How about "Can the theory of AGW be attempted to be falsified in a why whereby, if their tipping point theory *does* turn out to be true, does not affect life on the planet in the way they allege it will?"
Well, the customary argument in favor of Affirmative Action -- which is what you're talking about there -- is "we need to help them along because their minority screwed them, going through primary school". Whether it applies in secondary education, it *certainly* doesn't apply in post-secondary, and I don't see that it applies on the job either.
That guy passed out on the floor of the burning house doesn't care that because you're female, you can't meet the weight-lifting requirements of the firefighter exam. He just cares whether you get him out.
Well, let's be clear: "we're going to hire the smartest people, even if they're "white" and male" is *not* racist, but will probably get them in trouble anyway.
(As Carlin notes: "Indians are very dark 'white people'. What's that all about?")
As a retail reseller that may be true. But Amazon's Kindle division *is a publisher* now as well, and that may have a bearing on this issue.
Particularly if they have a contract with Macmillan.
Not doing any further work at an increased price point is fine. Pulling *works they've published to Kindles as Macmillan's agent* could be another thing entirely.
That what's actually going on here is that Macmillan isn't committing anti-trust: they're merely setting their wholesale price for e-Books at a level that Amazon doesn't like.
Who's committing anti-competitive behaviour is Amazon: illegally tying stopping sales of paper books because they don't like the price they were quoted on electronic books.
In fact, if you ask the IRS for advice on how to handle a tax issue, and they give it to you (which is unusual), they *still* disclaim responsibility for their possibly being wrong, and people have undergone financial and (I think) criminal sanctions *for believing what the IRS told them*.
> And the government gets quite substantial amounts of data from employers, banks, property registry, car registry etc. so many people have nothing that needs changing.
And, um, PS: before you go dissing fairtax.org, *actually read their site*; there are several flat-federal-tax proposals out there, some of which *are* snake oil. Theirs does not appear to be, to me.
I'll post here the same scenario I email to Stross -- and *damn* that story made it up fast; @NYTimes just tweeted it like 20 minutes ago; did we roto-root the pipeline?
If you're the government, and you know you don't have to take responsibility for the results (since the law says they don't; it's all on the taxpayer), don't you think you're gonna err on the high side?
Rebate form return percentages (I think they plan on 40% coming back in) prove that lots of people are just going to take your word for it -- and if you don't think that's a reasonable assumption, you're probably a slashdotter. Or some other sort of geek. Nerdview is great.
And if people *do* correct the amount down, a lot of them probably won't say anything about it, on the theory that they got away with something, and don't want to queer the pitch, so aggregating data on how *often* the IRS gets away with it is less likely.
www.fairtax.org, people. If there's *no* IRS, this stuff's all not a problem.
> The iPhone itself doesn't really handle the switch from 3G to EDGE very gracefully, so calls that are in-progress tend to fail whenever 3G connections aren't optimal and the phone attempts to step down to EDGE.
since the voice and data decks are separate; the voice isn't *going* over the data connection, so a roam there shouldn't affect a voice call.
Now, that doesn't mean that it's not having *other* problems roaming from cell to cell; I just don't expect that to be the cause.
Slashdot Mirror
How about "Can the theory of AGW be attempted to be falsified in a why whereby, if their tipping point theory *does* turn out to be true, does not affect life on the planet in the way they allege it will?"
Since that's, y'know, what he was asking. :-)
> Does Google not want Microsoft to scoop them on their new blaxploitation search engine?
Oh, that's nice. Best comment all week.
Yes, it does.
Shame we're not *in* that era.
I gather Russia is allowing immigration these days; see ya.
Well, the customary argument in favor of Affirmative Action -- which is what you're talking about there -- is "we need to help them along because their minority screwed them, going through primary school". Whether it applies in secondary education, it *certainly* doesn't apply in post-secondary, and I don't see that it applies on the job either.
That guy passed out on the floor of the burning house doesn't care that because you're female, you can't meet the weight-lifting requirements of the firefighter exam. He just cares whether you get him out.
Well, let's be clear: "we're going to hire the smartest people, even if they're "white" and male" is *not* racist, but will probably get them in trouble anyway.
(As Carlin notes: "Indians are very dark 'white people'. What's that all about?")
Sure. But we've already covered that fallacy pretty thoroughly...
the EEOC and Congress will see it differently.
Wonder what *else* Congress will ask while they've got them on the stand...
Perhaps.
Here's their blog response: http://www.blogsouthwest.com/blog/not-so-silent-bob
a Quoogle?
As a retail reseller that may be true. But Amazon's Kindle division *is a publisher* now as well, and that may have a bearing on this issue.
Particularly if they have a contract with Macmillan.
Not doing any further work at an increased price point is fine. Pulling *works they've published to Kindles as Macmillan's agent* could be another thing entirely.
Shame about you being so reserved with your opinions and all... hopefully, you'll get over that someday.
It has a glossy screen?
Oh, then I wouldn't ever buy -- or recommend -- one, and I'm certainly not alone.
That what's actually going on here is that Macmillan isn't committing anti-trust: they're merely setting their wholesale price for e-Books at a level that Amazon doesn't like.
Who's committing anti-competitive behaviour is Amazon: illegally tying stopping sales of paper books because they don't like the price they were quoted on electronic books.
And no, I'm not trolling, nor am I paid by fairtax.org.
In fact, if you ask the IRS for advice on how to handle a tax issue, and they give it to you (which is unusual), they *still* disclaim responsibility for their possibly being wrong, and people have undergone financial and (I think) criminal sanctions *for believing what the IRS told them*.
Hey; there's an echo in here. ;-)
> And the government gets quite substantial amounts of data from employers, banks, property registry, car registry etc. so many people have nothing that needs changing.
And you say that like it's a *good* thing...
+5, "good point"
And, um, PS: before you go dissing fairtax.org, *actually read their site*; there are several flat-federal-tax proposals out there, some of which *are* snake oil. Theirs does not appear to be, to me.
I'll post here the same scenario I email to Stross -- and *damn* that story made it up fast; @NYTimes just tweeted it like 20 minutes ago; did we roto-root the pipeline?
If you're the government, and you know you don't have to take responsibility for the results (since the law says they don't; it's all on the taxpayer), don't you think you're gonna err on the high side?
Rebate form return percentages (I think they plan on 40% coming back in) prove that lots of people are just going to take your word for it -- and if you don't think that's a reasonable assumption, you're probably a slashdotter. Or some other sort of geek. Nerdview is great.
And if people *do* correct the amount down, a lot of them probably won't say anything about it, on the theory that they got away with something, and don't want to queer the pitch, so aggregating data on how *often* the IRS gets away with it is less likely.
www.fairtax.org, people. If there's *no* IRS, this stuff's all not a problem.
Just sayin'
> The iPhone itself doesn't really handle the switch from 3G to EDGE very gracefully, so calls that are in-progress tend to fail whenever 3G connections aren't optimal and the phone attempts to step down to EDGE.
since the voice and data decks are separate; the voice isn't *going* over the data connection, so a roam there shouldn't affect a voice call.
Now, that doesn't mean that it's not having *other* problems roaming from cell to cell; I just don't expect that to be the cause.
I'm prone to Samhain's SSH brute-force blocker script; I use the tcpwrappers approach myself.
I used to date a girl who crewed on Office Space; do I get karma points for that?
"Whaddayou think *this* is?"
"It's something like a man's penis, only smaller."
(Spider Robinson, "Fivesight", _Time Travellers Strictly Cash_, no commercial association)
+1 Funny. (I'm in the thread, or I'd mod.)