And Prodigy. And whatever other service you're about to ask me about.
Well, what this really is a chance for him not to so much apply the scientific method but rather to teach the scientific method. He already has a hypothesis: his family is full of crap. What he needs is for his family to come up with the testable hypothesis. Have them do the work to prove the ghosts. Set up controls, double blinds, etc., etc. The goal is not to prove the non-existance of ghosts, but to make the family shut up about it. And it's totally possible to work with them in such a way that it sucks all the fun out of the make believe and teaches them that, really, they cannot prove their claims even to themselves. He, however, should stick to trying to help them prove what they believe. But they have to be able to articulate what they believe in some way. But that is their problem, not his.
Oh, like my mother, who works for a nature center and is a past president of the local Audubon chapter and gives money to dozens of charitable organizations and spends significant amounts of time caring for my 90-year-old grandpa.
No, you're exactly wrong. He has never said this. He did destroy CNN's Crossfire by http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bljonstewartcrossfire.htmblasting them for partisan hackery and shrugging off any bias he may have with, "You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls."
He is sometimes taken as a serious journalist because he asks questions that others are afraid to ask. He doesn't care about getting these people back; they think they can go in and handle the clown. He is whip smart. But he never, ever says, "I'm just being objective here." Unless, of course, he is being clearly biased and mocking someone else who is being clearly biased and lying about facts. Is he partisan? I think he'd say he is, a bit, but he doesn't let liberals off scott free. It's just that the conservative hate machine has an entire network devoted to bullshit and the liberals have "mainstream media," which can't do a story about the Earth being a globe without digging up a flat-earther somewhere. (Two sides to every story is a double-edged sword.) So that gives Stewart and crew a lot to work with.
Re:Multitasking complaint is kind of bogus
on
iPhone 4 News Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yeah, as I was reading the story on my ios4 3GS iPhone, I couldn't figure out what he was talking about. It seems completely made up. Like he got drunk, hacked his own phone and then blacked out only to wake up later all angry and confused. He seems to believe that all apps need multitasking, and the truth is that most really don't. I can only do so much at once.
After a few years of running moderate distances, I ran a marathon in 2001. That day, after running 26 miles, I drank for 12 hours. Then I ate a dozen Krispy Kreme donuts. I refer to it as my triathlon. I was fine the next day and for a few weeks, then my knees started really complaining about the running addiction. My knees were fine with the beer and donuts.
I've slept four to six hours a night for nearly 20 years now. I drink three to six beers a day, but rarely at a rate greater than one per hour. I have two donuts every other day for breakfast. I got about 30 pounds heavier than I was when I was running 60 miles a week. I could do without it.
So, two years ago, I picked up cycling. After a year of riding my bike to work every day (15 miles round trip, morning donut stop included), I'd lost about 15 pounds. Then I got run over by a little old lady who ran a red light. She had a senior moment and didn't see the light, the half-dozen other stopped cars or the fully lit and reflective cyclist.
So, yeah yeah yeah... take care of your body. Whatever. Shit happens.
I've never had any unique or interesting memory problems. I beat the 11-year-old neighbor kid on the Wii Fit stuff all the time; my Wii Fit age is usually almost half my actual age (37). In some ways, I remember much more than I used to. I have a little more trouble learning new things, but I learn them better and with more confidence. Maybe I'm just a better listener.
Actually, that's not meaningful at all. I think you're just trying to buffalo us.
"Buffalo" has got about six definitions split across a proper noun, a noun (plural and singular) and a verb. The only adjective is Buffalonian (a person from Buffalo). "Fuck" beats the fuck out of that fucker by a fucking mile -- its got a fuckload more uses. Not that you give a fuck.
"Fuck" is the most versatile word in the English language. It can be used in every part of speech (except as a preposition, though it can be part of a prepositional phrase). The sentence, "Fuck those fucking fuckers," for example, packs a lot of meaning in what is really only two words. There are so many uses for that one word that someone wrote an entire book on it. In it, it calls "fuck" the "most important and powerful word in the English language."
They actually don't have any idea what causes most brain cancers. "People receiving radiotherapy (high-dose ionizing radiation) to the head during childhood are at increased risk for developing brain tumors, as are people with certain rare genetic disorders such as neurofibromatosis and Li-Fraumeni syndrome." (From the American Cancer Society) So, awareness about head radiation and genetics aren't really going to be huge gotchas that effect brain tumors. The things you mention effect cancer in people, but not brain tumors.
And, to be clear, we are talking about brain tumors that develop in the brain first, not malignant cancers that developed somewhere else and traveled to the brain, which is actually how both my grandmother (kidney, originally) and one of my mentors (lung, originally) both died. It's a horrible way to die. It undoes you.
But there's not only no evidence that cell phones cause cancer, there's no evidence that brain cancer rates are rising. And no one is doing anything to make those rates fall because they don't know what causes it to begin with. It's a totally fictitious concern.
Not really. I mean, I struggle to find anyone over the age of 75 that doesn't regularly use a cell phone, and I live in Wichita, Kansas. We are not bleeding-edge technology adapters. [i]Everyone[/i] (in a statistically significant way) uses cell phones. For the number of instances of brain cancer to fall and or hold steady in the last 20 years AND for cell phones to have a statistical impact on brain cancer rates, there would have to be some great "holy shit, this causes brain cancer so let's stop doing it" that went on at the same time. And is there any great holy grail of brain-cancer prevention going on? No. Not according to the American Cancer Society. There's just no evidence of any rise whatsoever despite the massive public experiment involving holding these devices to hundreds of millions of heads.
I mean that if cell phones cause cancer, you would expect the rate of cancer to raise along with the use of cell phones. Instead, cancer rates have fallen or stayed the same for 20 years.
It really seems silly when, in America at least, age-adjusted rates of brain cancer have fallen or held steady since the 1990s. From the National Cancer Institute:
From 1990 to 2002, the overall age-adjusted incidence rates for brain cancer decreased slightly; from 7.0 cases to 6.4 cases for every 100,000 persons in the United States. The mortality rate from 1990 to 2002 also decreased slightly; from 4.9 deaths to 4.4 for every 100,000 persons in the United States. The incidence and mortality rates for cancers that originate in the brain and central nervous system have remained relatively unchanged in the last decade.
It would seem to me that falling cancer rates are no reason for assuming that widespread cellphone use has been a health concern.
Yeah, who cares about the jobs lost? Those jobs are shit jobs. I mean, who wants to preserve a job that is retyping something that someone else wrote? Screw that. Free people up. Let them actually think about things. I bump into this all the time. I just had a conversation with a friend of mine in IT and we were standing on the street corner shouting this same thing into the air. If the computer can do it, then it's repetitive and boring. Stupid, stupid work. There are hard things that people do well that actually is worth something. People just do not think when they worry about protecting this sort of job.
HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) causes AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), which makes HIV the AIDS virus. That is how the English language works. Also, science. It is the same science that tells us that some forms of HPV can cause warts and/or cancer. It's sciency science. This sort of science is not popular with AIDS denialists, but that does not change the fact that it is real and actual science brought to you by the kinds of people who make organ transplants possible, not the kind of AIDS denialists who publish stories in Harper's. I only mention this because your comment seems sort of dismissive and misguidedly pedantic, and I want to cover some bases before other people get going.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you are understanding what he is quoted as having said. To me, it reads as though he is saying it is a misuse of deductive reasoning. Given the ellipses and his own statements about how he was quoted, I'd say it's reasonable to conclude that the quote here is not a good or real accurate quote. But, regardless, it is faulty logic to say "object ergo creator." He never denies cause and effect, as you suggest. He says that it is faulty logic to say that there is an agent of change (a god) based on the presence of matter in the universe (stuff). Who put all this stuff here? No one. Or someone. But the mere presence of stuff does not allow one to make a deductive judgement.
And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not "reductio ad absurdum." No doubt it is absurd, but it is simply a straight forward juxtaposition of religious dogma onto an obviously made up religion. It makes the dogma stand on its own for the ridiculous line of reasoning that it is. A great example of a reductio ad absurdum argument is the Ontological argument for the existence of God. "If we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then it must exist." That is straight up Jesus-on-a-stick talk, not Flying Spaghetti Monster. The FSM is just a mirror. If you think it is absurd ... well, good, it is supposed to be.
Yes, you can sue for that. That has been well established. TFA actually mentions such a case from 1994.
The misleading thing here is that when people read that a teacher "may not be sued for making hostile remarks about religion" one assumes that the remarks were actually hostile. The court basically said that the teacher has no reason to believe that what he said should be taken as hostile. The teacher, for his part, never mentioned a specific creationist theory, but rather said this:
And one more graph from the article:
Keep in mind that this was an Advanced Placement European History class (that is to say, college level even though it was in high school). Even more interesting is a quote about the case from the defendant himself back in February:
I'm saying that Mars is warming for entirely different reasons than the Earth. Just because two things are similar does not mean they are the same, or even related. For the Earth's rise in temp to be caused by the same as Mars', the conditions would have to be the same or similar. They aren't. Apples and oranges.
Yes, NDT will be good. He's an ass kicker. He'd probably quickly point out that they Martian temp rise has been attributed to a slight increase in radiation (sunlight) on a mostly CO2 atmosphere (heat trapping) that has led to a great increase in dust clouds (making the atmosphere denser and more heat absorbing) and at the same time the soil left behind after the dust is kicked up is darker, which means that it's also more heat absorbing. So the mechanism is entirely different. The minor increase in solar radiation just wouldn't have that effect on the Earth — not without massive deforestation and a huge outpouring of CO2 (even more massive than what we've done already).
No, how Fox will screw this up is by ordering 13 episodes, airing them out of order (so that ape-like creatures evolve from liberals, perhaps) and then only airing about eight or so before canceling the series. But then it has the rights and no one else can show them.
That is actually how my elementry school worked. By the time I was half way through sixth grade, me and two of my friends had exhausted the educational materials, which only covered up to the eighth grade. When I went to a normal Jr. high in the 7th grade, I fell on my face. I was sooooo goddamned bored. I didn't do the most basic assignments. Can't we just agree that I know this and let me move on?
Why is it that every time the French see a problem, they throw red wine at it? I'm not being mean, just curious. They make fine cheeses, too, but you never see them suggesting cheese for bone-mass loss.
The best thing about roundabouts is that vehicles only have one choice: turn right (in America) or not. It makes things incredibly predictable. When a car enters one, the only choice is to turn; when a car is in the roundabout, the only choice is *when* to turn. And because of the structure of the roundabout, a car trying to enter only has to look one way — to the left (in America) — to see if there is any on-coming traffic.
Compare that to a four-way stop where cars from all four directions can have three choices that can happen simultaneously. The cars may or may not single properly. And while you may know the rules for how to use a four-way stop, you can bet your sweet bippy that two of the three other cars sitting at the intersection have a different understanding of the rules than you do.
I live in Wichita, Kansas, in a neighborhood full of big parks with two roundabouts and two four-way stops. There are also curved roads because of the rivers coming together there. I can't tell you how many stupid, stupid Sunday drivers we get in this neighborhood. They clearly don't understand how to use the roundabouts. They scare the hell out of them and they move very slowly through them. The same people clearly don't understand how to use four-way stops, and they boldly drive through them at break-neck speeds and nearly kill themselves and others. There is no cure for stupid, but there are ways to mitigate it.
The anonymous post that is the parent of this comment is marked as a troll, but, honestly, it's just a statement of fact. The truth is that in the U.S. politicians are afraid of offending the majority of people, and a significant amount of them are just a bunch of redneck morons. We tried this in the 1970s, when the President was from Georgia and we thought we might be able to sell it to the rednecks, but they went apeshit. The only thing we got out of that was soda in two-liter bottles. (Glass in '76 ... plastic in the early 80s.) But you can't blame this problem on urban drug dealers. They sell their coke in grams and kilos.
In 1994, I was editor of the third daily online newspaper in the world (the Kansas State eCollegian). This not only wasn't funny, but really, really common. I had conversations with people like this all the time for at least a year. Mostly alumni calling over the phone, trying to find out how to read the college newspaper. And it was way more difficult to try to tell someone that, no, having a subscription to AOL is not Internet access but a closed BBS. And Prodigy. And whatever other service you're about to ask me about.
Well, what this really is a chance for him not to so much apply the scientific method but rather to teach the scientific method. He already has a hypothesis: his family is full of crap. What he needs is for his family to come up with the testable hypothesis. Have them do the work to prove the ghosts. Set up controls, double blinds, etc., etc. The goal is not to prove the non-existance of ghosts, but to make the family shut up about it. And it's totally possible to work with them in such a way that it sucks all the fun out of the make believe and teaches them that, really, they cannot prove their claims even to themselves. He, however, should stick to trying to help them prove what they believe. But they have to be able to articulate what they believe in some way. But that is their problem, not his.
Oh, like my mother, who works for a nature center and is a past president of the local Audubon chapter and gives money to dozens of charitable organizations and spends significant amounts of time caring for my 90-year-old grandpa.
What a troll of an article.
No, you're exactly wrong. He has never said this. He did destroy CNN's Crossfire by http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bljonstewartcrossfire.htmblasting them for partisan hackery and shrugging off any bias he may have with, "You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls."
He is sometimes taken as a serious journalist because he asks questions that others are afraid to ask. He doesn't care about getting these people back; they think they can go in and handle the clown. He is whip smart. But he never, ever says, "I'm just being objective here." Unless, of course, he is being clearly biased and mocking someone else who is being clearly biased and lying about facts. Is he partisan? I think he'd say he is, a bit, but he doesn't let liberals off scott free. It's just that the conservative hate machine has an entire network devoted to bullshit and the liberals have "mainstream media," which can't do a story about the Earth being a globe without digging up a flat-earther somewhere. (Two sides to every story is a double-edged sword.) So that gives Stewart and crew a lot to work with.
Yeah, as I was reading the story on my ios4 3GS iPhone, I couldn't figure out what he was talking about. It seems completely made up. Like he got drunk, hacked his own phone and then blacked out only to wake up later all angry and confused. He seems to believe that all apps need multitasking, and the truth is that most really don't. I can only do so much at once.
Elves? Damit. Mine only have gremlins. Damn knock-off cartridges!
After a few years of running moderate distances, I ran a marathon in 2001. That day, after running 26 miles, I drank for 12 hours. Then I ate a dozen Krispy Kreme donuts. I refer to it as my triathlon. I was fine the next day and for a few weeks, then my knees started really complaining about the running addiction. My knees were fine with the beer and donuts.
I've slept four to six hours a night for nearly 20 years now. I drink three to six beers a day, but rarely at a rate greater than one per hour. I have two donuts every other day for breakfast. I got about 30 pounds heavier than I was when I was running 60 miles a week. I could do without it.
So, two years ago, I picked up cycling. After a year of riding my bike to work every day (15 miles round trip, morning donut stop included), I'd lost about 15 pounds. Then I got run over by a little old lady who ran a red light. She had a senior moment and didn't see the light, the half-dozen other stopped cars or the fully lit and reflective cyclist.
So, yeah yeah yeah ... take care of your body. Whatever. Shit happens.
I've never had any unique or interesting memory problems. I beat the 11-year-old neighbor kid on the Wii Fit stuff all the time; my Wii Fit age is usually almost half my actual age (37). In some ways, I remember much more than I used to. I have a little more trouble learning new things, but I learn them better and with more confidence. Maybe I'm just a better listener.
Actually, that's not meaningful at all. I think you're just trying to buffalo us.
"Buffalo" has got about six definitions split across a proper noun, a noun (plural and singular) and a verb. The only adjective is Buffalonian (a person from Buffalo). "Fuck" beats the fuck out of that fucker by a fucking mile -- its got a fuckload more uses. Not that you give a fuck.
"Fuck" is the most versatile word in the English language. It can be used in every part of speech (except as a preposition, though it can be part of a prepositional phrase). The sentence, "Fuck those fucking fuckers," for example, packs a lot of meaning in what is really only two words. There are so many uses for that one word that someone wrote an entire book on it. In it, it calls "fuck" the "most important and powerful word in the English language."
So don't be so fucking quick to judge.
They actually don't have any idea what causes most brain cancers. "People receiving radiotherapy (high-dose ionizing radiation) to the head during childhood are at increased risk for developing brain tumors, as are people with certain rare genetic disorders such as neurofibromatosis and Li-Fraumeni syndrome." (From the American Cancer Society) So, awareness about head radiation and genetics aren't really going to be huge gotchas that effect brain tumors. The things you mention effect cancer in people, but not brain tumors.
And, to be clear, we are talking about brain tumors that develop in the brain first, not malignant cancers that developed somewhere else and traveled to the brain, which is actually how both my grandmother (kidney, originally) and one of my mentors (lung, originally) both died. It's a horrible way to die. It undoes you.
But there's not only no evidence that cell phones cause cancer, there's no evidence that brain cancer rates are rising. And no one is doing anything to make those rates fall because they don't know what causes it to begin with. It's a totally fictitious concern.
Not really. I mean, I struggle to find anyone over the age of 75 that doesn't regularly use a cell phone, and I live in Wichita, Kansas. We are not bleeding-edge technology adapters. [i]Everyone[/i] (in a statistically significant way) uses cell phones. For the number of instances of brain cancer to fall and or hold steady in the last 20 years AND for cell phones to have a statistical impact on brain cancer rates, there would have to be some great "holy shit, this causes brain cancer so let's stop doing it" that went on at the same time. And is there any great holy grail of brain-cancer prevention going on? No. Not according to the American Cancer Society. There's just no evidence of any rise whatsoever despite the massive public experiment involving holding these devices to hundreds of millions of heads.
I mean that if cell phones cause cancer, you would expect the rate of cancer to raise along with the use of cell phones. Instead, cancer rates have fallen or stayed the same for 20 years.
It really seems silly when, in America at least, age-adjusted rates of brain cancer have fallen or held steady since the 1990s. From the National Cancer Institute:
It would seem to me that falling cancer rates are no reason for assuming that widespread cellphone use has been a health concern.
I don't care how it made it on the front, because it was so funny that I not only literally lol'd, but nearly literally peed my pants. Awesome!
Yeah, who cares about the jobs lost? Those jobs are shit jobs. I mean, who wants to preserve a job that is retyping something that someone else wrote? Screw that. Free people up. Let them actually think about things. I bump into this all the time. I just had a conversation with a friend of mine in IT and we were standing on the street corner shouting this same thing into the air. If the computer can do it, then it's repetitive and boring. Stupid, stupid work. There are hard things that people do well that actually is worth something. People just do not think when they worry about protecting this sort of job.
Well, we do. We just don't have any that have that clause in their contract.
HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) causes AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), which makes HIV the AIDS virus. That is how the English language works. Also, science. It is the same science that tells us that some forms of HPV can cause warts and/or cancer. It's sciency science. This sort of science is not popular with AIDS denialists, but that does not change the fact that it is real and actual science brought to you by the kinds of people who make organ transplants possible, not the kind of AIDS denialists who publish stories in Harper's. I only mention this because your comment seems sort of dismissive and misguidedly pedantic, and I want to cover some bases before other people get going.