I hereby claim your prize: "Spending" occurs in somebody else's district and/or is contracted with their largest campaign donors. "Investment" occurs in my district and/or is contract with my largest campaign donors.
It's sort of like how some adjectives change depending on who you're talking about: I'm persistent. You're stubborn. That guy over there is a pig-headed fool.
I'm going to make the case for putting "incentivize" near or at the top, because it's quite common, and used to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
For instance, when a politician talks about incentivizing investment, what he really means is that he wants to lower the capital gains tax. When a marketing executive says he wants to incentivize customer engagement, he means something along the lines of increasing sales with a "win a free iPod" contest or something similar. When somebody talks about incentivizing employees, they're talking about making coworkers compete each other for a limited number of perks (or remaining head count after a layoff) in the hopes that all employees work harder. And when a loan shark talks about incentivizing borrowers, he means breaking kneecaps.
That's not true and you know it. If an 80-year-old woman came up to you and asked "Sex?", you'd probably leave very very quickly. Also, some guys don't just sleep with anything they can and want to evaluate potential partners for being decent-looking, reasonably healthy, and not crazy before jumping into bed.
Some real reasons women might be happier (as always, variations within a gender are much wider than variations between an average man and an average woman): - Women tend to do a better job of building up a support network of friends and family, so if something goes wrong they have help they can call on. - Moms tend to bond more closely with their children than dads. If you have kids, you're generally happier when you spend more time with them. - As of quite recently, women are more educated than men, and also are more likely to be employed. Material security contributes a great deal towards happiness.
Good idea: Playing a game to have a good time, challenge your mind, and reduce your stress. Bad idea: Playing a game instead of having a good time, boring your mind, and causing stress.
In other words, the moment a game starts interfering with your friends, family, work, marriage, etc, stop now! The game will be there for you if and when you come back to it.
Actually, we haven't, we've just narrowed it down: The other explanation is that the people making those sorts of decisions are more likely to want a circumcision than they are to want a pap smear.
soccer mom texting in her gas guzzling behemoth, when wrecking with a subcompact, tends to survive better than the poor guy in the subcompact
Sort of: The subcompact driver has a significant advantage in avoiding the accident altogether due to better maneuverability and better awareness of road conditions.
Gas will hit $10/gal and the problem will take care of itself.
Well, yes and no: The "yes" part is that yes, gas consumption will drop. The "no" part is that millions of people, particularly rural people, will be unable to get to work or to retailers to buy the things they need.
I agree it would be worth having the price of gas reflect its true cost, but you have to do it in a way that allows people to adjust.
Genesis starts with a formless void that seems to have water, and creates, in order: (1) Light, (2) a dome to separate water in the sky from water below, (3) oceans and land plants, (4) the sun and moon and other lights in the sky, (5) sea creatures, (6) animals and people.
There are several problems with this story that are incompatible with established scientific knowledge, even allowing each "day" to be as long as necessary: 1. The Big Bang happened in a world without water. 2. There is no giant pool of water above the sky, and no dome separates water above from water below. 3. Land plants came long after fish and algae were well-established. 4. The sun definitely existed before any life existed on Earth.
I think your title is incorrect: In Catholicism (and many other Christian sects), 3 = 1 under the right conditions, and anyone who thought differently was branded a heretic in 325 C.E.
I'm sort of curious about what kinds of "public displays of affection" you are talking about from "straight" people?
Take, for instance, kissing your lover on the lips in public. Obviously, it's not something that everyone's doing constantly, but it also definitely happens a fair amount.
It's just like busting a major-league drug dealer: You take away the crack connection in an area, and all that happens is that his competitors move in to take over what was his territory (possible with some people killed while they figure out who controls what).
DMCA takedown notices must have a statement, under the penalty of perjury, that you represent the copyright owner.
But they do have copyright, on their version of my song, which is somewhat different from mine. The thing is, if somebody besides me and them record a performance of it, who's song is that, mine or theirs? What if the performer put my notes to their modified lyrics, or vice versa?
No - I want non-commercial use to be freely available to anyone who wants it, and commercial use to be restricted to those who pay for it. Under CC-NC, for instance, if a church choir wants to sing my stuff on a Sunday morning, they can download and print off copies and sing it without worrying about copyright, which they can't do if it's under normal copyright. If a folk singer gets up and sings one of my songs in a coffeeshop open mike night, that's A-OK, but if Bruce Springsteen performs it in an arena that's a different story.
So free for amateurs, free for charities, free for pros to sing at their kitchen table, but not free if you're going to sell it.
In the 1990s that was an extremely radical thing to do. Gay people had been mostly closeted up until then, with the exception of neighborhoods like Castro. It also wasn't a safe thing to do: gay people lost their jobs and got beaten or killed or arrested for being gay. And if you ask them, you'll notice that they still don't feel very comfortable engaging in the kinds of public displays of affection that straight couples take for granted.
Those extremists provide real value to their cause.
Pretend, for a moment, that society has to pick a number on a scale from 0-100. Right now, public opinion on average thinks the number should be around 40, and mainstream media generally considers it acceptable to discuss proposals that involve numbers as low as 25 and as high as 55. Now, suppose there's well-funded group A that thinks this number should be 0, and a well-funded group B that thinks this number should be 80, and both have legitimate and reasonable-sounding arguments for holding their respective position. If group A adopts the moderate approach, they'll advocate for 25. If group B adopts the extremist approach, they'll advocate for 80. If both groups have equally convincing arguments and can get their message out equally, the public opinion will shift not from 40 down to 25 but from 40 to 52, because group B has successfully convinced a significant number of people that it's reasonable and socially acceptable to think that numbers in the 55-80 range are right.
A practical example of this in action: 20 years ago, gay marriage or gay civil union was unthinkable in the US. In general, 'respectable' liberal political groups didn't want to touch the issue at all, because what was considered the range of acceptable opinion was a spectrum from "Ok, the police shouldn't be able to arrest gay people and throw them in jail for being gay" to "Beat 'em up and force them to be straight". But the less respectable gay rights folks kept up the pressure for gay marriage to be legal, as complete extremists and nutjobs for at least a decade. And by doing that, the idea started entering popular culture, and eventually got some political decisions going their way, and now is legal in many places and has the support of over half of Americans.
I'm someone who writes and publishes music under CC-NC-SA. Since I'm doing artistic stuff rather than engineering stuff with it, it's possible my perspective is a bit different, but I suspect the argument will apply just as well.
I'm not afraid someone will do it better. I'm afraid that some organization will take what I've given away, copy it, make a token modification, and copyright it, thus turning the work that I made as a gift into something that has a price on it, all without paying me a dime. They might even be able to turn around and issue DMCA takedowns and sue people for performing my work, claiming that they're really performing their version rather than my version. They've now taken free artistic work and made it no longer free. In other words, they aren't really adding any value at all, just taking value from me and from the public and declaring it theirs.
An illustrative case: Pete Seeger took biblical verses and wrote the song Turn, Turn, Turn, releasing it into the public domain. Several other folk musicians performed it, and it gained in popularity, and Pete finally recorded it in 1962. In 1965, the Byrds recorded it, and now most people who've heard of the song think that they wrote it originally, and some others think Bob Dylan wrote it. Had Pete Seeger not been a relatively well-known figure, it's quite possible his contribution would have been forgotten entirely.
If somebody wants to take my stuff and use it in a commercial project, releasing it under CC-NC-SA doesn't say they can't do it, it just says that they need to get in touch with me and work out some sort of arrangement. In practical terms, it means that if someone else wants to sing my song among friends or something, they can just do it, but if somebody wants to put it on an album or book or something like that, we need to talk about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, you're saying that the "sanitation engineers" riding around on trucks don't have 5 years of post-secondary education?
Don't forget criminal law: "reasonable doubt" and "reasonable suspicion" are both key concepts.
Win a prize if you can spot the difference.
I hereby claim your prize:
"Spending" occurs in somebody else's district and/or is contracted with their largest campaign donors. "Investment" occurs in my district and/or is contract with my largest campaign donors.
It's sort of like how some adjectives change depending on who you're talking about: I'm persistent. You're stubborn. That guy over there is a pig-headed fool.
I'm going to make the case for putting "incentivize" near or at the top, because it's quite common, and used to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
For instance, when a politician talks about incentivizing investment, what he really means is that he wants to lower the capital gains tax. When a marketing executive says he wants to incentivize customer engagement, he means something along the lines of increasing sales with a "win a free iPod" contest or something similar. When somebody talks about incentivizing employees, they're talking about making coworkers compete each other for a limited number of perks (or remaining head count after a layoff) in the hopes that all employees work harder. And when a loan shark talks about incentivizing borrowers, he means breaking kneecaps.
Never sleep with a woman with a woman who has more problems than you do.
Actually, I wouldn't mind being the comfort of a woman who's girlfriend is messed up, so long as the woman herself isn't messed up too.
That's not true and you know it. If an 80-year-old woman came up to you and asked "Sex?", you'd probably leave very very quickly. Also, some guys don't just sleep with anything they can and want to evaluate potential partners for being decent-looking, reasonably healthy, and not crazy before jumping into bed.
Some real reasons women might be happier (as always, variations within a gender are much wider than variations between an average man and an average woman):
- Women tend to do a better job of building up a support network of friends and family, so if something goes wrong they have help they can call on.
- Moms tend to bond more closely with their children than dads. If you have kids, you're generally happier when you spend more time with them.
- As of quite recently, women are more educated than men, and also are more likely to be employed. Material security contributes a great deal towards happiness.
Oh, come on. Are you saying they're going to throw rocks at us from space?
Good idea: Playing a game to have a good time, challenge your mind, and reduce your stress.
Bad idea: Playing a game instead of having a good time, boring your mind, and causing stress.
In other words, the moment a game starts interfering with your friends, family, work, marriage, etc, stop now! The game will be there for you if and when you come back to it.
Actually, we haven't, we've just narrowed it down: The other explanation is that the people making those sorts of decisions are more likely to want a circumcision than they are to want a pap smear.
Oh, I'm absolutely a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic Church. In a different era, I would have been burned at the stake years ago.
Of course, your point seems awfully similar to this kind of argument:
It's a shoe! No, it's a sandal!
Nah, they just behave differently because they're full of hot air.
soccer mom texting in her gas guzzling behemoth, when wrecking with a subcompact, tends to survive better than the poor guy in the subcompact
Sort of: The subcompact driver has a significant advantage in avoiding the accident altogether due to better maneuverability and better awareness of road conditions.
Gas will hit $10/gal and the problem will take care of itself.
Well, yes and no: The "yes" part is that yes, gas consumption will drop. The "no" part is that millions of people, particularly rural people, will be unable to get to work or to retailers to buy the things they need.
I agree it would be worth having the price of gas reflect its true cost, but you have to do it in a way that allows people to adjust.
The primary conflict is in the details.
Genesis starts with a formless void that seems to have water, and creates, in order: (1) Light, (2) a dome to separate water in the sky from water below, (3) oceans and land plants, (4) the sun and moon and other lights in the sky, (5) sea creatures, (6) animals and people.
There are several problems with this story that are incompatible with established scientific knowledge, even allowing each "day" to be as long as necessary:
1. The Big Bang happened in a world without water.
2. There is no giant pool of water above the sky, and no dome separates water above from water below.
3. Land plants came long after fish and algae were well-established.
4. The sun definitely existed before any life existed on Earth.
I think your title is incorrect: In Catholicism (and many other Christian sects), 3 = 1 under the right conditions, and anyone who thought differently was branded a heretic in 325 C.E.
I'm sort of curious about what kinds of "public displays of affection" you are talking about from "straight" people?
Take, for instance, kissing your lover on the lips in public. Obviously, it's not something that everyone's doing constantly, but it also definitely happens a fair amount.
It's just like busting a major-league drug dealer: You take away the crack connection in an area, and all that happens is that his competitors move in to take over what was his territory (possible with some people killed while they figure out who controls what).
Well, that's fine and all; you're a Myers-Briggs type "I" for "introvert".
He can't be *that* introverted, if he's having to decide between his wife and his girlfriend.
DMCA takedown notices must have a statement, under the penalty of perjury, that you represent the copyright owner.
But they do have copyright, on their version of my song, which is somewhat different from mine. The thing is, if somebody besides me and them record a performance of it, who's song is that, mine or theirs? What if the performer put my notes to their modified lyrics, or vice versa?
No - I want non-commercial use to be freely available to anyone who wants it, and commercial use to be restricted to those who pay for it. Under CC-NC, for instance, if a church choir wants to sing my stuff on a Sunday morning, they can download and print off copies and sing it without worrying about copyright, which they can't do if it's under normal copyright. If a folk singer gets up and sings one of my songs in a coffeeshop open mike night, that's A-OK, but if Bruce Springsteen performs it in an arena that's a different story.
So free for amateurs, free for charities, free for pros to sing at their kitchen table, but not free if you're going to sell it.
Because gay people quit hiding
In the 1990s that was an extremely radical thing to do. Gay people had been mostly closeted up until then, with the exception of neighborhoods like Castro. It also wasn't a safe thing to do: gay people lost their jobs and got beaten or killed or arrested for being gay. And if you ask them, you'll notice that they still don't feel very comfortable engaging in the kinds of public displays of affection that straight couples take for granted.
If some big studio takes your work and makes a great game out of it, isn't it what you want as an artist?
In that scenario, an artist wants to get paid, ideally an appropriate percentage of the gross profits.
Those extremists provide real value to their cause.
Pretend, for a moment, that society has to pick a number on a scale from 0-100. Right now, public opinion on average thinks the number should be around 40, and mainstream media generally considers it acceptable to discuss proposals that involve numbers as low as 25 and as high as 55. Now, suppose there's well-funded group A that thinks this number should be 0, and a well-funded group B that thinks this number should be 80, and both have legitimate and reasonable-sounding arguments for holding their respective position. If group A adopts the moderate approach, they'll advocate for 25. If group B adopts the extremist approach, they'll advocate for 80. If both groups have equally convincing arguments and can get their message out equally, the public opinion will shift not from 40 down to 25 but from 40 to 52, because group B has successfully convinced a significant number of people that it's reasonable and socially acceptable to think that numbers in the 55-80 range are right.
A practical example of this in action: 20 years ago, gay marriage or gay civil union was unthinkable in the US. In general, 'respectable' liberal political groups didn't want to touch the issue at all, because what was considered the range of acceptable opinion was a spectrum from "Ok, the police shouldn't be able to arrest gay people and throw them in jail for being gay" to "Beat 'em up and force them to be straight". But the less respectable gay rights folks kept up the pressure for gay marriage to be legal, as complete extremists and nutjobs for at least a decade. And by doing that, the idea started entering popular culture, and eventually got some political decisions going their way, and now is legal in many places and has the support of over half of Americans.
I'm someone who writes and publishes music under CC-NC-SA. Since I'm doing artistic stuff rather than engineering stuff with it, it's possible my perspective is a bit different, but I suspect the argument will apply just as well.
I'm not afraid someone will do it better. I'm afraid that some organization will take what I've given away, copy it, make a token modification, and copyright it, thus turning the work that I made as a gift into something that has a price on it, all without paying me a dime. They might even be able to turn around and issue DMCA takedowns and sue people for performing my work, claiming that they're really performing their version rather than my version. They've now taken free artistic work and made it no longer free. In other words, they aren't really adding any value at all, just taking value from me and from the public and declaring it theirs.
An illustrative case: Pete Seeger took biblical verses and wrote the song Turn, Turn, Turn, releasing it into the public domain. Several other folk musicians performed it, and it gained in popularity, and Pete finally recorded it in 1962. In 1965, the Byrds recorded it, and now most people who've heard of the song think that they wrote it originally, and some others think Bob Dylan wrote it. Had Pete Seeger not been a relatively well-known figure, it's quite possible his contribution would have been forgotten entirely.
If somebody wants to take my stuff and use it in a commercial project, releasing it under CC-NC-SA doesn't say they can't do it, it just says that they need to get in touch with me and work out some sort of arrangement. In practical terms, it means that if someone else wants to sing my song among friends or something, they can just do it, but if somebody wants to put it on an album or book or something like that, we need to talk about it.
You can't duck heat
... but you can heat duck.