Ok, fine - you think Singer's thinking about morality to be inconsistent and/or weird.
Singer doesn't represent PETA. He's not on their board and isn't one of their spokespersons. Some of PETA's supporters may (speculatively, with no evidence provided) buy Singer's thinking - acceptance of Singer's moral views is by no means universal among PETA's membership or the larger world of animal rights supporters.
That's a commonly held misconception. They're in favor of ethical treatment of animals, which for them precludes farming. PETA actually offers free euthanasia for sick animals for people that can't afford to have it done by vets.
As for abortion, it's highly ironic that many of those who get riled up by killing of a pre-human lump of cells are just fine with their government getting into a non-defensive war and driving up food prices around the world through it's subsidy of corn based ethanol. There's this weird paradox in the pro-life movement that unborn life is elevated to sacredness but actual humans living on earth already who have memories and consciousness can be chucked aside without protest.
The French were far more interested in selling Mirage fighters, Alcatel telecomm equipment and securing beneficial oil deals for TotalFinaElf as they were in preventing the clusterfuck that is/was Iraq.
The US was far more interested in going to war so they could create a US-friendly client state in the region, and so that US corporations could get a piece of the reconstruction and oil exploitation action, than about any of the bullshit about Al Qaida being in league with Saddam Hussein or his having weapons of mass destruction. And if you complain that's unsubstantiated conspiracy talk, I point out that it's no less well supported than your assertions about the motivations of the French.
But somehow by guessing the outcome correctly, the French have somehow been elevated to experts in foreign policy as well as possessing some kind of moral enlightenment. Neither is true.
I didn't elevate the French to the status of morally enlightened people, though it's easier to wrestle with a straw man. As for guessing the outcome correctly, it might have seemed like an oracular matter of guesswork to you, but a lot of us (liberals) saw it coming. When Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were saying we'd be greeted as liberators and that we'd be in and out quickly, and that reconstruction would pay for itself, we didn't buy it. Because it was silly, unrealistic bullshit. And I remember having conservative/dittohead coworkers tell me I was an idiot.
Truth is, conservatives got stupid over Iraq. They actually believed the happy talk about how easy it'd be. And then the Bush administration made sure it'd fail by putting ideologically correct people in positions of power in preference to people that knew what the fuck they were talking about. Iraq's a completely GOP created disaster. This is exactly what happens when you let the modern conservative movement control stuff - they completely screw it up from beginning to end.
None of which contradicts the point of the post, that the whole anti-French thing in the lead up to the Iraq war was because they dared to say that they thought the case for war was stupid.
You might not like the French, but they were still right about Iraq.
I never said that there wasn't support for the war, or even that a majority didn't support it.
The original poster said "And 5 years ago just about every American was in favor of war against Iraq" which is not true. The polls you cite put the numbers at around 2/3 support (at the peak), which is a lot, but not "just about every."
And you didn't hear from those of us who didn't support the war and had an inkling what a debacle it was going to be, except that ridicule would then be heaped upon that person. And many those who supported this thing still don't want to admit what a fucking pointless mistake it was.
And 5 years ago just about every American was in favor of war against Iraq, and boycotting French goods due to their being "against us" in the UN?
Not true, really. A lot of Americans were either ambivalent or against the war. It's just that our news media decided that they supported the war and that serious foreign policy thinkers were those that 1) supported the war, and 2) show up in the same cozy Washington/NYC cocktail party circuit as the reporters. Part of this was because the Republican party made damn sure to question the patriotism and intelligence of anyone who didn't strictly believe the Bush administration's bullshit.
One day, I hope to have a full accounting of exactly how intentionally bullshitty the case for war really was, as well as some nice war crimes trials in the Hague for the responsible party. I'll not be holding my breath.
The larynx isn't really that important for producing vowel sounds - the length of the vocal tract above the larynx (or more specifically, above the vocal folds), plus the change in shape and volume that can be made (with the tongue, movement of the jaw, and to some degree, by passing air through velum into the nasal passages) are far more significant in terms of producing a variety of vowel sounds. Not to say that phonation isn't important, but what makes distinct vowels in modern human speech is mostly manipulation of the resonant chamber.
That said, language in modern humans probably isn't at all dependent on speech, though like most things in linguistics that's subject so debate.
I see some posts about how it's not surprising that Neanderthal speech wasn't surprising, and what did they expect, poetry?
This research isn't about what the Neanderthals said - it's about the kinds of sounds they were able to produce with their vocal tracts (or Liberman's models of them). The lack of subtlety is the lack of the ability to produce recognizably distinct vowel sounds.
Fuck you for turning a story about the Director of the FBI deliberately lying to congress in order to get expanded, unsupervised super-subpoena powers into a left-right story.
9/11 might have scared you to the point where you'll allow the government to do whatever they like with your private life. Many of us, however, aren't nearly so cowardly.
They should continue, "unfortunately, there are a fair amount of countries that don't have access to the sun. "
Really? There are places on earth that have no access to the sun? Where?
Second, even if it's not a suitable way of generating power EVERYWHERE, who cares? It's renewable and non-carbon emitting, and anything that reduces emissions is a good thing. And for places where it is suitable, the excess power can be sold to other places.
Getting modded as insightful for making the point that Apple is acting like Microsoft. The post will be non-insightful because it will completely ignore the fact that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Let me repeat that: the situations are different because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Let me phrase it another way, in deference to your apparent inability to understand the implications of that fact:
Apple ISN'T under government restrictions because of past CRIMINAL behavior. Microsoft IS.
Unless reading comprehension is a difficult matter for the reader, you don't have to bring anything to this article to infer this implication.
is just not correct. If you didn't have to bring anything to it, it'd be an entailment - a purely logical consequence of the truth values of the predicates and terms in the sentence. Implication relies on conversational context and the world knowledge of the speakers; necessarily one has to bring something to the semantic table.
Now to turn to what you said - just now it was:
"An additional benefit of Windows' departure from student library terminals saw the students ease 'hacking the setup to install and play games or trash the operating system."
which is a reasonable inference. It's one I'd draw, and I think the average reader here would come to as well. You can reasonably say that the speaker likely believed that the students have a harder time hacking the non-Windows machines.
But that's not what you said originally:
Are we to infer that non-windows operating systems are unhackable?
That has nothing to do with what the guy said. The guy was talking about the kids and what the effects of deploying the Linux machines in the library were. He didn't make any remarks about Linux (or any other non-Windows OS) being unhackable. The strongest statement one can reasonably make from this - the one you chose to make in your response to my post - is that the "ease" of hacking the systems was reduced.
Do you see the difference? One is a reasonable statement, and the other is a hyperbolic misconstrual of the original text.
Presumably, for you the fact that controlled studies show no difference in the autism rates between children receiving vaccines containing thimerisol and ones without, is a minor inconvenience that ought to be ignored in the interests of pandering to the irrational fear and panic of the ill-informed.
I understand being afraid of potentially causing harm to your child. But a rational look at the facts shows that your kid's at way more risk from the diseases the vaccines prevent, than side-effects from the medications.
These people are angry and want something to take their frustrations out on. The fact that no studies provide any evidence of a link between the vaccines and autism is an minor inconvenience to be ignored!
Scumbag lawyers, shoddy science, willfully ignorant and upset parents - it's a perfect combination.
All the man said was that the students stopped "hacking the setup to install and play games or trash the operating system."
If you infer any more from that statement than that the kids stopped hacking to install games or trash the os, that's about you and whatever you're bringing to your reading of the article.
They'd be able to install software with apt or Synaptic if they had the root account's password, were in the sudoers file, or found a privilege escalation exploit.
Presumably the first two options are disallowed by policy and machine setup. The latter is a hazard of running computers. That's not security through obscurity, that's security through proper setup and patching the OS to make sure exploits are eliminated as they're discovered.
Slashdot Mirror
That right there sounds like some unresolved childhood trauma coming to the surface.
Ok, fine - you think Singer's thinking about morality to be inconsistent and/or weird.
Singer doesn't represent PETA. He's not on their board and isn't one of their spokespersons. Some of PETA's supporters may (speculatively, with no evidence provided) buy Singer's thinking - acceptance of Singer's moral views is by no means universal among PETA's membership or the larger world of animal rights supporters.
That's a commonly held misconception. They're in favor of ethical treatment of animals, which for them precludes farming. PETA actually offers free euthanasia for sick animals for people that can't afford to have it done by vets.
As for abortion, it's highly ironic that many of those who get riled up by killing of a pre-human lump of cells are just fine with their government getting into a non-defensive war and driving up food prices around the world through it's subsidy of corn based ethanol. There's this weird paradox in the pro-life movement that unborn life is elevated to sacredness but actual humans living on earth already who have memories and consciousness can be chucked aside without protest.
Expect non-stop ass paddling and beer bongs. Make sure to bring a swimsuit, as there are frequent wet t-shirt contests as well.
Your mileage may vary, however, as I work at an Ivy League institution.
The US was far more interested in going to war so they could create a US-friendly client state in the region, and so that US corporations could get a piece of the reconstruction and oil exploitation action, than about any of the bullshit about Al Qaida being in league with Saddam Hussein or his having weapons of mass destruction. And if you complain that's unsubstantiated conspiracy talk, I point out that it's no less well supported than your assertions about the motivations of the French.
I didn't elevate the French to the status of morally enlightened people, though it's easier to wrestle with a straw man. As for guessing the outcome correctly, it might have seemed like an oracular matter of guesswork to you, but a lot of us (liberals) saw it coming. When Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were saying we'd be greeted as liberators and that we'd be in and out quickly, and that reconstruction would pay for itself, we didn't buy it. Because it was silly, unrealistic bullshit. And I remember having conservative/dittohead coworkers tell me I was an idiot.
Truth is, conservatives got stupid over Iraq. They actually believed the happy talk about how easy it'd be. And then the Bush administration made sure it'd fail by putting ideologically correct people in positions of power in preference to people that knew what the fuck they were talking about. Iraq's a completely GOP created disaster. This is exactly what happens when you let the modern conservative movement control stuff - they completely screw it up from beginning to end.
Floppy? What's a floppy?
49% of the country voted for the other guy. That's not really a very big majority.
It's easy to sell bullshit to the rubes here.
We'll charge nothing at all for linux and open office, and you're entitled to all upgrades for free.
None of which contradicts the point of the post, that the whole anti-French thing in the lead up to the Iraq war was because they dared to say that they thought the case for war was stupid.
You might not like the French, but they were still right about Iraq.
I never said that there wasn't support for the war, or even that a majority didn't support it.
The original poster said "And 5 years ago just about every American was in favor of war against Iraq" which is not true. The polls you cite put the numbers at around 2/3 support (at the peak), which is a lot, but not "just about every."
And you didn't hear from those of us who didn't support the war and had an inkling what a debacle it was going to be, except that ridicule would then be heaped upon that person. And many those who supported this thing still don't want to admit what a fucking pointless mistake it was.
Not true, really. A lot of Americans were either ambivalent or against the war. It's just that our news media decided that they supported the war and that serious foreign policy thinkers were those that 1) supported the war, and 2) show up in the same cozy Washington/NYC cocktail party circuit as the reporters. Part of this was because the Republican party made damn sure to question the patriotism and intelligence of anyone who didn't strictly believe the Bush administration's bullshit.
One day, I hope to have a full accounting of exactly how intentionally bullshitty the case for war really was, as well as some nice war crimes trials in the Hague for the responsible party. I'll not be holding my breath.
He's the senator from MBNA and Citibank.
Totally different.
The larynx isn't really that important for producing vowel sounds - the length of the vocal tract above the larynx (or more specifically, above the vocal folds), plus the change in shape and volume that can be made (with the tongue, movement of the jaw, and to some degree, by passing air through velum into the nasal passages) are far more significant in terms of producing a variety of vowel sounds. Not to say that phonation isn't important, but what makes distinct vowels in modern human speech is mostly manipulation of the resonant chamber.
That said, language in modern humans probably isn't at all dependent on speech, though like most things in linguistics that's subject so debate.
I see some posts about how it's not surprising that Neanderthal speech wasn't surprising, and what did they expect, poetry?
This research isn't about what the Neanderthals said - it's about the kinds of sounds they were able to produce with their vocal tracts (or Liberman's models of them). The lack of subtlety is the lack of the ability to produce recognizably distinct vowel sounds.
Fuck you for turning a story about the Director of the FBI deliberately lying to congress in order to get expanded, unsupervised super-subpoena powers into a left-right story.
9/11 might have scared you to the point where you'll allow the government to do whatever they like with your private life. Many of us, however, aren't nearly so cowardly.
Asshole.
Really? There are places on earth that have no access to the sun? Where?
Second, even if it's not a suitable way of generating power EVERYWHERE, who cares? It's renewable and non-carbon emitting, and anything that reduces emissions is a good thing. And for places where it is suitable, the excess power can be sold to other places.
Getting modded as insightful for making the point that Apple is acting like Microsoft. The post will be non-insightful because it will completely ignore the fact that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Let me repeat that: the situations are different because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Let me phrase it another way, in deference to your apparent inability to understand the implications of that fact:
Apple ISN'T under government restrictions because of past CRIMINAL behavior. Microsoft IS.
He came in once or twice to talk to the physics classes - nice man.
Condolences to the family.
is just not correct. If you didn't have to bring anything to it, it'd be an entailment - a purely logical consequence of the truth values of the predicates and terms in the sentence. Implication relies on conversational context and the world knowledge of the speakers; necessarily one has to bring something to the semantic table.
Now to turn to what you said - just now it was:
which is a reasonable inference. It's one I'd draw, and I think the average reader here would come to as well. You can reasonably say that the speaker likely believed that the students have a harder time hacking the non-Windows machines.
But that's not what you said originally:
That has nothing to do with what the guy said. The guy was talking about the kids and what the effects of deploying the Linux machines in the library were. He didn't make any remarks about Linux (or any other non-Windows OS) being unhackable. The strongest statement one can reasonably make from this - the one you chose to make in your response to my post - is that the "ease" of hacking the systems was reduced.
Do you see the difference? One is a reasonable statement, and the other is a hyperbolic misconstrual of the original text.
Presumably, for you the fact that controlled studies show no difference in the autism rates between children receiving vaccines containing thimerisol and ones without, is a minor inconvenience that ought to be ignored in the interests of pandering to the irrational fear and panic of the ill-informed.
I understand being afraid of potentially causing harm to your child. But a rational look at the facts shows that your kid's at way more risk from the diseases the vaccines prevent, than side-effects from the medications.
These people are angry and want something to take their frustrations out on. The fact that no studies provide any evidence of a link between the vaccines and autism is an minor inconvenience to be ignored!
Scumbag lawyers, shoddy science, willfully ignorant and upset parents - it's a perfect combination.
All the man said was that the students stopped "hacking the setup to install and play games or trash the operating system."
If you infer any more from that statement than that the kids stopped hacking to install games or trash the os, that's about you and whatever you're bringing to your reading of the article.
They'd be able to install software with apt or Synaptic if they had the root account's password, were in the sudoers file, or found a privilege escalation exploit.
Presumably the first two options are disallowed by policy and machine setup. The latter is a hazard of running computers. That's not security through obscurity, that's security through proper setup and patching the OS to make sure exploits are eliminated as they're discovered.
And why are people trying to avoid him?
Natürlich ist es besser in Deutschland zu leben. Leider bin ich Amerikaner.