This reminds me of when one of my best friends of mine started with the same company. He and I had been in IT for years and had met through our hobby of computing. We used to have fun, cut up at work, and generally enjoy the work we were doing. Mainly because it was the same "work" we did at home for fun. A supervisor pulled us aside and told us that the perception around the cube farm was that we didn't appear to be very serious and joked around too much. Our response was that we enjoyed our work. Frankly, it wasn't "work" to us, we were having a ball. Our work reflected our abilities and our systems were solid. Our application servers were running great and when problems arose, they were generally handled quickly. Our background certainly showed in the knowledge we brought and we generally had more to bring to a problem then most of the people we worked with. I think IT, even more so now, is made up of people who love the work and people who said, "Hey, I'll go into IT. I could do that." It doesn't mean they're incompetent but it does mean they will never truly love their work. They may like their job, but that probably would have liked any job they had put the time in to study and learn about. For them IT is like being a bank teller or stocking shelves or any other job. It's neither fun nor not fun at any given time.
First, Bush authorized taps on international calls. There is no wholesale wiretapping of citizens.
Congress authorized Bush to use "all" means. Sounds pretty authoritative to me. And the precident is there for various conditions under which search warrants aren't necessary.
As for the "liar" and "idiot" comments, puhleez...grow up.
"Nobody imagined that that son of a bitch Bush II and his minions would have spent the intervening years abusing/hiding behind it while turning the U.S. into a police state, and that they'd not want to pare down any of the civil-liberties-stomping aspects."
And how has he done that? I don't see any police hanging around my neighborhood. No one's checking my papers. No one's stopping me and asking me where I'm going. No one's tapping my phone because I'm a) not calling overseas to countries that might harbour terrorists and b) I'm not linked to any terrorist organization.
Just for the record, Clinton authorized the Attorney General to do the same type of wiretapping (without a warrant) as did Carter. Oh, but they were Democrats.
In the end, theory is theory. As for gaps, I've never heard any valid explanations for the gaps or that missing links were found. The latest findings of the "small people" might elude to a missing link, but that's the closest I've seen science come. One problem with the theory as a whole was that early paleantologists falsified so much data or extrapolated to rediculous extremes. If macro-evolution is true, this behavior has tainted the data to a certain extent in the minds of the public.
Actually, no. He didn't "go around" the court because the powers had already be granted. We can debate whether he should have but I'm confident that whatever he did was under legal council. Look, Republican or Democrat no President would wilfully risk becoming the next Nixon. If there is an argument here, it isn't "howe could this President do this" but rather, "where is the legal precident that he was advised he was working under."
OH! So "theory" can sometimes be mistaken as "hunch." And since most people are too stupid to understand the difference, we better just leave it off!? That is absolutely rediculous. And you wonder why people are upset? If that's true, then odds are your target audience for the class aren't going to get it anyway. After all, they haven't "evolved" yet, apparently. This, and statements like, "We can't explain how apes became humans along every point in the chain. There must have been environmental or cataclismic forces at work to allow for the gaps we see." This has always been the explanation I've heard for any holes in the theory. No one, and I mean no one has ever provided an explanation that made this make any believable sense. There really is little logical difference between "there's a higher being that developed mankind" and "there's an unknown event for which we have no evidence that must have exacted force on the evolutionary timeline." Even THIS crap was better crafted than, "Well, some people think 'theory' means 'hunch' so it's better to keep the sticker off." Nice. I accept that people have issues with ID. People have issues with a lot of things. My shock is the extent to which people will suspend reason on the so-called "science" side to defend themselves and not defend their positon that evolution (macro) is great science, but their position that it's flawlessness should go completely unchallenged under any circumstances. What I'm finding is that many of those people have no clue what objectivity is.
"Again, science doesn't work that way. We have an explanation of how something works. It's been proven right again and again. This isn't a "truth", just an explanation of facts. It takes no faith to understand the theory of evolution."
You have no understanding of cognicent reasoning. Regardless of which side you fall on, evolution takes faith. The problem is, the definition of faith is bastardized today. It's simply "belief." One does some examination and comes to a conclusion. I would argue that evolution has not been proven right time and again. That is very misleading. That evolution occurs say between various species within those species is largely fact and demonstrated. The theory is that this explains how all species have evolved. That, my friend, is far from proven right. You may believe it, it may have strong merit, 1000 scientists may have various pieces of evidence for it, but all in all that portion is theory.
"You never hear real scientists saying "Evolution is fact!" because it isn't."
No, but you will hear them say, "You can't say evolution is just a theory or we'll sue." See previous Georgia court case where all that was asked was that a sticker be placed that said evolution was not fact, but was a theory. Frankly, THAT court decision was shaky and probably could have been appealed.
"now corporations want to expand thier power and the current adminstration is taking the the bribes (lobby money) and giving corporations full control"
WTF? This is a proposal by a company, not "this administration." I agree this is crap and certainly needs to be fought tooth and nail. Call it what is it, however, and that is an effort by one entity to influence law and open opportunities for itself. This is where you and I come in and do our best to squash it.
You're confused. Determining that the climate is changing and blaming humans for it are two different things. The problem is that you have climatologists on the one hand saying, "We're seeing temperatures rise in parts of the globe to this degree. This seems to be an indication of a global climate change." On the other hand you have politically motivated environmental groups saying, "global climate change is a result of CO2 emissions and humans wasting resources!" When these two groups start to blur and contain the same groups, you have people rightfully questioning their motives. It becomes harder to hear the truth when it's muddied by activitsm. The truth probably is that this is a cyclical event as has already been demonstrated by ice cores and rock strata samples. For some this simply isn't enough.
It will interesting over the next 100 years if the Earth's magnetism switches polarity, as is expected. This too has been shown to be a cycle event yet there will be politically minded people who will blame that on humanity, another nation's greed, or their least favorite politcal party, whatever that happens to be.
"Seriously, try thinking for yourself and not parrotting the party line." Just because what I'm saying has been said elsewhere doesn't mean I'm parrotting the party line. Just as, I'm sure, you're liberal leanings are all your own. As for the Congo, Sudan, yes I'd pay to have those governments removed. The rest of the world bitches at us for not doing anything (we're spending millions there now, btw) but if we say, "Fuck it. We'll go in and remove the dictators and hold free elections" liberals scream, "Oh you're just forcing your will upon them. What makes you think they want to be free!?" Paraphrasing, of course, because they'd never say it that way but that's what it amounts to. Look we're not going to agree but maybe someone reading this will figure out one or both of us is full of shit or learn something.
Oh yeah, Bush has caused all of these atrocities by torturing the Iraqi's. You are an idiot. Whatever ability you have to procreate should be taken from you. Go ask the Iraqi's what they think of their situation. Ask them if they want Sadam back. Anyone who says we shouldn't have gone to war is saying that Iraq was better off with Sadam. If you're never seen the Discovery Special on Sadam, you should stop your "look, I'm cool! I'm against the war" hippie attitude, watch that, then come back with some intelligent response. Sadam is a monster. We should have shot him in that hole we found him in. The Iraqi people are greatful we're there and we're doing far more good than is ever being publicized.
Easily. There is no proof of any torture at Gitmo. Abu Grhaib, yes but it was hardly torture and those responsible were brought to trial. Even Democrat Senators who went to Gitmo came back and said there was no evidence that anything went wrong. *I* have every right. We didn't gun down anyone for protesting the war in Iraq.
No one in Canada you say? Not what I've heard. I've heard plenty of Canadians lament their healthcare system. Guess we're just not going to agree. I would hardly call my argument silly and I suppose I can't call yours silly. You have first-hand knowledge and are satisfied with what you have. I can find examples in Canada of people who disagree with you and you can find Americans unhappy with healthcare here.
You really have no clue. I can tell you from experience that if you have a life-threatening condition you get the health care. When I was young and just married my wife and I were not making much and had no insurance. She had a ruptured cyst. The doctor gave us 2 choices: medicate or surgery. Medication would mean fighting infections probably for some time to come. Surgery meant it was done and no longer a problem. I looked at the doctor and said, "I have no insurance and no money for the surgery, but I want her to have the surgery." The doctor (at a hospital, less) said, "We're doing the surgery. Whether you pay or not is between you and the ladies at my office." Before you write this off as once in a lifetime thing, the same thing happened with my Dad. He'd retired with no insurance and needed by-pass surgery. It was life threatening. The hospital put him into a program that paid for his surgery. This sort of thing happens all of the time. Yes, there are some flaws in the system but to say people are dying is a bit much.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of when one of my best friends of mine started with the same company. He and I had been in IT for years and had met through our hobby of computing. We used to have fun, cut up at work, and generally enjoy the work we were doing. Mainly because it was the same "work" we did at home for fun. A supervisor pulled us aside and told us that the perception around the cube farm was that we didn't appear to be very serious and joked around too much. Our response was that we enjoyed our work. Frankly, it wasn't "work" to us, we were having a ball. Our work reflected our abilities and our systems were solid. Our application servers were running great and when problems arose, they were generally handled quickly. Our background certainly showed in the knowledge we brought and we generally had more to bring to a problem then most of the people we worked with. I think IT, even more so now, is made up of people who love the work and people who said, "Hey, I'll go into IT. I could do that." It doesn't mean they're incompetent but it does mean they will never truly love their work. They may like their job, but that probably would have liked any job they had put the time in to study and learn about. For them IT is like being a bank teller or stocking shelves or any other job. It's neither fun nor not fun at any given time.
First, Bush authorized taps on international calls. There is no wholesale wiretapping of citizens.
Congress authorized Bush to use "all" means. Sounds pretty authoritative to me. And the precident is there for various conditions under which search warrants aren't necessary.
As for the "liar" and "idiot" comments, puhleez...grow up.
"Nobody imagined that that son of a bitch Bush II and his minions would have spent the intervening years abusing/hiding behind it while turning the U.S. into a police state, and that they'd not want to pare down any of the civil-liberties-stomping aspects."
And how has he done that? I don't see any police hanging around my neighborhood. No one's checking my papers. No one's stopping me and asking me where I'm going. No one's tapping my phone because I'm a) not calling overseas to countries that might harbour terrorists and b) I'm not linked to any terrorist organization.
Just for the record, Clinton authorized the Attorney General to do the same type of wiretapping (without a warrant) as did Carter. Oh, but they were Democrats.
In the end, theory is theory. As for gaps, I've never heard any valid explanations for the gaps or that missing links were found. The latest findings of the "small people" might elude to a missing link, but that's the closest I've seen science come. One problem with the theory as a whole was that early paleantologists falsified so much data or extrapolated to rediculous extremes. If macro-evolution is true, this behavior has tainted the data to a certain extent in the minds of the public.
Ever wonder why the early colonists forbade lawyers entry?
And of course those who can't handle free speech, or even debate for themselves mod flamebait.
Actually, no. He didn't "go around" the court because the powers had already be granted. We can debate whether he should have but I'm confident that whatever he did was under legal council. Look, Republican or Democrat no President would wilfully risk becoming the next Nixon. If there is an argument here, it isn't "howe could this President do this" but rather, "where is the legal precident that he was advised he was working under."
OH! So "theory" can sometimes be mistaken as "hunch." And since most people are too stupid to understand the difference, we better just leave it off!? That is absolutely rediculous. And you wonder why people are upset? If that's true, then odds are your target audience for the class aren't going to get it anyway. After all, they haven't "evolved" yet, apparently. This, and statements like, "We can't explain how apes became humans along every point in the chain. There must have been environmental or cataclismic forces at work to allow for the gaps we see." This has always been the explanation I've heard for any holes in the theory. No one, and I mean no one has ever provided an explanation that made this make any believable sense. There really is little logical difference between "there's a higher being that developed mankind" and "there's an unknown event for which we have no evidence that must have exacted force on the evolutionary timeline." Even THIS crap was better crafted than, "Well, some people think 'theory' means 'hunch' so it's better to keep the sticker off." Nice.
I accept that people have issues with ID. People have issues with a lot of things. My shock is the extent to which people will suspend reason on the so-called "science" side to defend themselves and not defend their positon that evolution (macro) is great science, but their position that it's flawlessness should go completely unchallenged under any circumstances. What I'm finding is that many of those people have no clue what objectivity is.
"Again, science doesn't work that way. We have an explanation of how something works. It's been proven right again and again. This isn't a "truth", just an explanation of facts. It takes no faith to understand the theory of evolution."
You have no understanding of cognicent reasoning. Regardless of which side you fall on, evolution takes faith. The problem is, the definition of faith is bastardized today. It's simply "belief." One does some examination and comes to a conclusion. I would argue that evolution has not been proven right time and again. That is very misleading. That evolution occurs say between various species within those species is largely fact and demonstrated. The theory is that this explains how all species have evolved. That, my friend, is far from proven right. You may believe it, it may have strong merit, 1000 scientists may have various pieces of evidence for it, but all in all that portion is theory.
"You never hear real scientists saying "Evolution is fact!" because it isn't."
No, but you will hear them say, "You can't say evolution is just a theory or we'll sue." See previous Georgia court case where all that was asked was that a sticker be placed that said evolution was not fact, but was a theory.
Frankly, THAT court decision was shaky and probably could have been appealed.
Agreed. What isn't old is fabricated.
If it's incoherent to you, might I suggest this?
"now corporations want to expand thier power and the current adminstration is taking the the bribes (lobby money) and giving corporations full control"
WTF? This is a proposal by a company, not "this administration." I agree this is crap and certainly needs to be fought tooth and nail. Call it what is it, however, and that is an effort by one entity to influence law and open opportunities for itself. This is where you and I come in and do our best to squash it.
Then there are those who simply label your post as flamebait who disagree. Idiot.
You're confused. Determining that the climate is changing and blaming humans for it are two different things. The problem is that you have climatologists on the one hand saying, "We're seeing temperatures rise in parts of the globe to this degree. This seems to be an indication of a global climate change." On the other hand you have politically motivated environmental groups saying, "global climate change is a result of CO2 emissions and humans wasting resources!" When these two groups start to blur and contain the same groups, you have people rightfully questioning their motives. It becomes harder to hear the truth when it's muddied by activitsm. The truth probably is that this is a cyclical event as has already been demonstrated by ice cores and rock strata samples. For some this simply isn't enough.
It will interesting over the next 100 years if the Earth's magnetism switches polarity, as is expected. This too has been shown to be a cycle event yet there will be politically minded people who will blame that on humanity, another nation's greed, or their least favorite politcal party, whatever that happens to be.
You mean, like a penis? So they're in effect dickheads?
"He's going to be very popular with the ladies!"
"Seriously, try thinking for yourself and not parrotting the party line." Just because what I'm saying has been said elsewhere doesn't mean I'm parrotting the party line. Just as, I'm sure, you're liberal leanings are all your own. As for the Congo, Sudan, yes I'd pay to have those governments removed. The rest of the world bitches at us for not doing anything (we're spending millions there now, btw) but if we say, "Fuck it. We'll go in and remove the dictators and hold free elections" liberals scream, "Oh you're just forcing your will upon them. What makes you think they want to be free!?" Paraphrasing, of course, because they'd never say it that way but that's what it amounts to. Look we're not going to agree but maybe someone reading this will figure out one or both of us is full of shit or learn something.
Oh yeah, Bush has caused all of these atrocities by torturing the Iraqi's. You are an idiot. Whatever ability you have to procreate should be taken from you. Go ask the Iraqi's what they think of their situation. Ask them if they want Sadam back. Anyone who says we shouldn't have gone to war is saying that Iraq was better off with Sadam. If you're never seen the Discovery Special on Sadam, you should stop your "look, I'm cool! I'm against the war" hippie attitude, watch that, then come back with some intelligent response. Sadam is a monster. We should have shot him in that hole we found him in. The Iraqi people are greatful we're there and we're doing far more good than is ever being publicized.
Easily. There is no proof of any torture at Gitmo. Abu Grhaib, yes but it was hardly torture and those responsible were brought to trial. Even Democrat Senators who went to Gitmo came back and said there was no evidence that anything went wrong. *I* have every right. We didn't gun down anyone for protesting the war in Iraq.
Frankly, after the shootings the other day in China I wish we'd stop doing business with them. Our relationship with China is nothing to be proud of.
No one in Canada you say? Not what I've heard. I've heard plenty of Canadians lament their healthcare system. Guess we're just not going to agree. I would hardly call my argument silly and I suppose I can't call yours silly. You have first-hand knowledge and are satisfied with what you have. I can find examples in Canada of people who disagree with you and you can find Americans unhappy with healthcare here.
Not necessarily. Just find it interesting that the flaw you find in Canada's healthcare system is that they don't FORCE everyone to participate.
You really have no clue. I can tell you from experience that if you have a life-threatening condition you get the health care. When I was young and just married my wife and I were not making much and had no insurance. She had a ruptured cyst. The doctor gave us 2 choices: medicate or surgery. Medication would mean fighting infections probably for some time to come. Surgery meant it was done and no longer a problem. I looked at the doctor and said, "I have no insurance and no money for the surgery, but I want her to have the surgery." The doctor (at a hospital, less) said, "We're doing the surgery. Whether you pay or not is between you and the ladies at my office." Before you write this off as once in a lifetime thing, the same thing happened with my Dad. He'd retired with no insurance and needed by-pass surgery. It was life threatening. The hospital put him into a program that paid for his surgery. This sort of thing happens all of the time. Yes, there are some flaws in the system but to say people are dying is a bit much.
That sounds familiar. Wasn't it communism that says it truly cannot exist until the entire worldis governed by it? Until then it's socialism.