"the spread of "american ideals and values", especially in terms of copyright, has plunged the entire western world into an economic tail-spin."
A quibble: American policy on copyright has largely followed European policy - see Berne Convention.
No, I don't blame the Europeans for how the bankrupt American legal system is using copyright laws, but concepts like "life plus XX years" is European in origin.
If one feels that Palin is unqualified to be VP, then certainly Obama is unqualified to be President. And, by your same reasoning, Obama is being told exactly what to say and how to say it.
I know who is pulling Palin's strings - who's pulling Obama's?
Perhaps I talk to others, but here's what I'm getting:
Bastard child in the family - Obama was a bastard DUI 20 years ago - Chappaquiddick Tried to get earmarks for town - Duh, that's what mayor's do. Investigation into trying to get her BIL fired - By all accounts he SHOULD have been fired and was being improperly protected.
Trying to paint her as a hypocrite is similar to criticizing her experience - the more the Dems do it, the more they open themselves up. They won't lose votes over it, but they WILL do wonders for the conservative/evangelical turnout in November. The press is doing Palin's job for her, and I'm not even sure they know it.
"The RIAA and McCain's campaign must use the same people for their due-diligence vetting..."
Has the press gotten so pathetic that the only story they can dig up is the fact that the vetting turned up some stuff and they decided to go with her anyway? They knew about the ethics probe, the baby, the husbands DUI, and the earmarks, and decided they weren't deal breakers. And guess what - the public has let out a collective yawn, so I guess that means that the vetting process worked.
Call me when the press finds out something that REALLY takes people by surprise.
When I was in school we made up a party poster that showed a dog with a gun to its head and the caption"Come to our party or we'll shoot the dog".
Outrage ensued - letters to the editor, threats to shoot us, calls to the SPCA to remove that poor dog that we are obviously abusing...
Kicker was, not only was the poster copied from one at another school (where it was the largest party of the YEAR!), it wasn't even our dog. in the picture.
The end of civilization won't be heralded by meteors, or volcanoes, or Al Gore - it will be when everyone finally loses their sense of humor.
"Guess we need to drop all of the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress categories from the Oscars. Let the men and woman both fight it our for the single Best Actor award...:
What would be wrong with that? Shorten the damned ceremony up a bit.
Insisting that female performer be referred to as "actress" is sexist and minimizes their talent, implying that they have lesser skills than the male performers.
"by trading them in on the Foreign Exchange Market for Euro's (or an other currency) on a large scale, to manipulate the value of the Dollar."
Again, someone has to be willing to trade them Euros for the Dollars. Who would buy such huge sums of dollars to help tank the US economy and thereby hurt themselves? Remember, the US mortgage crisis caused FOREIGN banks to collapse.
And even if they did find buyers, one assumes they would be trying to depress the value of the dollar. Why would they? The dollar has been tanking already and the Chinese are feeling the pain in the form of less trade and higher prices for oil - do you think they would want MORE of that?
"If China were to collapse the U.S. economy which is something they could do right now "
How, exactly? I've heard this before, but never a proper explanation.
Sell all their US bonds? To whom? Stop selling shit to us? That would suck, but I'm sure all the other Asian nations would be right on top of picking up the slack.
Another thing is that some of the scenarios would be so internally destructive that it reminds me of the Looney Tunes where Daffy, desperate to steal the show from Bugs, blows himself up. When Bugs compliments him, he says "Yeah, yeah - but I can only do it once" as he is floating up to heaven.
Sure, China *could* destroy the US economy, but at a cost of wiping themselves out. If the US collapses and stops buying Chinese goods, that would idle millions of factory workers, who are NOT going to want to go back to the farms from whence they came. hey weren't real happy when the Beijing factories were idled for 2 weeks for the Olympics - picture that anger, multiplied by it happening all over the country and for an indefinite time.
Seriously. How the fuck can you release a browser without a base functionality that is expected by every person who has used one to date."
Funny - not only do I set "Home" as a blank page, I remove the home button from the toolbar. All it is is another bookmark. I could see the point where a person would want to return to the same site periodically throughout the day, but with tabbed browsing it's irrelevant - I just leave a tab open.
My guess is that user research showed that very FEW people use the Home button on a regular basis, and so Google didn't turn it on by default.
"You are quite right, and the reality is that since the global warming has been proven beyond reasonable doubt under current scientific knowledge the proof should be accepted and acted upon."
Assuming arguendo your premise is correct, lets turn to the resultant - "and acted upon." Really? "Acted upon" how? The basic argument seems to be of the form:
"You are doing X, and X is causing Y. Y is bad, so stop doing X." If we stop doing X, will Y really be reversed? Is Y even really bad? Stopping X will also cause Z - shouldn't that be taken into account?
Proponents of action on Global Warming are taking a scientific position, which is *descriptive*, and translating it directly into policy, which is *prescriptive*. But if people argue with the policy, the proponents fall back on the scientific conclusions, and then say "Isn't it OBVIOUS what the policy should be? The science is clear!" But there are so many other interests wrapped up in policymaking that no one believes that the proponents of policies on global warming are only thinking of "the good of the planet".
"When resounding current evidence supports a theory that something in particular is causing a disease (or problem)- we naturally tend to act preemptively."
Sure about that? Lets take AIDS in Africa. The main cause of the massive spread of HIV in some countries is the habit of truck drivers to frequent prostitutes - a lot of them - while on the road. They catch the virus, and then give it to their wives.
Now, the simplest way to stop this would be to convince African men to stop sticking their dicks into everything with 2 legs while on the road. Instead, the action has been AFTER the fact - what do we do now that everyone is infected?
As for your statement of the precautionary Principle, it took me a while to realize you were advocating action on global warming. You are applying that statement to a LACK of action or policy, which doesn't fit the way you want it to.
In my aforementioned Philosophy of Science course my final paper was a study of the parallels between the development of the disease model of syphilis and that of AIDS. And the parallels were striking.
People often forget that, for many years, scientists had no freakin' clue what was causing it, so for a while the viral theory and the "breakdown from systematic abuse" theory were equally valid. And the funny thing is, from a public health point of view, the second model would have probably worked better. But the viral model won out, mainly because it fit the data better.
Ok, I know this is a day old, but I can't let this pass:
"The agreement on global warming is done through repeated testing and observation."
What.The.Fuck are you talking about? "Testing" involves setting up an experiment, with controls, running the experiment, and seeing if the results agree with the theory. So...
1) What experiment was conducted where a massive amount of carbon dioxide was pumped into the atmosphere in a precise manner? 2) What other atmosphere was used as the control? 3) Did the experiment run for the 300 odd years required to verify the hypothesis?
Oh, and finally, you mentioned "repeated" HOW MANY times has a lot of CO2 been introduced into the atmosphere, the effects observed, the gas WITHDRAWN from the atmosphere, and then repeated?
The main problem with Global Warming theories is that they CAN'T be tested in any meaningful way. So data is gathered, mostly from proxies, and models are developed from that, and if they get EVERYTHING right, it will describe the current and future climactic conditions. That is NOT an experiment; it's more like accident reconstruction.
You are ascribing a level of certainty that even the most diehard REAL climatologist would not claim.
Slashdot Mirror
"the spread of "american ideals and values", especially in terms of copyright, has plunged the entire western world into an economic tail-spin."
A quibble: American policy on copyright has largely followed European policy - see Berne Convention.
No, I don't blame the Europeans for how the bankrupt American legal system is using copyright laws, but concepts like "life plus XX years" is European in origin.
Don't ever underestimate manual dexterity - there's a reason a Trackpoint is called a clit-mouse.
Your wife had sex with Bob Hoskins? I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
If one feels that Palin is unqualified to be VP, then certainly Obama is unqualified to be President. And, by your same reasoning, Obama is being told exactly what to say and how to say it.
I know who is pulling Palin's strings - who's pulling Obama's?
"It's not a basement, it's a command centre"
I believe the word you are looking for is "bunker". Or, in England, "bunkre".
Perhaps I talk to others, but here's what I'm getting:
Bastard child in the family - Obama was a bastard
DUI 20 years ago - Chappaquiddick
Tried to get earmarks for town - Duh, that's what mayor's do.
Investigation into trying to get her BIL fired - By all accounts he SHOULD have been fired and was being improperly protected.
Trying to paint her as a hypocrite is similar to criticizing her experience - the more the Dems do it, the more they open themselves up. They won't lose votes over it, but they WILL do wonders for the conservative/evangelical turnout in November. The press is doing Palin's job for her, and I'm not even sure they know it.
"The RIAA and McCain's campaign must use the same people for their due-diligence vetting..."
Has the press gotten so pathetic that the only story they can dig up is the fact that the vetting turned up some stuff and they decided to go with her anyway? They knew about the ethics probe, the baby, the husbands DUI, and the earmarks, and decided they weren't deal breakers. And guess what - the public has let out a collective yawn, so I guess that means that the vetting process worked.
Call me when the press finds out something that REALLY takes people by surprise.
I thought it was "Don't be evil". There are some subtle differences.
When I was in school we made up a party poster that showed a dog with a gun to its head and the caption"Come to our party or we'll shoot the dog".
Outrage ensued - letters to the editor, threats to shoot us, calls to the SPCA to remove that poor dog that we are obviously abusing...
Kicker was, not only was the poster copied from one at another school (where it was the largest party of the YEAR!), it wasn't even our dog. in the picture.
The end of civilization won't be heralded by meteors, or volcanoes, or Al Gore - it will be when everyone finally loses their sense of humor.
"Insight Communications, which at a level of over 20 years of eduction officially puts it onto IRS Code territory.
Slashdot, on the other hand, is sitting somewhere around a grade 3 level.... :)"
Actually, there is a devise called an "eductor". It sucks very hard.
"Guess we need to drop all of the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress categories from the Oscars. Let the men and woman both fight it our for the single Best Actor award...:
What would be wrong with that? Shorten the damned ceremony up a bit.
"The L/R thing is Japanese, not Chinese, and it doesn't work like that, either."
What, is it "miss the movie/TV reference" day? Somebody just told me my sig was technically incorrect and that turkeys really CAN fly, just not well.
"Turkeys as a species CAN fly (albeit poorly), but domestic turkeys are too fat."
It's a reference to...oh, nevermind.
actually, it's my wife's terminology - apparently "[NAME]Sr.", "[NAME]Jr.", and "[NAME]III" were too long for online correspondence
Insisting that female performer be referred to as "actress" is sexist and minimizes their talent, implying that they have lesser skills than the male performers.
(I think I just broke my PC gland)
My wife is:
1) a shutterbug
2) a packrat
3) totally disorganized
the ability to type in "find R3.0" and have it come up with all the pics of my son would make my life a lot easier.
"by trading them in on the Foreign Exchange Market for Euro's (or an other currency) on a large scale, to manipulate the value of the Dollar."
Again, someone has to be willing to trade them Euros for the Dollars. Who would buy such huge sums of dollars to help tank the US economy and thereby hurt themselves? Remember, the US mortgage crisis caused FOREIGN banks to collapse.
And even if they did find buyers, one assumes they would be trying to depress the value of the dollar. Why would they? The dollar has been tanking already and the Chinese are feeling the pain in the form of less trade and higher prices for oil - do you think they would want MORE of that?
All together now:
"Fa Ra RA Ra Ra, Ra ra ra ra"
Yep, we're going to PC hell.
"If China were to collapse the U.S. economy which is something they could do right now "
How, exactly? I've heard this before, but never a proper explanation.
Sell all their US bonds? To whom?
Stop selling shit to us? That would suck, but I'm sure all the other Asian nations would be right on top of picking up the slack.
Another thing is that some of the scenarios would be so internally destructive that it reminds me of the Looney Tunes where Daffy, desperate to steal the show from Bugs, blows himself up. When Bugs compliments him, he says "Yeah, yeah - but I can only do it once" as he is floating up to heaven.
Sure, China *could* destroy the US economy, but at a cost of wiping themselves out. If the US collapses and stops buying Chinese goods, that would idle millions of factory workers, who are NOT going to want to go back to the farms from whence they came. hey weren't real happy when the Beijing factories were idled for 2 weeks for the Olympics - picture that anger, multiplied by it happening all over the country and for an indefinite time.
"No "home" button.
Seriously. How the fuck can you release a browser without a base functionality that is expected by every person who has used one to date."
Funny - not only do I set "Home" as a blank page, I remove the home button from the toolbar. All it is is another bookmark. I could see the point where a person would want to return to the same site periodically throughout the day, but with tabbed browsing it's irrelevant - I just leave a tab open.
My guess is that user research showed that very FEW people use the Home button on a regular basis, and so Google didn't turn it on by default.
"You are quite right, and the reality is that since the global warming has been proven beyond reasonable doubt under current scientific knowledge the proof should be accepted and acted upon."
Assuming arguendo your premise is correct, lets turn to the resultant - "and acted upon." Really? "Acted upon" how? The basic argument seems to be of the form:
"You are doing X, and X is causing Y. Y is bad, so stop doing X."
If we stop doing X, will Y really be reversed?
Is Y even really bad?
Stopping X will also cause Z - shouldn't that be taken into account?
Proponents of action on Global Warming are taking a scientific position, which is *descriptive*, and translating it directly into policy, which is *prescriptive*. But if people argue with the policy, the proponents fall back on the scientific conclusions, and then say "Isn't it OBVIOUS what the policy should be? The science is clear!" But there are so many other interests wrapped up in policymaking that no one believes that the proponents of policies on global warming are only thinking of "the good of the planet".
"When resounding current evidence supports a theory that something in particular is causing a disease (or problem)- we naturally tend to act preemptively."
Sure about that? Lets take AIDS in Africa. The main cause of the massive spread of HIV in some countries is the habit of truck drivers to frequent prostitutes - a lot of them - while on the road. They catch the virus, and then give it to their wives.
Now, the simplest way to stop this would be to convince African men to stop sticking their dicks into everything with 2 legs while on the road. Instead, the action has been AFTER the fact - what do we do now that everyone is infected?
As for your statement of the precautionary Principle, it took me a while to realize you were advocating action on global warming. You are applying that statement to a LACK of action or policy, which doesn't fit the way you want it to.
In my aforementioned Philosophy of Science course my final paper was a study of the parallels between the development of the disease model of syphilis and that of AIDS. And the parallels were striking.
People often forget that, for many years, scientists had no freakin' clue what was causing it, so for a while the viral theory and the "breakdown from systematic abuse" theory were equally valid. And the funny thing is, from a public health point of view, the second model would have probably worked better. But the viral model won out, mainly because it fit the data better.
Ok, I know this is a day old, but I can't let this pass:
"The agreement on global warming is done through repeated testing and observation."
What.The.Fuck are you talking about? "Testing" involves setting up an experiment, with controls, running the experiment, and seeing if the results agree with the theory. So...
1) What experiment was conducted where a massive amount of carbon dioxide was pumped into the atmosphere in a precise manner?
2) What other atmosphere was used as the control?
3) Did the experiment run for the 300 odd years required to verify the hypothesis?
Oh, and finally, you mentioned "repeated" HOW MANY times has a lot of CO2 been introduced into the atmosphere, the effects observed, the gas WITHDRAWN from the atmosphere, and then repeated?
The main problem with Global Warming theories is that they CAN'T be tested in any meaningful way. So data is gathered, mostly from proxies, and models are developed from that, and if they get EVERYTHING right, it will describe the current and future climactic conditions. That is NOT an experiment; it's more like accident reconstruction.
You are ascribing a level of certainty that even the most diehard REAL climatologist would not claim.
"And it's All the US's Fault!"