The "broad stroke" I use is to proclaim that when organizations are funded by people with agendas, they are suspect. NOT that they are guilty.
But, people who are convinced an organization is biased will also find "evidence" of that bias when the facts don't match their preconceived notions of truth.
Aside from the spurious characterization of my opinions of these particular organizations, I would point out that the opposite is also true - "But, people who are convinced an organization is unbiased will fail to find "evidence" of any bias when the facts don't match their preconceived notions of truth." You quote policies of your former organization as if they were reality, or specifically everyone's reality. The rules about nondisclusure that applied to you as an intern may not, in practice, apply to the people that provide all the money.
Or are you going to let me argue that commercial news organizations have those same policies, and therefor are above those criticisms? No? Then you are left with "But they are different!" But they're not different - that's the point I was trying to make.
"In hindsight, aborting a potential human in the womb seems a lot less brutal."
Actually, I believe that argues in the opposite direction - we, as a society, perhaps should not declare someone "human" until they have proven it so? I'd propose that beings remain "potential" humans until age 35 or until they display some overwhelming sign that they are indeed human. Prior to that, they can be killed with impunity like the animals they are.
Too arbitrary? Perhaps. But the alternate, applying the Precautionary Principle and allowing "potential humans" to develop, would preclude the selection activities they are using.
I think the analogy is apropos - after all, we have NASA (predominantly composed of men) sending a "probe" consisting of a long, thin tube with a payload at it's head, to slam into a crater (i.e. hole) on the Moon.
Of course Nasa should ask first - isn't it rape otherwise?
"in this day and age...after the credit implosion and GM's bankruptcy..after Madoff....there's someone still stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hbold enough to buy SCO? Man....can someone get me his number? I've got a few dozen bridges and landmarks to sell him, not to mention a few automobiles."
I've had the experience of having no fingerprints for a time. I worked at UPS unloading trucks; one of the customers shipped many thousands of small boxes just before the end of the year; the boxes were the precise size that the only way to grip them was with the pads of fingers and thumb (I'm looking at you, Daytimers!). A large portion of those boxes passed through my hands. Shortly after I started work there, I noticed that I was having trouble gripping items that were wet - a water glass with condensation on it would routinely slip through my fingers. When I examined my hands I saw that the ridges of my fingerprints were basically worn away. I wore gloves for a bit while working and the problem cleared itself up.
Another illustration would be to look at the skiving on the bottom of a pair of deck shoes. On a dry surface, they offer no advantage whatsoever, but on a wet surface the difference in grip is remarkable. Or for that matter tire treads - a set of slicks is the absolute best way to maximize grip - unless it's wet, at which point they become the WORST configuration.
I know what it is; and yes, I AM categorically against "stimulus" bills.
Keynesian economic theory is the biggest scam of all time. It has never been shown to actually *work*, but to admit that would be for economists to give up their influence in government and for Democrats to admit that FDR was not the second coming.
Lets all take a cue from Woodward and Bernstein, who all these J school grads aspire to emulate - follow the money. These groups are being funded by people with agendas, just like the media they purport to study/critique.
Indeed, though that doesn't necessarily mean the investigation isn't true; a classic example is Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle' where an avowed socialist wrote about the exploitation committed in Chicago's meat-packing district and how adopting a socialist philosophy was the only way help the working man in the US.
The latter was pretty roundly dismissed but there were a good number of regulations implemented because of that initial investigation and publication.
Careful - when that argument is made from the opposite end of the spectrum, it is roundly dismissed. Try making that same argument about Kenneth Starr and Bill Clinton and see where it leads.
Where are the Bob Woodwards? Those type of guys are what newspapers need.
I mention him higher up, although not in the same light. In my opinion Woodward and Bernstein form the root of the current rot in journalism - The idea that the journalist should be the story. Every J-school grad wants to be the one who brings down a President, not because of any sense of justice, but because they want to be powerful and important. That may or may not have been what drove W & B (I believe more in the former than the latter), but it surely drives those who came after, and even theri contemporaries.
As soon as journalists started viewing themselves as the 4th branch of government instead of a profession that served that role, they became part of the problem.
At the same time, independent groups doing investigative journalism have grown in number and size, fueled by foundations and wealthy patrons, and are offering their work to newspapers, magazines, television and radio news programs, and news Web sites. [emphasis added]
Lets all take a cue from Woodward and Bernstein, who all these J school grads aspire to emulate - follow the money. These groups are being funded by people with agendas, just like the media they purport to study/critique.
1) What is a bill funding volcano monitoring doing in a "stimulus" package?
2) While the need to monitor volcanoes is important, do we need to spend the money right now?
The volcano monitoring funding wasn't put included in the bill for some high scientific purpose - it was pork. It may be worthwhile, and even necessary, but don't kid yourself: if the sponsor had another place to spend the money for more political gain, volcano monitoring wouldn't be on the radar.
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
"Eight forms of human language remain uncracked by modern linguists. Surely trying to speak Ventaxian and understand their communication will be nigh impossible. Heck I don't think their characters have been encoded into unicode."
I would disagree. Eight forms of writing remain uncracked. Were we to have a speaker of that language magically placed in front of those linguists, they'd crack it in about a day.
"Language" must have context in order for it to be understood properly - writing is simply the 2 dimensional representation of a many-dimensional activity.
"If an alien race should contact Earth, I think our best bet would be to at least assume that they have peaceful intentions."
I'm sure that's what some of the Native American leaders thought when they first saw men with guns.
Or the aborigines in Australia.
So, give all of history with intelligent, alien beings with advanced technology meeting beings of equal intelligence but better technology, you surmise that the next one will act 100% different?
The race may not always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.
"Now seriously, your word was as good as any signed contract; that, I think, is far more beautiful and moving than any pompous ceremony."
Hit the mark, missed the details. A lot of marriages then were more complicated than you describe. Where there was any amount of money involved, there negotiations more akin to a company merger than a love story. Divorces were handled as a matter of contract law.
Fast forward to now. The state has gotten involved with giving "permission" to marry - they issue marriage licenses. And there are hundreds of pages of legislation and case law to cover what happens when a marriage dissolves, as well as regulate the relationship that people can/will have. And a bitter fight over what the word "marriage" actually means. Lots of progress.
Her's my proposal: Get rid of "civil" marriage. Blow away "domestic" law. Flip it all over to contract law. Get the state out of the business of regulating what 2 (or more) adults do. You want to have a wedding ceremony in a church? Have a ball - it has no legal weight. For those who don't have lawyers to negotiate the marriage contract, have pattern contracts in the law like they do with real estate transactions. When someone breaks the contract, they break the contract - deal with it.
As for children, mandate paternity tests at birth to positively identify the genetic father, and mandate that responsibility for the child lies with BOTH genetic parents, 100% each, similar to owning title on a house. Then if the people want to change their legal status later, go do it. Unfair? maybe, but nobody stuck your dick in her for you. There would be no stigma associated with taking a paternity test - it's required of everyone. And isn't it a lot better to find out that a child is not genetically yours at the start of the kids life? Rather than you, and the kid, finding out later that "Daddy" doesn't mean what tehy think it means?
I'm reminded of parents who have a video camera stuck to their face all the time so they can "capture the memories" instead of actually making the memories.
That's how they got Al Capone - regardless of the legality of your income, you still need to pay taxes on it.
That being said, if the retail value of a DVD is $10, and a state has a 6% sales tax, I could download a hundred movies and owe...six whole dollars. No prosecutor in his right mind is going to prosecute for that.
I agree with that collusion like this has second and 3rd order effects, but that's not what the anti-trust division is talking about. That's what makes her remarks so striking. She is using language that directly references 1st order effects - but not for the behavior they are investigating.
I read this as the tip of a hand. The mantra in the administration currently is "we need more government regulation". Her comments show that it's not going to be a targeted effort to get at the problem areas but broad sweeps of industries. With strokes of a pen, the Obama administration has involved the executive branch in the banking and automotive industries to a level never seen before - and I think they are starting to like the way it feels.
"Obama's antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers."
They are investigating collusion in the labor market - in this case, the companies themselves are the consumer, and job seekers provide the service. But this has nothing to do with cutting out competitors and hurting consumers. What they are doing is collusion in a market which, though probably illegal, keeps costs down, not up.
"look at the network effects of high-tech companies and... grasp on markets..." is shorthand for increased government regulation, whether warranted or not. What will happen when they decide to investigate the companies that supply toilets, and find out that "only" 10 companies "dominate" the market? They may not be colluding, but OBVIOUSLY such a small number of companies id bad for the market, and hence requires regulation of their pricing to protect the consumer.
I was not referring to Obama but for the spinelessness of the Senate in general. The Senate Majority leader said, point blank, that he would not seat anyone Blagojevich picked. And it is perfectly within the power of the Senate to refuse to seat someone.
Until someone said the word "black." And then Reed tripped all over himself to get out of what he said, and couldn't seat him fast enough.
And now it turns out Burris likely did pay to play. And his race had nothing to do with it.
"She is gonna soar through because Republicans won't want to be seen as racist or sexist and of course the Dems will vote for her because Obama wants her in."
And for anyone who would argue with that statement, I have 2 words: Roland Burris
Slashdot Mirror
Per the link, Kaguya was an alien, and I've seen what the japanese think of alien sex. They don't call it "tentacle rape" for nothin'....
The "broad stroke" I use is to proclaim that when organizations are funded by people with agendas, they are suspect. NOT that they are guilty.
"In hindsight, aborting a potential human in the womb seems a lot less brutal."
Actually, I believe that argues in the opposite direction - we, as a society, perhaps should not declare someone "human" until they have proven it so? I'd propose that beings remain "potential" humans until age 35 or until they display some overwhelming sign that they are indeed human. Prior to that, they can be killed with impunity like the animals they are.
Too arbitrary? Perhaps. But the alternate, applying the Precautionary Principle and allowing "potential humans" to develop, would preclude the selection activities they are using.
I think the analogy is apropos - after all, we have NASA (predominantly composed of men) sending a "probe" consisting of a long, thin tube with a payload at it's head, to slam into a crater (i.e. hole) on the Moon.
Of course Nasa should ask first - isn't it rape otherwise?
Sure - his number is 202-456-1414.
Excellent troll! You had me until the end with the smiley face - so close to perfection, but for the lack of shift key usage.
I've had the experience of having no fingerprints for a time. I worked at UPS unloading trucks; one of the customers shipped many thousands of small boxes just before the end of the year; the boxes were the precise size that the only way to grip them was with the pads of fingers and thumb (I'm looking at you, Daytimers!). A large portion of those boxes passed through my hands. Shortly after I started work there, I noticed that I was having trouble gripping items that were wet - a water glass with condensation on it would routinely slip through my fingers. When I examined my hands I saw that the ridges of my fingerprints were basically worn away. I wore gloves for a bit while working and the problem cleared itself up.
Another illustration would be to look at the skiving on the bottom of a pair of deck shoes. On a dry surface, they offer no advantage whatsoever, but on a wet surface the difference in grip is remarkable. Or for that matter tire treads - a set of slicks is the absolute best way to maximize grip - unless it's wet, at which point they become the WORST configuration.
I know what it is; and yes, I AM categorically against "stimulus" bills.
Keynesian economic theory is the biggest scam of all time. It has never been shown to actually *work*, but to admit that would be for economists to give up their influence in government and for Democrats to admit that FDR was not the second coming.
Careful - when that argument is made from the opposite end of the spectrum, it is roundly dismissed. Try making that same argument about Kenneth Starr and Bill Clinton and see where it leads.
I mention him higher up, although not in the same light. In my opinion Woodward and Bernstein form the root of the current rot in journalism - The idea that the journalist should be the story. Every J-school grad wants to be the one who brings down a President, not because of any sense of justice, but because they want to be powerful and important. That may or may not have been what drove W & B (I believe more in the former than the latter), but it surely drives those who came after, and even theri contemporaries.
As soon as journalists started viewing themselves as the 4th branch of government instead of a profession that served that role, they became part of the problem.
From the article:
Lets all take a cue from Woodward and Bernstein, who all these J school grads aspire to emulate - follow the money. These groups are being funded by people with agendas, just like the media they purport to study/critique.
2 questions, then:
1) What is a bill funding volcano monitoring doing in a "stimulus" package?
2) While the need to monitor volcanoes is important, do we need to spend the money right now?
The volcano monitoring funding wasn't put included in the bill for some high scientific purpose - it was pork. It may be worthwhile, and even necessary, but don't kid yourself: if the sponsor had another place to spend the money for more political gain, volcano monitoring wouldn't be on the radar.
Exactly. There is simply no way to know.
So why did the GP post assume peaceful intent?
There's another old saying that applies -
"hope for the best;
prepare for the worst."
"Eight forms of human language remain uncracked by modern linguists. Surely trying to speak Ventaxian and understand their communication will be nigh impossible. Heck I don't think their characters have been encoded into unicode."
I would disagree. Eight forms of writing remain uncracked. Were we to have a speaker of that language magically placed in front of those linguists, they'd crack it in about a day.
"Language" must have context in order for it to be understood properly - writing is simply the 2 dimensional representation of a many-dimensional activity.
"If an alien race should contact Earth, I think our best bet would be to at least assume that they have peaceful intentions."
I'm sure that's what some of the Native American leaders thought when they first saw men with guns.
Or the aborigines in Australia.
So, give all of history with intelligent, alien beings with advanced technology meeting beings of equal intelligence but better technology, you surmise that the next one will act 100% different?
The race may not always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.
But that's the way to bet.
"Now seriously, your word was as good as any signed contract; that, I think, is far more beautiful and moving than any pompous ceremony."
Hit the mark, missed the details. A lot of marriages then were more complicated than you describe. Where there was any amount of money involved, there negotiations more akin to a company merger than a love story. Divorces were handled as a matter of contract law.
Fast forward to now. The state has gotten involved with giving "permission" to marry - they issue marriage licenses. And there are hundreds of pages of legislation and case law to cover what happens when a marriage dissolves, as well as regulate the relationship that people can/will have. And a bitter fight over what the word "marriage" actually means. Lots of progress.
Her's my proposal: Get rid of "civil" marriage. Blow away "domestic" law. Flip it all over to contract law. Get the state out of the business of regulating what 2 (or more) adults do. You want to have a wedding ceremony in a church? Have a ball - it has no legal weight. For those who don't have lawyers to negotiate the marriage contract, have pattern contracts in the law like they do with real estate transactions. When someone breaks the contract, they break the contract - deal with it.
As for children, mandate paternity tests at birth to positively identify the genetic father, and mandate that responsibility for the child lies with BOTH genetic parents, 100% each, similar to owning title on a house. Then if the people want to change their legal status later, go do it. Unfair? maybe, but nobody stuck your dick in her for you. There would be no stigma associated with taking a paternity test - it's required of everyone. And isn't it a lot better to find out that a child is not genetically yours at the start of the kids life? Rather than you, and the kid, finding out later that "Daddy" doesn't mean what tehy think it means?
I'm reminded of parents who have a video camera stuck to their face all the time so they can "capture the memories" instead of actually making the memories.
That's how they got Al Capone - regardless of the legality of your income, you still need to pay taxes on it.
That being said, if the retail value of a DVD is $10, and a state has a 6% sales tax, I could download a hundred movies and owe...six whole dollars. No prosecutor in his right mind is going to prosecute for that.
I agree with that collusion like this has second and 3rd order effects, but that's not what the anti-trust division is talking about. That's what makes her remarks so striking. She is using language that directly references 1st order effects - but not for the behavior they are investigating.
I read this as the tip of a hand. The mantra in the administration currently is "we need more government regulation". Her comments show that it's not going to be a targeted effort to get at the problem areas but broad sweeps of industries. With strokes of a pen, the Obama administration has involved the executive branch in the banking and automotive industries to a level never seen before - and I think they are starting to like the way it feels.
"Obama's antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers."
They are investigating collusion in the labor market - in this case, the companies themselves are the consumer, and job seekers provide the service. But this has nothing to do with cutting out competitors and hurting consumers. What they are doing is collusion in a market which, though probably illegal, keeps costs down, not up.
"look at the network effects of high-tech companies and ... grasp on markets ..." is shorthand for increased government regulation, whether warranted or not. What will happen when they decide to investigate the companies that supply toilets, and find out that "only" 10 companies "dominate" the market? They may not be colluding, but OBVIOUSLY such a small number of companies id bad for the market, and hence requires regulation of their pricing to protect the consumer.
I was not referring to Obama but for the spinelessness of the Senate in general. The Senate Majority leader said, point blank, that he would not seat anyone Blagojevich picked. And it is perfectly within the power of the Senate to refuse to seat someone.
Until someone said the word "black." And then Reed tripped all over himself to get out of what he said, and couldn't seat him fast enough.
And now it turns out Burris likely did pay to play. And his race had nothing to do with it.
I'm waiting for her to get on the bench and come out of the closet. Hispanic lesbian female - the affirmative action trifecta.
"She is gonna soar through because Republicans won't want to be seen as racist or sexist and of course the Dems will vote for her because Obama wants her in."
And for anyone who would argue with that statement, I have 2 words: Roland Burris
"
""As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson"
"When everyone is out to get you, paranoid is just............good thinking!!"
- J. Fever
"Help! I've got a monkey on my foot!"
- A. Carlson