This is a good point. Someone also mentioned Talking Points Memo and Salon. I think this shake up of the news industry could lead to the rise of new, smaller players. News reporting may become decentralized. This is a good thing IMO. Many of the big boys have become too close to power and let it shape their reporting.
Can you point me to these tests? I have had some personal experiences that lead me to believe what I do. I would not claim scientific proof, as that is not what I have seen.
Just because these tests have not found evidence that successful dowsing is a real phenomenon does not mean it does not exist. I understand that same argument could be made for the existence of unicorns. That is why I used the word "belief". I think there may be someting to it. Is it proven? No. Do I expect anyone else to adopt my belief? No.
I believe it like I believe the CIA works domestically within the US. I can't prove it, and you could find any number of sources that would claim it isn't true. But I have seen evidence that it is the case. YMMV.
Hammerhead sharks have glands on the underside of their heads that detect the magnetic fields of fish under the sand. The sharks basically dowse for fish! The theory is that their wide heads enable them to cover more area as they skim the bottom of the sea, sensing prey hiding in the sand. So some animals certainly can sense magnetic fields.
Now, whether Iraqis can do this for bombs is another matter. I personally believe that there may be something to dowsing. But it's a personal belief, nothing more.
I was wondering the same thing. Didn't NASA do this like six times in the 60's and 70's? Why offer a prize to do something they already know how to do?
Unless they haven't actually done it before... *puts on tinfoil hat*
Whenever you hear that something is being withheld or denied for "National Security Interests", you can assume you are being screwed. Pretty much without regard to context. This was true in United States v. Reynolds, and it's true today.
I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore. These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang. It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.
Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days. Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.
I would agree. What we actually have is an oligarchy. Our political choices and boundaries of debate are severely circumscribed. A relatively small group of elites set the policy and terms of debate, while the masses are kept distracted with various sideshows. What I am still trying to figure out is whether it is by design or just a natural outcome of where our system has gone.
Unfortunately, I don't see how we get back to being a republic without major upheval. The existing power structure is entrenched, and many people take it for granted. Most do not question why they get the candidates they do, or why they see the news stories they do (and not others), or what the Federal Reserve really does. So wealth and power will continue to be consolidated in the hands of a few, and the middle class dismantled, until the whole game becomes untenable and something snaps. Then who knows what we'll get?
Yes, that kind. I'm gonna go ahead and agree with that. Though it might be expedient, I don't think it's ethical to take advantage of people's ignorance.
I don't think it's a durable strategy anyway. The whole reason our rights are being taken away is that people are more concerned about safety than with their rights (and they're only worried about safety because they've been propagandized). So preserving their rights by taking advantage of a different ignorant panic doesn't solve the root problem. It's catching a fish for a man instead of teaching him to fish.
I can't speak to the newer versions, but I had a Treo running WM 5 and the thing crashed more than a hollywood stuntman. It was completely stock; no add-ons ever. It crashed multiple times a week. I had the device replaced four times to no avail! Eventually I gave up and got the same phone with the Palm OS. No more problems.
Suspects. The word is suspects. You cannot assume that the people being tracked are criminals. Besides, the ruling states that a warrant must be obtained, not that the police can't track cars with GPS. It provides valuable oversight on a police power that can easily be abused. I live in Massachusetts and this ruling actually makes me feel safer.
Good point. I have often thought this myself. We all can probably think of laws we think are unconstitutional. It would be good to be able to challenge those laws before someone's rights are violated.
Um, I think he was saying that we don't need to grade gym class, not that we don't need gym class. I would agree; make it pass/fail based on attendance and participation.
You talk as though we have an informed citizenry now (see my sig for signs of bias). The vast majority of Americans get their news from one of the corporate outfits. Those outfits report what they want people to hear and don't report what they don't want them to hear. MaskedSlacker has it right to say that reducing corporate control of media is a very important thing these days.
Big Media is currently a tool used by corporations to shape public opinion to their liking. We would be better off with a bunch of smaller outfits gathering the news (maybe like talkingpointsmemo.com) and providing a diversity of views, rather than a small group deciding what the news is according to a narrow definition of acceptable discourse.
"The idea of legal representation is to ESTABLISH THE TRUTH. It's a very strange notion that proving some truth is not helping the client. Justice is supposed to be based on the notion that ethical behaviour benefits all, and that if a person steps off that path, they should be helped or even forced back onto it, since they will become harmful to others AS WELL AS themselves."
I disagree. The idea of legal representation is to have your client's side represented. A lawyer does not establish the truth; he defends his client.
I know it's nice to think that our justice system tries to get to the truth. But really there are two sides, each trying to make a better argument than the other to convince the jury of their case. The only thing established is guilt, or not-guilt.
You know, I hear this sentiment a lot. And I wonder what makes people think that the intelligence services are so incompetent. I mean, they are well organized and very well funded. They recruit from the top ranks of industry, academia and the military. Sure, we hear about some of their mistakes and hang-outs. But the vast, vast majority of their activities never see the light of day. So why do people think they can't find their ass with a flashlight? If it turns out to be some kid, or group of criminals behind the attack, you will believe it. But multi-billion dollar, top-secret organizations with agents at all levels in all walks of life, that recruit from the elite of society and have been shown to hew to their own agenda? Nah, that's too far fetched.
How's this for objectivity: There is no way I am letting the federal government track my every move in my car.
Actually, I don't care if that's objective or not...
By this logic no one would buy beer either. You can just brew it at home! Or tomatoes! Why do you pay for tomatoes when you could just grow them yourself?
No, the fact is that people will pay for convenience. We do it every day. It is a hassle to grow your own pot. I know; I've done it. Why would I bother with the time and expense of setting up a grow area, managing the growing process, harvesting, drying, and setting up crop rotation when I could just go down to the smoke shop? Some will grow it as a hobby, just as some people brew beer. But most will just buy it.
Besides all that, if it were legal it would likely be much less expensive. The risk of arrest puts a premium on black market offerings.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, so it's not just the US? That makes me feel a little better; in sort of a misery-loves-company kind of way.
This is a good point. Someone also mentioned Talking Points Memo and Salon. I think this shake up of the news industry could lead to the rise of new, smaller players. News reporting may become decentralized. This is a good thing IMO. Many of the big boys have become too close to power and let it shape their reporting.
Can you point me to these tests? I have had some personal experiences that lead me to believe what I do. I would not claim scientific proof, as that is not what I have seen.
Just because these tests have not found evidence that successful dowsing is a real phenomenon does not mean it does not exist. I understand that same argument could be made for the existence of unicorns. That is why I used the word "belief". I think there may be someting to it. Is it proven? No. Do I expect anyone else to adopt my belief? No.
I believe it like I believe the CIA works domestically within the US. I can't prove it, and you could find any number of sources that would claim it isn't true. But I have seen evidence that it is the case. YMMV.
Hammerhead sharks have glands on the underside of their heads that detect the magnetic fields of fish under the sand. The sharks basically dowse for fish! The theory is that their wide heads enable them to cover more area as they skim the bottom of the sea, sensing prey hiding in the sand. So some animals certainly can sense magnetic fields.
Now, whether Iraqis can do this for bombs is another matter. I personally believe that there may be something to dowsing. But it's a personal belief, nothing more.
I was wondering the same thing. Didn't NASA do this like six times in the 60's and 70's? Why offer a prize to do something they already know how to do?
Unless they haven't actually done it before... *puts on tinfoil hat*
Whenever you hear that something is being withheld or denied for "National Security Interests", you can assume you are being screwed. Pretty much without regard to context. This was true in United States v. Reynolds, and it's true today.
"Would compromise intelligence" can be used to allow the gov to get away with absolutely anything.
Yes, it can. And it has. And it is. See United States v. Reynolds for the seminal example.
...we no longer have a democracy.
I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore. These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang. It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.
Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days. Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.
I would agree. What we actually have is an oligarchy. Our political choices and boundaries of debate are severely circumscribed. A relatively small group of elites set the policy and terms of debate, while the masses are kept distracted with various sideshows. What I am still trying to figure out is whether it is by design or just a natural outcome of where our system has gone.
Unfortunately, I don't see how we get back to being a republic without major upheval. The existing power structure is entrenched, and many people take it for granted. Most do not question why they get the candidates they do, or why they see the news stories they do (and not others), or what the Federal Reserve really does. So wealth and power will continue to be consolidated in the hands of a few, and the middle class dismantled, until the whole game becomes untenable and something snaps. Then who knows what we'll get?
Good point. Julia Child was CIA after all!
Yes, that kind. I'm gonna go ahead and agree with that. Though it might be expedient, I don't think it's ethical to take advantage of people's ignorance.
I don't think it's a durable strategy anyway. The whole reason our rights are being taken away is that people are more concerned about safety than with their rights (and they're only worried about safety because they've been propagandized). So preserving their rights by taking advantage of a different ignorant panic doesn't solve the root problem. It's catching a fish for a man instead of teaching him to fish.
What What?
Your step-brother might not be all that wrong. Care to post a link to his sight?
Does he have hyperlinks to his eyes? Is this some kind of weird "Being John Malkovich" kind of thing?
I can't speak to the newer versions, but I had a Treo running WM 5 and the thing crashed more than a hollywood stuntman. It was completely stock; no add-ons ever. It crashed multiple times a week. I had the device replaced four times to no avail! Eventually I gave up and got the same phone with the Palm OS. No more problems.
Suspects. The word is suspects. You cannot assume that the people being tracked are criminals. Besides, the ruling states that a warrant must be obtained, not that the police can't track cars with GPS. It provides valuable oversight on a police power that can easily be abused. I live in Massachusetts and this ruling actually makes me feel safer.
Good point. I have often thought this myself. We all can probably think of laws we think are unconstitutional. It would be good to be able to challenge those laws before someone's rights are violated.
Um, I think he was saying that we don't need to grade gym class, not that we don't need gym class. I would agree; make it pass/fail based on attendance and participation.
Big Media is currently a tool used by corporations to shape public opinion to their liking. We would be better off with a bunch of smaller outfits gathering the news (maybe like talkingpointsmemo.com) and providing a diversity of views, rather than a small group deciding what the news is according to a narrow definition of acceptable discourse.
"The idea of legal representation is to ESTABLISH THE TRUTH. It's a very strange notion that proving some truth is not helping the client. Justice is supposed to be based on the notion that ethical behaviour benefits all, and that if a person steps off that path, they should be helped or even forced back onto it, since they will become harmful to others AS WELL AS themselves."
I disagree. The idea of legal representation is to have your client's side represented. A lawyer does not establish the truth; he defends his client.
I know it's nice to think that our justice system tries to get to the truth. But really there are two sides, each trying to make a better argument than the other to convince the jury of their case. The only thing established is guilt, or not-guilt.
You know, I hear this sentiment a lot. And I wonder what makes people think that the intelligence services are so incompetent. I mean, they are well organized and very well funded. They recruit from the top ranks of industry, academia and the military. Sure, we hear about some of their mistakes and hang-outs. But the vast, vast majority of their activities never see the light of day. So why do people think they can't find their ass with a flashlight? If it turns out to be some kid, or group of criminals behind the attack, you will believe it. But multi-billion dollar, top-secret organizations with agents at all levels in all walks of life, that recruit from the elite of society and have been shown to hew to their own agenda? Nah, that's too far fetched.
Actually, that's how non-counterfeit dollars work too.
You do understand that the poor vote tallying abilities of those machines is a feature and not a bug, right?
How's this for objectivity: There is no way I am letting the federal government track my every move in my car. Actually, I don't care if that's objective or not...
Yeah, that was the first thing that popped into my head. But what do I know?
No, the fact is that people will pay for convenience. We do it every day. It is a hassle to grow your own pot. I know; I've done it. Why would I bother with the time and expense of setting up a grow area, managing the growing process, harvesting, drying, and setting up crop rotation when I could just go down to the smoke shop? Some will grow it as a hobby, just as some people brew beer. But most will just buy it.
Besides all that, if it were legal it would likely be much less expensive. The risk of arrest puts a premium on black market offerings.
Yes. That is a good indication that we have bigger problems and do not live in a free society.