it is a new study that looks at temp data from 58-08 and says that a full 80% of the changes in temp is NOT man made, but rather the result of natural environmental cycles
So.... We're currently at the tip of a hockey stick in a long sequence of hockey sticks?
Yes, understood, but there's a difference between having a de-facto *ability* to do something, and having a *right* to do something. A jury that properly carries out its instructions will decide whether a prosecution has proven that the defendant violated the law, not whether the law ought to exist in the first place.
The jury does not have to follow the judges rule or of the law as applied to the trial. The wit, if the jury believes a law to be wrong or a bad law they can disregard the law and rule against it.
Of course, if there were a shred of truth to anything you just said, you'd be able to cite sources that were actually binding, such as the Constitution or USC, rather than sources that merely coincide with your view of the way things ought to be.
Unfortunately, these rights like many our other rights have been eroded.
Or, fortunately, maybe they never existed in the first place, since it does us no good to have an elected legislature that can be usurped by twelve yahoos who elect themselves legislators for a day.
Patents should cover an apparatus or method (the "how"), not the idea (the "what").
Every patent application should first identify the "what", and then identify the "how". If the "how" is obvious after being told the "what", then the "invention" is obvious, no matter how novel or non-obvious the "what" is.
I don't get the part about trying state-sponsored hackers for "war crimes". If you're going to treat this as a form of warfare, then why aren't they (the hackers) ordinary soldiers? Why are they "war criminals"? Why is this a war crime and not just ordinary war?
Because there are no disabled people or people who work from home in the world, right guys?
Err...Disabled people are people....
I was going to ask you what part of GP's response made you think that he thought disabled people weren't people, but then I realized that you mentally parenthesized GP's response incorrectly. He didn't ask:
Because there are no (disabled people or people) who work from home in the world, right guys?
Rather, he asked:
Because there are no (disabled people) or (people who work from home) in the world, right guys?
Personally, I think it's time to design a new version of the English language that's LR(1).
Benjamin Franklin considered all liberty to be essential.
That's ludicrous. The only system of government that considers all liberty essential is, by definition, anarchy.
That's why he said "Essential liberty", not "Essential liberties". "Essential" modifies the concept of liberty itself, not certain particular instances of liberties.
If the word is, as you seem to suggest, a qualifier, then it still distinguishes the essential from the non-essential. I'm much more inclined to believe that his usage was a matter of style, and that he was using "liberty" as a collective noun, like "sand", rather than to believe that he was advocating anarchy.
The solution is to delete the technicality that creates such heartbreaking situations in the first place: birth citizenship.
You don't even need to do that. Is there anything that says the illegal alien parents can't take their children with them when they are being deported? Are they forced to leave their children behind?
Well semantically, the difference between "Experiencing pain" and "Displaying pain behaviours" is so thin as to be non-existent. Might as well assume they're the same thing.
Really? Walk around Manhattan and kick a few cars. Some of them will "scream" at you. Quite loudly, actually. Are they experiencing pain?
Ok, from the summary, filtered a bit to focus on the part I'm taking issue with:
[...] women tend to choose non-math-intensive fields [...] because they [...] prefer less math-intensive fields [...].
Mind you, I am not changing the meaning here by quoting out of context. I'm merely decluttering by removing the parts that make sense already so that the stupid part stands out. What kind of "conclusion" is this?
(My logic is that he made no money off his actions, and they were of absolutly no benefit to him.)
If some kid slashes my tires and spraypaints graffiti on my house, he makes no money off his actions, and they are of absolutely no benefit to him. So, do we arrest him? Or do I have to file a lawsuit?
Slashdot Mirror
it is a new study that looks at temp data from 58-08 and says that a full 80% of the changes in temp is NOT man made, but rather the result of natural environmental cycles
So.... We're currently at the tip of a hockey stick in a long sequence of hockey sticks?
Yes, understood, but there's a difference between having a de-facto *ability* to do something, and having a *right* to do something. A jury that properly carries out its instructions will decide whether a prosecution has proven that the defendant violated the law, not whether the law ought to exist in the first place.
Of course, if there were a shred of truth to anything you just said, you'd be able to cite sources that were actually binding, such as the Constitution or USC, rather than sources that merely coincide with your view of the way things ought to be.
Or, fortunately, maybe they never existed in the first place, since it does us no good to have an elected legislature that can be usurped by twelve yahoos who elect themselves legislators for a day.
I was a "Network Swtiching System Operator/Maintainer." Sounds a lot cooler than it is, trust me.
Man, that must have been REALLY un-cool.
Patents should cover an apparatus or method (the "how"), not the idea (the "what").
Every patent application should first identify the "what", and then identify the "how". If the "how" is obvious after being told the "what", then the "invention" is obvious, no matter how novel or non-obvious the "what" is.
Because if you pass a law against being a dick, we'll all end up in jail at some point.
She was going to be, but it rained on her wedding day.
Sincerely,
youngman.henny@lotusnotes.com
I don't get the part about trying state-sponsored hackers for "war crimes". If you're going to treat this as a form of warfare, then why aren't they (the hackers) ordinary soldiers? Why are they "war criminals"? Why is this a war crime and not just ordinary war?
View it here.
Because there are no disabled people or people who work from home in the world, right guys?
Err...Disabled people are people....
I was going to ask you what part of GP's response made you think that he thought disabled people weren't people, but then I realized that you mentally parenthesized GP's response incorrectly. He didn't ask:
Because there are no (disabled people or people) who work from home in the world, right guys?
Rather, he asked:
Because there are no (disabled people) or (people who work from home) in the world, right guys?
Personally, I think it's time to design a new version of the English language that's LR(1).
Benjamin Franklin considered all liberty to be essential.
That's ludicrous. The only system of government that considers all liberty essential is, by definition, anarchy.
That's why he said "Essential liberty", not "Essential liberties". "Essential" modifies the concept of liberty itself, not certain particular instances of liberties.
If the word is, as you seem to suggest, a qualifier, then it still distinguishes the essential from the non-essential. I'm much more inclined to believe that his usage was a matter of style, and that he was using "liberty" as a collective noun, like "sand", rather than to believe that he was advocating anarchy.
The solution is to delete the technicality that creates such heartbreaking situations in the first place: birth citizenship.
You don't even need to do that. Is there anything that says the illegal alien parents can't take their children with them when they are being deported? Are they forced to leave their children behind?
It really seems to me that in common use "Open Source" *does* now mean you are free to do whatever you want with the source.
If that were the case, there would be no need for an open source license.
If it isn't, Slashdot ain't doin' its job.
BTW, it's "led", not "lead".
"That government is best that governs least."-Thomas Paine
Sadly, we have forgotten Thomas Paine and are the worse for it.
Yes, but Paine didn't have to deal with toxic mortgage assets and investor pyramid schemes.
Well semantically, the difference between "Experiencing pain" and "Displaying pain behaviours" is so thin as to be non-existent. Might as well assume they're the same thing.
Really? Walk around Manhattan and kick a few cars. Some of them will "scream" at you. Quite loudly, actually. Are they experiencing pain?
NASA has a history of bowing to public pressure when it comes to naming things.
and have some other moron (who probably didnt pay his taxes) waiving his arms [...]
-1: Obamahater
I see you're against gun control as well.
Ok, from the summary, filtered a bit to focus on the part I'm taking issue with:
[...] women tend to choose non-math-intensive fields [...] because they [...] prefer less math-intensive fields [...].
Mind you, I am not changing the meaning here by quoting out of context. I'm merely decluttering by removing the parts that make sense already so that the stupid part stands out. What kind of "conclusion" is this?
(My logic is that he made no money off his actions, and they were of absolutly no benefit to him.)
If some kid slashes my tires and spraypaints graffiti on my house, he makes no money off his actions, and they are of absolutely no benefit to him. So, do we arrest him? Or do I have to file a lawsuit?
It may be better but what you emphasize actually proves my point. What is good and what is popular do not always align.
In fact, usually the dot-product is negative.
Marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits.
...Stores?!?
Real-estate agents?
Who, in God's name, believes that? Please tell us who gets their internet service from Google.
So, your opponent got THREE TIMES as many votes (9) as you did (3), and you consider that a small margin?