I don't see any evidence of censorship, even in the PDF report. The reports were still published, albeit without the administration's blessings. All bark and no bite.
It is hardly surprising that the administration would encourage reports to be more apolitical and objective, to include results from related experiments that have contradictory results, and to qualify statements with "may" and "is likely to". This is what they should've been doing in the first place.
For instance, if I am doing a study on the mass of the election, and I do the experiment and get a result different than other experiments, I am going to have to explain why my results are different. Were those studies wrong? Was my study wrong? Is the entire model wrong?
If I can't reconcile the differences, then I have to start writing things like "The experiment suggested that the mass of the electron may be X." rather than "The mass of the electron is X."
And I find the "science" quoted in the article humorous. One of the lines reads, summarized: "Abstinence may cause an increase in pregnancies among partners of male participants". In other words, if you teach abstinence, and they have sex anyways, they are more likely to get pregnant.
They distort this conclusion to represent that Texas has higher pregnancy rates that most other states. Of course, they really mean that Texas has higher rates among secually active couples. They don't talk about the most important figure - the overall pregnancy and STD rate among all teens.
I'm sorry, but the political overtones and lack of objectivity is blatantly apparent in this one. We already know that there is a lot of tension between the EPA and the administration. We already know a lot of eggheads don't like our cowboy president. It sounds like a lot of whining to me.
I have followed all the links in this article, including all the links to the UCS website, and I haven't found one piece of evidence. In some cases, the articles link back to each other.
What I see are a bunch of claims that the administration had censored reports, removed officials from key positions, and otherwise affected the reports being made. However, no proof of these claims are offered.
Questions:
What reports have been censored? How have they been censored?
Who has been removed from their positions? Why were they removed according the administration? Why were they removed according to the UCS?
What reports have been modified by the administration? In what way were they modified?
I can make unsubstantiated claims that the UCS are a bunch of aliens from Jupiter that have come here to suck our brains out. You won't believe me, of course, because I have no evidence. The UCS makes a bunch of claims that it doesn't back with evidence either.
I don't claim authority from God. I haven't in this whole debate. You are putting words in my mouth and attacking me as if I said it.
I do claim authority from morality. I guess if you take the position that morality is whatever God says it is, then you can argue that it is just a clouded argument for God-says-so. But then anything that claims "good" or "better" can be tracked to a God-says-so.
I appealed to common sense and public opinion. Most people think that pornography should be censored. Most people think that lewd speech and dirty speech is not protected speech. That is common sense.
I have yet to see anyone try to debate that fact. Nobody has yet opposed me and said that this is not true. Instead, they have attacked me personally or tried to attack things I've never said.
Let me expand the argument. What does pornography or filthy langauge add to our society? I propose that it brings nothing, except negative consequences. Filthy languages inspire filthy thoughts, which in turn inspire filthy behavior. Pornography demeans women and glamorizes sex. It stresses relationships, breaks up mutual trust. It is sick. Pornography hardens the sense, like violence and hardnes the senses. We don't need to be hardened in that way.
Blind faith in your pastor, cleric, priest, whatever is the cause of most of the wars. Religion is also used to control the people, the masses. And don't think this only happens in places like Waco, Texas. It happens everyplace.
I would like you to back up that statement, that blind belief of your pastore, cleric, or priest is the cause of most wars. I believe that most wars are started by aristocrats who think they know better than the next guy. I can go down the list of wars in recorded history and name the hotheads.
You claim that religion is used to control the masses. I claim that freedom can only come through religion. Those who have no religion are stuck in prison. They can't see beyond the grave. They have no hope for a better life. They have no purpose in life.
And who exactly is trying to control the masses with religion? I can think of a handful of people that use religion to brainwash and coerce people to do things they shouldn't do, but those aren't religions, those are cults.
Comparing the leaders of my church with the leaders of the cult at Waco Texas is an insult. I am sure that you will find hardly any attributes in common with them. In fact, I daresay that John Kerry is more like David Koresh than the leaders of the major religions in the US are.
"Leaky Leahy" is the nickname he earned for leaking key intelligence findings to an NBC reporter in 1987. He was forced to step down as chairman of the senate intelligence committee.
Proving that someone leaked materials is not difficult. If you read back to the newspaper columns concerning the shut down of the intelligence committee, you will see clouded references to one particular member: Leaky Leahy.
I would enjoy standing trial for slander, as I would gladly supply the evidence to a court of law. This sucker is due for a treason award and the appropriate necktie any day now.
So you support censorship as long as it applies to "neoconservative christians"?
I think that remark comparing me to an AK-47 waving Islamic fundamentalist was uncalled for. I have never owned an AK-47 and I personally prefer a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun. I don't shoot people over believes, only for property rights violations and for protection.
It's amazing that you refuse to debate me because I think you are wrong. You obviously think I am wrong, but I am obviously willing to debate. What would debate be for except to get two people who think each other wrong to discuss their conflicts?
You have to understand why Cheney used the expletive. Sen. Leahy is the leak for several key intelligence findings. The intelligence committee had to disband for several months because of Leahy.
Leahy has been relentless in his attacks. Recently, he blamed the intelligence failures on President Bush while the senate committed determined in a bipartisan manner that the failures had nothing to do with the president, and everything to do with practices at the CIA.
Leahy has been a thorn in the administration's side because he keeps spreading false rumors and unsubstantiable claims. It is rumored that Sen. Leahy said something to Cheney before Cheney's outburst.
If anybody is responsible for the degrading tone of politics, it is obviously Leahy. This still does not excuse Cheney's outburst.
John Kerry didn't mumble it. He in fact authorized that the expletives be published. In fact, I believe that if you search for expletives on John Kerry's own website, you will find numerous articles quoting John Kerry. At least it was that way a while ago.
Dick Cheney was wrong to use expletives on the floor of the senate. I don't admire him any more for doing that. It's not cool. It's not what President Bush stands for, and I am sure he got a word or two from the President.
I do not like the direction politics is heading. I don't like people calling each other names. I do want to hear debates on people's records and their policies, beliefs, and plans for our future, however. Let the candidates attack each other on those issues, but ad hominem attacks are not acceptable.
I have only heard the term "unAmerican" or "unPatriotic" used by the left and friends. They use it to describe how President Bush and the Republican Right Wing Terror Network is persecuting them. In fact, I have been called a terrorist, an extremist, even a member of the Taliban by the left because I believe that God exists.
I have heard a new term being punted around: Hatriot. It's used to describe Michael Moore and his style of politics. It goes something like this. Go to France. Claim hatred for President Bush and the stupid American public. Make a movie about how evil President Bush is and make it so sappy that even liberals call it propoganda. Then fly to Canada to escape the "brownshirts" that President Bush is dispatching to persecute you, or at least claim such. Say things like "I'm glad I'm in Canada where freedom still exists" or something like that.
I don't mind you expressing your opinion. I do mind you misrepresenting the facts (AKA lying). I have yet to hear the administration use the term "un-American" or even "all-American" to deride the left. Go ahead and show me quotes if I am wrong.
I was drawing the comparison between those that lack a moral compass and those that don't.
Those with a moral compass find it easy to distinguish between sex for pornography's sake, nude art (such as the statue of David), and medical books. I can tell you right now that I don't have a problem with the nude child-like angels in various pieces of rennaissance art. I also believe that sex is only appropriate within the bounds of legal marriage between a man and a woman.
Those without a moral compass try to confuse the lines between art and pornography.
Faith in some technological magic is not going to find a kilogram of enriched Uranium at a range of a kilometre or two even if it is out in the open and painted bright pink, so finding some buried in a lead box in a remote part of a desert is even less likely. We obey the inverse square law in this house.
You are misinformed. Apparently, you haven't heard that the program that was used throughout the cold war that measures individual dust particles in the atmosphere for radiation signatures. Using this process, we were able to determine what nuclear weapons were being built and where the material was coming from. Even if the particles of dust that have been around the source were scattered such that they were now one part in trillions, we can easily find them and classify them.
We don't obviously have a giant geiger counter that flies over enemy territory. We all know that won't work.
I'm sorry folks, but there is a line, and it is called "decency".
Pornography is indecent. I think any sane person agrees with that. It has no role in public or private life. It demeans women, turns them into toys. It glamorizes sex. That's the problem.
I guess if you believe that sex is something that should be done outside of marriage, then you probably don't have a problem with pornography. If our nation turns into one where the majority don't value the sanctity of life or the sanctity of the institution created by God to bring forth that life, pornography is the least of our worries.
Lewd talk and foul language have no place in public discourse. You can express yourself better if you use clean language. There is no need to use sailor talk in front on women or children, or even men for that matter. It is a crime to defecate in public places, so it should be a crime to defecate foul language with your mouth in public places.
I know this peeves you so-called "liberals" and libertarians out there, but let's face the facts. America was founded on religious principles, that rights come from God, that government is supposed to protect those rights. Those rights include free speech, but they do not include pornography and foul language. You have as little right to do these things as you do to dump toxic waste in a public park.
And comparing this with the totalitarian regimes in places like Afghanistan and Iraq (until not to long ago, thanks to President Bush), is just stupid. We have been able to maintain a good balance, and if we go too far the other way, the public is free to correct the course of events with their votes.
There's an old phrase for this kind of thing: Pioneers get the arrows. It's the cost of being a pioneer.
Today, we are playing with technology that we have no experience in. For instance, nanotubes. What are the long-term effects of nanotube exposure? No one can possibly know for sure.
I had an opportunity to ask one of the grad students at the University of Washington Physics Department about nanotubes. See, he was working with nanotubes. He told me that nanotubes are probably damaging, but the body probably has defenses against it just like it has defenses against very small pieces of dust. He said that it was a privilege to be able to work on such technology, and even if it meant losing ten or twenty years of his life, it would be worth it still.
I am sure that the early pioneers in teh nuclear and radioactive substance fields felt the same way. Marie Curie would probably do it all over again even if she knew the consequences. I think these people would probably do the same.
Perhaps you have forgotten the massive buyout program where the CIA was given billions and billions of dollars to buy ever scrap of nuclear material the old Soviet Union left in the hands of those willing to sell it.
That's why to date terrorists haven't gotten a hold of any. They are competing against the worldest biggest economy to get a hold of this material.
Yes, some of the material is missing, but we have tools to find it.
It can't happen like that. You are talking about a level of organization that only crystals exhibit.
Exactly how do you propose to make toroidal nanotubes? Exactly how are you going to interlock them into a pattern? This is the difficult part, and if you figure that out, I see a Nobel prize in your future.
Right now, the current thought in nanotube technology is that you aren't going to make a single, continuous tube. Even if you could, the maximum length is not going to be practically infinite.
Instead, what needs to happen is that you must "spin a thread", like we spin thread today. You take fibers and organize them so that they are randomly interlocking.
The difficult part is getting the nanotubes to stick together with a strength equal to the strength of the nanotubes. This is no problem with cotton, polyester, or sheep's wool, because each individual fiber is hairy and they stick together like velcro. The strength of the connection can be stronger than the strength of the individual fibers.
It is known that nanotubes are "sticky" to each other. There is a mutual attraction caused by various forces. This laboratory used that to their advantage by continuously spinning thread at the rate of several cm per second (!). However, the thread isn't sticking very well to each other or the stickiness isn't strong enough. The end result are threads that aren't much better than sewing threads.
Perhaps they can add a step where they put the nanotubes into a bath of chemicals and stretch the nanotubes or compress them to cause them to stick more strongly together. Perhaps if those threads are weaved together, the weave itself will cause the nanotubes to stick together better. Perhaps a thread can be developed that when put under tension compresses and thus increases the friction. These are all possible scenarios, and are the next steps.
Or perhaps this is just a really good way to make and store millions of nanotubes a second, to be dissolved and organized later.
Or maybe you can take these nanotubes and assemble them with some kind of process to line them up end to end. Maybe they will weld themselves chemically if they are lined up and brought near to each other's ends.
More experimentation is needed. Wouldn't you like to be in that lab at this time, playing with these threads?
I am sure that you will get all the data you ever need from that.
As far as real world data, you'll have to collect it yourself. Start with incoming ethernet packets, and file them away into multiple tables. That'll give you a good dataset. You may also want to try your hand at incoming email, HTTP requests, etc...
What happens when the community stops testing the RCs and doesn't install the newest version is you get a whole lotta not testing happening. The whole reason these issues in FC2 made it through to the release is because not enough people tested. I remember one thread in the mailing list that basically went like this.
A:"My video card doesn't work."
B:"What kind is it?"
A:"XXX-YYY."
B:"Don't we support XXX-YYY? I thought we did."
C:"We should, we didn't get any reports of any problems in testing."
B:"A, What's your configuration?"
A:"Here it is."
C:"It's a bug. Why didn't we catch it in testing?"
B:"A, did you test the RCs?"
A:"No."
B:"Then how do you expect us to get your configuration to work if you don't test it? We'll have a fix out soon, hopefully."
The point is, if you don't download the RCs and don't test them, you really can't expect the final release to be any better than the RCs, unless someone else is testing your configuration.
I was going to mod a lot of posts down due to stupid conspiracy theories, but I didn't see any posts with this point in mind.
(1) We have the second amendment. The chinese don't. If the government gets out of hand, we always have the upper hand. Mao said it best: Government comes from the point of a gun.
Don't like Bush? You have three options: (a) vote for the other guy, and do everything you can to get him elected, (b) pick up your rifle and follow the example of our founding fathers, pledging their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in open rebellion, or (c) shut up and sit down, coward.
(2) We have a seperate judiciary, for the most part. Once appointed, a judge is pretty much left alone. This leads to some corruption, but the net effect is that President Bush can't order the judiciary what to do. Chinese don't have this.
Before you get your panties in a bundle over Gitmo, notice that Pres. Bush is bringing them into the homeland to prepare for arraignment and trial because Supreme Court said so. Who really controls the US? It sure ain't Bush.
(3) Patriot act gives the police the same rights that they have for prosecuting drug crimes and organized crime but now for terrorism. I certainly wish we didn't have the Patriot act, but what are the alternatives? Citizen vigilance, or martial law. That's about it. How many terrorists have you caught today? Didn't think so.
Citizens (that means YOU, unless you are a cop) have more rights to investigate crime and build cases against criminals than police do. Don't think so? Ask a bounty hunter about what he is able to do. Hint: Breaking and entering a felons home is not a crime for a bounty hunter. No warrant needed, either. Go ahead and arrest anyone you find in the house, and tie them up if need be. Bring them all downtown to get booked.
(4) The United States is the BEST and the LAST defense agaisnt tyranny. Make no joke about it, in no other country do you have as many rights that are protected by government as you do here. Is it perfect? Of course not. Rather than complain, get off your butt and do something about it.
If you really think the US is stinkier than other countries, then you are more than welcome to leave and rescind your citizenship. No one is keeping you here, unlike China.
There is a group called MARID debating this issue right now. We have already decided that the way to defeat spam is first to authenticate every email. SPF and CallerID are the two major proposals for this, and right now, they are working on a compromise.
Target your resume for the job you want. Write a different resume tailored for each job you apply for. Be humble, yet confident, and only mention relevant skills.
Think: What do they want? What do I have that they want? Write down everything you can think of, and then turn it into a 30-second commercial slot. Pound on those few points solidly, and leave the rest as dressing. Avoid things they might not want. Definitely avoid negative things.
For instance, if I were applying for a software engineering position at, say, Microsoft, in C++. I would highlight all of the experience I had writing C++ code, emphasize the project's I've worked on, and bullet point the various things I've done in relation to coding. The "dressing" will be where I've worked (relevant places only -- NOT McDonald's), what college I've graduated from, what degree and what my GPA was, and what my other skills or hobbies are.
Think of your resume more as an ad: You have to hire me because I will bring your company $$$! Sell yourself!
Real proof does exist. Have you prayed and asked if he does or does not exist? Don't you think a grand, intelligent being would reveal himself to you if you asked? He spoke to Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and countless other prophets of all nationalities. Why not you?
I don't buy this idea that God doesn't want to reveal himself to those who are willing. If that were true he would've removed all references to himself from the world, and we wouldn't even have a concept of God.
Quite seriously, the reason why a book is so standard and useful is because everything you need to read the book is self-contained.
I would like to see DVDs that played themselves. Maybe an adapter to the TV and sound system, but that's it. If all movies, music, home videos, etc, just provided jacks for outgoing TV and Audio, then we wouldn't have this problem. Better yet, make them a standard size and have standard adapters so we can just slide them into a machine that only gives it the power it needs to play and makes connecting audio and video a sinch.
Re:Quote from the article
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 1
Apparently you haven't actually listened to much Fox News or conservative talk radio. The shows I enjoy the most - Hannity and Colmes, John Carlson (570 KVI Seattle) - invite those with opposing viewpoints to come in and state their point of view.
It helps tremendously when you have a Democrat pollster duke it out with one Ann Coulter, or to have representatives of the local Dairygold union come on John Carlson's show and explain why they are on strike. I get both views and the counterpoint all in a few minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting.
I don't see any evidence of censorship, even in the PDF report. The reports were still published, albeit without the administration's blessings. All bark and no bite.
It is hardly surprising that the administration would encourage reports to be more apolitical and objective, to include results from related experiments that have contradictory results, and to qualify statements with "may" and "is likely to". This is what they should've been doing in the first place.
For instance, if I am doing a study on the mass of the election, and I do the experiment and get a result different than other experiments, I am going to have to explain why my results are different. Were those studies wrong? Was my study wrong? Is the entire model wrong?
If I can't reconcile the differences, then I have to start writing things like "The experiment suggested that the mass of the electron may be X." rather than "The mass of the electron is X."
And I find the "science" quoted in the article humorous. One of the lines reads, summarized: "Abstinence may cause an increase in pregnancies among partners of male participants". In other words, if you teach abstinence, and they have sex anyways, they are more likely to get pregnant.
They distort this conclusion to represent that Texas has higher pregnancy rates that most other states. Of course, they really mean that Texas has higher rates among secually active couples. They don't talk about the most important figure - the overall pregnancy and STD rate among all teens.
I'm sorry, but the political overtones and lack of objectivity is blatantly apparent in this one. We already know that there is a lot of tension between the EPA and the administration. We already know a lot of eggheads don't like our cowboy president. It sounds like a lot of whining to me.
What I see are a bunch of claims that the administration had censored reports, removed officials from key positions, and otherwise affected the reports being made. However, no proof of these claims are offered.
Questions:
I can make unsubstantiated claims that the UCS are a bunch of aliens from Jupiter that have come here to suck our brains out. You won't believe me, of course, because I have no evidence. The UCS makes a bunch of claims that it doesn't back with evidence either.
I don't claim authority from God. I haven't in this whole debate. You are putting words in my mouth and attacking me as if I said it.
I do claim authority from morality. I guess if you take the position that morality is whatever God says it is, then you can argue that it is just a clouded argument for God-says-so. But then anything that claims "good" or "better" can be tracked to a God-says-so.
I appealed to common sense and public opinion. Most people think that pornography should be censored. Most people think that lewd speech and dirty speech is not protected speech. That is common sense.
I have yet to see anyone try to debate that fact. Nobody has yet opposed me and said that this is not true. Instead, they have attacked me personally or tried to attack things I've never said.
Let me expand the argument. What does pornography or filthy langauge add to our society? I propose that it brings nothing, except negative consequences. Filthy languages inspire filthy thoughts, which in turn inspire filthy behavior. Pornography demeans women and glamorizes sex. It stresses relationships, breaks up mutual trust. It is sick. Pornography hardens the sense, like violence and hardnes the senses. We don't need to be hardened in that way.
I would like you to back up that statement, that blind belief of your pastore, cleric, or priest is the cause of most wars. I believe that most wars are started by aristocrats who think they know better than the next guy. I can go down the list of wars in recorded history and name the hotheads.
You claim that religion is used to control the masses. I claim that freedom can only come through religion. Those who have no religion are stuck in prison. They can't see beyond the grave. They have no hope for a better life. They have no purpose in life.
And who exactly is trying to control the masses with religion? I can think of a handful of people that use religion to brainwash and coerce people to do things they shouldn't do, but those aren't religions, those are cults.
Comparing the leaders of my church with the leaders of the cult at Waco Texas is an insult. I am sure that you will find hardly any attributes in common with them. In fact, I daresay that John Kerry is more like David Koresh than the leaders of the major religions in the US are.
"Leaky Leahy" is the nickname he earned for leaking key intelligence findings to an NBC reporter in 1987. He was forced to step down as chairman of the senate intelligence committee.
2 4. htm
http://www.fightthebias.com/Archives/Issues/24/
Proving that someone leaked materials is not difficult. If you read back to the newspaper columns concerning the shut down of the intelligence committee, you will see clouded references to one particular member: Leaky Leahy.
I would enjoy standing trial for slander, as I would gladly supply the evidence to a court of law. This sucker is due for a treason award and the appropriate necktie any day now.
So you support censorship as long as it applies to "neoconservative christians"?
I think that remark comparing me to an AK-47 waving Islamic fundamentalist was uncalled for. I have never owned an AK-47 and I personally prefer a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun. I don't shoot people over believes, only for property rights violations and for protection.
It's amazing that you refuse to debate me because I think you are wrong. You obviously think I am wrong, but I am obviously willing to debate. What would debate be for except to get two people who think each other wrong to discuss their conflicts?
You have to understand why Cheney used the expletive. Sen. Leahy is the leak for several key intelligence findings. The intelligence committee had to disband for several months because of Leahy.
Leahy has been relentless in his attacks. Recently, he blamed the intelligence failures on President Bush while the senate committed determined in a bipartisan manner that the failures had nothing to do with the president, and everything to do with practices at the CIA.
Leahy has been a thorn in the administration's side because he keeps spreading false rumors and unsubstantiable claims. It is rumored that Sen. Leahy said something to Cheney before Cheney's outburst.
If anybody is responsible for the degrading tone of politics, it is obviously Leahy. This still does not excuse Cheney's outburst.
John Kerry didn't mumble it. He in fact authorized that the expletives be published. In fact, I believe that if you search for expletives on John Kerry's own website, you will find numerous articles quoting John Kerry. At least it was that way a while ago.
Dick Cheney was wrong to use expletives on the floor of the senate. I don't admire him any more for doing that. It's not cool. It's not what President Bush stands for, and I am sure he got a word or two from the President.
I do not like the direction politics is heading. I don't like people calling each other names. I do want to hear debates on people's records and their policies, beliefs, and plans for our future, however. Let the candidates attack each other on those issues, but ad hominem attacks are not acceptable.
I have only heard the term "unAmerican" or "unPatriotic" used by the left and friends. They use it to describe how President Bush and the Republican Right Wing Terror Network is persecuting them. In fact, I have been called a terrorist, an extremist, even a member of the Taliban by the left because I believe that God exists.
I have heard a new term being punted around: Hatriot. It's used to describe Michael Moore and his style of politics. It goes something like this. Go to France. Claim hatred for President Bush and the stupid American public. Make a movie about how evil President Bush is and make it so sappy that even liberals call it propoganda. Then fly to Canada to escape the "brownshirts" that President Bush is dispatching to persecute you, or at least claim such. Say things like "I'm glad I'm in Canada where freedom still exists" or something like that.
I don't mind you expressing your opinion. I do mind you misrepresenting the facts (AKA lying). I have yet to hear the administration use the term "un-American" or even "all-American" to deride the left. Go ahead and show me quotes if I am wrong.
I was drawing the comparison between those that lack a moral compass and those that don't.
Those with a moral compass find it easy to distinguish between sex for pornography's sake, nude art (such as the statue of David), and medical books. I can tell you right now that I don't have a problem with the nude child-like angels in various pieces of rennaissance art. I also believe that sex is only appropriate within the bounds of legal marriage between a man and a woman.
Those without a moral compass try to confuse the lines between art and pornography.
You are correct. Biological systems would be the only other route that would make sense for this kind of structure.
You are misinformed. Apparently, you haven't heard that the program that was used throughout the cold war that measures individual dust particles in the atmosphere for radiation signatures. Using this process, we were able to determine what nuclear weapons were being built and where the material was coming from. Even if the particles of dust that have been around the source were scattered such that they were now one part in trillions, we can easily find them and classify them.
We don't obviously have a giant geiger counter that flies over enemy territory. We all know that won't work.
Hey guys! I got a great idea! Rather than debate the issues, let's just moderate opposing viewpoints as "troll"!
If this isn't censorship, then what is?
I'm sorry folks, but there is a line, and it is called "decency".
Pornography is indecent. I think any sane person agrees with that. It has no role in public or private life. It demeans women, turns them into toys. It glamorizes sex. That's the problem.
I guess if you believe that sex is something that should be done outside of marriage, then you probably don't have a problem with pornography. If our nation turns into one where the majority don't value the sanctity of life or the sanctity of the institution created by God to bring forth that life, pornography is the least of our worries.
Lewd talk and foul language have no place in public discourse. You can express yourself better if you use clean language. There is no need to use sailor talk in front on women or children, or even men for that matter. It is a crime to defecate in public places, so it should be a crime to defecate foul language with your mouth in public places.
I know this peeves you so-called "liberals" and libertarians out there, but let's face the facts. America was founded on religious principles, that rights come from God, that government is supposed to protect those rights. Those rights include free speech, but they do not include pornography and foul language. You have as little right to do these things as you do to dump toxic waste in a public park.
And comparing this with the totalitarian regimes in places like Afghanistan and Iraq (until not to long ago, thanks to President Bush), is just stupid. We have been able to maintain a good balance, and if we go too far the other way, the public is free to correct the course of events with their votes.
There's an old phrase for this kind of thing: Pioneers get the arrows. It's the cost of being a pioneer.
Today, we are playing with technology that we have no experience in. For instance, nanotubes. What are the long-term effects of nanotube exposure? No one can possibly know for sure.
I had an opportunity to ask one of the grad students at the University of Washington Physics Department about nanotubes. See, he was working with nanotubes. He told me that nanotubes are probably damaging, but the body probably has defenses against it just like it has defenses against very small pieces of dust. He said that it was a privilege to be able to work on such technology, and even if it meant losing ten or twenty years of his life, it would be worth it still.
I am sure that the early pioneers in teh nuclear and radioactive substance fields felt the same way. Marie Curie would probably do it all over again even if she knew the consequences. I think these people would probably do the same.
Perhaps you have forgotten the massive buyout program where the CIA was given billions and billions of dollars to buy ever scrap of nuclear material the old Soviet Union left in the hands of those willing to sell it.
That's why to date terrorists haven't gotten a hold of any. They are competing against the worldest biggest economy to get a hold of this material.
Yes, some of the material is missing, but we have tools to find it.
It can't happen like that. You are talking about a level of organization that only crystals exhibit.
Exactly how do you propose to make toroidal nanotubes? Exactly how are you going to interlock them into a pattern? This is the difficult part, and if you figure that out, I see a Nobel prize in your future.
Right now, the current thought in nanotube technology is that you aren't going to make a single, continuous tube. Even if you could, the maximum length is not going to be practically infinite.
Instead, what needs to happen is that you must "spin a thread", like we spin thread today. You take fibers and organize them so that they are randomly interlocking.
The difficult part is getting the nanotubes to stick together with a strength equal to the strength of the nanotubes. This is no problem with cotton, polyester, or sheep's wool, because each individual fiber is hairy and they stick together like velcro. The strength of the connection can be stronger than the strength of the individual fibers.
It is known that nanotubes are "sticky" to each other. There is a mutual attraction caused by various forces. This laboratory used that to their advantage by continuously spinning thread at the rate of several cm per second (!). However, the thread isn't sticking very well to each other or the stickiness isn't strong enough. The end result are threads that aren't much better than sewing threads.
Perhaps they can add a step where they put the nanotubes into a bath of chemicals and stretch the nanotubes or compress them to cause them to stick more strongly together. Perhaps if those threads are weaved together, the weave itself will cause the nanotubes to stick together better. Perhaps a thread can be developed that when put under tension compresses and thus increases the friction. These are all possible scenarios, and are the next steps.
Or perhaps this is just a really good way to make and store millions of nanotubes a second, to be dissolved and organized later.
Or maybe you can take these nanotubes and assemble them with some kind of process to line them up end to end. Maybe they will weld themselves chemically if they are lined up and brought near to each other's ends.
More experimentation is needed. Wouldn't you like to be in that lab at this time, playing with these threads?
I am sure that you will get all the data you ever need from that.
As far as real world data, you'll have to collect it yourself. Start with incoming ethernet packets, and file them away into multiple tables. That'll give you a good dataset. You may also want to try your hand at incoming email, HTTP requests, etc...
What happens when the community stops testing the RCs and doesn't install the newest version is you get a whole lotta not testing happening. The whole reason these issues in FC2 made it through to the release is because not enough people tested. I remember one thread in the mailing list that basically went like this.
A:"My video card doesn't work."
B:"What kind is it?"
A:"XXX-YYY."
B:"Don't we support XXX-YYY? I thought we did."
C:"We should, we didn't get any reports of any problems in testing."
B:"A, What's your configuration?"
A:"Here it is."
C:"It's a bug. Why didn't we catch it in testing?"
B:"A, did you test the RCs?"
A:"No."
B:"Then how do you expect us to get your configuration to work if you don't test it? We'll have a fix out soon, hopefully."
The point is, if you don't download the RCs and don't test them, you really can't expect the final release to be any better than the RCs, unless someone else is testing your configuration.
I was going to mod a lot of posts down due to stupid conspiracy theories, but I didn't see any posts with this point in mind.
(1) We have the second amendment. The chinese don't. If the government gets out of hand, we always have the upper hand. Mao said it best: Government comes from the point of a gun.
Don't like Bush? You have three options: (a) vote for the other guy, and do everything you can to get him elected, (b) pick up your rifle and follow the example of our founding fathers, pledging their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in open rebellion, or (c) shut up and sit down, coward.
(2) We have a seperate judiciary, for the most part. Once appointed, a judge is pretty much left alone. This leads to some corruption, but the net effect is that President Bush can't order the judiciary what to do. Chinese don't have this.
Before you get your panties in a bundle over Gitmo, notice that Pres. Bush is bringing them into the homeland to prepare for arraignment and trial because Supreme Court said so. Who really controls the US? It sure ain't Bush.
(3) Patriot act gives the police the same rights that they have for prosecuting drug crimes and organized crime but now for terrorism. I certainly wish we didn't have the Patriot act, but what are the alternatives? Citizen vigilance, or martial law. That's about it. How many terrorists have you caught today? Didn't think so.
Citizens (that means YOU, unless you are a cop) have more rights to investigate crime and build cases against criminals than police do. Don't think so? Ask a bounty hunter about what he is able to do. Hint: Breaking and entering a felons home is not a crime for a bounty hunter. No warrant needed, either. Go ahead and arrest anyone you find in the house, and tie them up if need be. Bring them all downtown to get booked.
(4) The United States is the BEST and the LAST defense agaisnt tyranny. Make no joke about it, in no other country do you have as many rights that are protected by government as you do here. Is it perfect? Of course not. Rather than complain, get off your butt and do something about it.
If you really think the US is stinkier than other countries, then you are more than welcome to leave and rescind your citizenship. No one is keeping you here, unlike China.
There is a group called MARID debating this issue right now. We have already decided that the way to defeat spam is first to authenticate every email. SPF and CallerID are the two major proposals for this, and right now, they are working on a compromise.
Target your resume for the job you want. Write a different resume tailored for each job you apply for. Be humble, yet confident, and only mention relevant skills.
Think: What do they want? What do I have that they want? Write down everything you can think of, and then turn it into a 30-second commercial slot. Pound on those few points solidly, and leave the rest as dressing. Avoid things they might not want. Definitely avoid negative things.
For instance, if I were applying for a software engineering position at, say, Microsoft, in C++. I would highlight all of the experience I had writing C++ code, emphasize the project's I've worked on, and bullet point the various things I've done in relation to coding. The "dressing" will be where I've worked (relevant places only -- NOT McDonald's), what college I've graduated from, what degree and what my GPA was, and what my other skills or hobbies are.
Think of your resume more as an ad: You have to hire me because I will bring your company $$$! Sell yourself!
Real proof does exist. Have you prayed and asked if he does or does not exist? Don't you think a grand, intelligent being would reveal himself to you if you asked? He spoke to Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and countless other prophets of all nationalities. Why not you?
I don't buy this idea that God doesn't want to reveal himself to those who are willing. If that were true he would've removed all references to himself from the world, and we wouldn't even have a concept of God.
Quite seriously, the reason why a book is so standard and useful is because everything you need to read the book is self-contained.
I would like to see DVDs that played themselves. Maybe an adapter to the TV and sound system, but that's it. If all movies, music, home videos, etc, just provided jacks for outgoing TV and Audio, then we wouldn't have this problem. Better yet, make them a standard size and have standard adapters so we can just slide them into a machine that only gives it the power it needs to play and makes connecting audio and video a sinch.
Apparently you haven't actually listened to much Fox News or conservative talk radio. The shows I enjoy the most - Hannity and Colmes, John Carlson (570 KVI Seattle) - invite those with opposing viewpoints to come in and state their point of view.
It helps tremendously when you have a Democrat pollster duke it out with one Ann Coulter, or to have representatives of the local Dairygold union come on John Carlson's show and explain why they are on strike. I get both views and the counterpoint all in a few minutes.