There's are rules against killing people too that clearly didn't prevent this tragedy, but you think a rule against carrying a gun into the building would have made this guy turn around and walk away???
If only there were powerful unions looking out for the best interests of teachers...
By and large teachers get what they fight for. That they spend their time/resources fighting to keep administrations from firing the incompetent is on them.
Just this week my employer told me to update my benefit information on an external site hosted by the provider they use. It required SSNs for my beneficiaries and medical history for me and my spouse. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that this information would be private even if done over my employers hardware and network. If my employer is capturing this information and storing it somewhere I would like to know, and more importantly I'd like some assurance that it's staying private, and not everyone in IT has access to it.
The US spends more than 3 times the next closest country on stem cell research. Government funding of stem cell research even increased during the Bush years. Let's not let the facts get in the way though simply because you don't understand what the policy was and the difference between embryonic stem cells and the kind discussed in the article...
You're placing zero value on things like health insurance, disability insurance, sick leave, vacation time, etc... that you "earn" when you work full time at your local retailer. Most of these modeling jobs are day work and don't come with the benefits that you'd get with full time work (even at a lowly fast food joint or retailer.)
I don't understand why this was legal. Had the non-encrypted wireless transmissions they captured been voice wouldn't that have been covered under current wiretapping laws? If so, why is this different? Not trying to troll, just wondering why non-encrypted wireless data communications transmitted over the air are assumed free game.
Also, what if they were capturing encrypted communications over an open wifi signal (ie, someone browsing an HTTPS site.) Wouldn't they have still captured that data? Does it make a difference now that they are capturing encrypted packets?
If you walked up and shot someone in cold blood (which is what people seem to claim zimmerman did) then you wouldn't expect to have any injuries at all, and you certainly wouldn't expect eyewitnesses to testify that they saw a struggle.
"From back when Hollywood bad guys weren't all from the Middle East."
Funny, most of the crap that hollywood puts out today seems to go out of its way to not use Arabs or Muslims as the bad guy. Aliens, viruses, and angry/greedy/Christian white men have all played the bad guy more than "brown people" in recent memory. Just taking a quick look through rotten tomatoes I'm having a hard time finding anything in theaters or recently released on DVD that has a Middle Eastern bad guy.
You can play that game all day. If not but for oxygen the arsonist wouldn't have been able to create a fire, but it's still the arsonists fault. If not but for automobiles there would have been no accident at all, that doesn't absolve the bus drivers of following too close and/or being inattentive.
I've not seen much "revision" coming from evolutionary science in the past 20 years. Right now the global climate predictions change more often than the weather. Add to that the fact that there's a vocal group of pseudo scientists out there that likes to tell us climate change is responsible for every weather event when the NOAA tells us otherwise and I simply don't think we know enough to reliably predict and model the weather for the planet. The science is too young and certainly too political for me to put any faith in it at all at this point.
Maybe 5 years from now they won't be revising every chart in every "peer reviewed" paper every 6 months and changing the hottest day on record from this day to that one and I'll believe they've figured it out, but until then I'll continue to be suspect of ever changing numbers that seem to be linked more to funding efforts than the actual climate.
Yeah, because evolution and AGW are the same thing...
It's one thing to look at the fossil record and say you don't believe in evolution and another altogether to look at global climate science and say "Do I trust the people who have a financial interest in this to tell me the truth." or "Do I understand all the science that's being used to explain global climate change and if not do I take it on Faith that everything the "scientists" tell me is true and they truly have accounted for every variable that affects climate on a global scale."
Sounds pretty much exactly like something an Evangelical Christian would say...
It's also interesting to note that AGW church members only see 2 sides to the issue (which also is eerily similar to religious proselytizers.) You either believe or you're a denier. There's no room for any other position.
In a recent story I mentioned that while I'm not convinced that everything being reported about AGW is true I do my best to protect the environment. However, this isn't enough for the AGW crowd. It's not enough that I do everything they think I should, I have to believe exactly as they do too. AGW "believers" are the new Evangelical Christians.
I wonder how much the gov't subsidizes students on average per year at public schools. Could the difference between what in-state tuition is and for-profit tuition is be because we the taxpayer are picking up half the tab of in-state school students?
Personally I'd like to see student loans restricted to degrees that have some value. Want to study dead languages? Fine, do it on your own dime.
Well then, as long as you did the math. I guess global climate is really as simple as 2+2=4...
I'm sorry if I don't believe you or any other scientist has a perfect understanding of the planet or even perfect information which can be plugged into your perfect formula to come to a perfect conclusion. I do however believe that climate "scientists" are a self-selective lot. I've actually met a few of them, and without exception they were environmentalists BEFORE they were scientists. There's nothing wrong with environmentalism just as there's nothing wrong with vegetarianism, but I'm not going to ask a vegan where to get the best steak. Add to that fact that climate science is now big business and I find their conclusions just as suspect as an OS security report paid for by Microsoft.
I guess I never answered the OPs question though. If in 20 years I believe the science is conclusive that AGW is real, measurable, and detrimental then I'll just continue living my life. Like I said, there are plenty of non-AGW reasons to use fewer natural resources and take care of our planet. If I believed in AGW today I wouldn't live my life any differently than I currently am.
I'm what many people might call a "denier" even though I believe the earth is getting warmer. I'm just not convinced that 1) humans are making a measurable effect on the climate, 2) we can do anything about it if we are, and 3) it's something to really worry about (who says the current temperature is the perfect temperature for the planet?)
However, that doesn't mean that I don't recycle and do everything I can to reduce my environmental impact. Personally I think if less time and energy were spent trying to convince everyone the sky is falling because of AGW and more time were spent reminding people that having clean air and water is enough reason to take care of our environment then we might get somewhere.
Your idea of family differs a bit from mine. My aunts and uncles weren't responsible for raising me. Neither were my grandparents. I wonder, in your family does your grandparents take $$$ from your parents and their siblings and redistribute it to you and your cousins?
If you can't see why California making decisions and taking financial responsibility for local issues in California is better than Florida and New York making those decisions for California then there's really no room for discussion...
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like that ultraviolent Switzerland?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
There's are rules against killing people too that clearly didn't prevent this tragedy, but you think a rule against carrying a gun into the building would have made this guy turn around and walk away???
If only there were powerful unions looking out for the best interests of teachers...
By and large teachers get what they fight for. That they spend their time/resources fighting to keep administrations from firing the incompetent is on them.
It certainly isn't a lack of funding holding teachers in the US back... http://mat.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/
Just this week my employer told me to update my benefit information on an external site hosted by the provider they use. It required SSNs for my beneficiaries and medical history for me and my spouse. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that this information would be private even if done over my employers hardware and network. If my employer is capturing this information and storing it somewhere I would like to know, and more importantly I'd like some assurance that it's staying private, and not everyone in IT has access to it.
I guess it's a good thing Bush increased spending on this kind of stem cell research then...
The US spends more than 3 times the next closest country on stem cell research. Government funding of stem cell research even increased during the Bush years. Let's not let the facts get in the way though simply because you don't understand what the policy was and the difference between embryonic stem cells and the kind discussed in the article...
another Slashdot article not about embryonic stem cells where the masses get confused and show their ignorance and anti-American prejudice...
You're placing zero value on things like health insurance, disability insurance, sick leave, vacation time, etc... that you "earn" when you work full time at your local retailer. Most of these modeling jobs are day work and don't come with the benefits that you'd get with full time work (even at a lowly fast food joint or retailer.)
Time to get a job at Amazon because apparently they don't pay any taxes...
who knew?
I don't understand why this was legal. Had the non-encrypted wireless transmissions they captured been voice wouldn't that have been covered under current wiretapping laws? If so, why is this different? Not trying to troll, just wondering why non-encrypted wireless data communications transmitted over the air are assumed free game.
Also, what if they were capturing encrypted communications over an open wifi signal (ie, someone browsing an HTTPS site.) Wouldn't they have still captured that data? Does it make a difference now that they are capturing encrypted packets?
If you walked up and shot someone in cold blood (which is what people seem to claim zimmerman did) then you wouldn't expect to have any injuries at all, and you certainly wouldn't expect eyewitnesses to testify that they saw a struggle.
Neville Chamberlain couldn't have said it better.
"From back when Hollywood bad guys weren't all from the Middle East."
Funny, most of the crap that hollywood puts out today seems to go out of its way to not use Arabs or Muslims as the bad guy. Aliens, viruses, and angry/greedy/Christian white men have all played the bad guy more than "brown people" in recent memory. Just taking a quick look through rotten tomatoes I'm having a hard time finding anything in theaters or recently released on DVD that has a Middle Eastern bad guy.
You can play that game all day. If not but for oxygen the arsonist wouldn't have been able to create a fire, but it's still the arsonists fault. If not but for automobiles there would have been no accident at all, that doesn't absolve the bus drivers of following too close and/or being inattentive.
I've not seen much "revision" coming from evolutionary science in the past 20 years. Right now the global climate predictions change more often than the weather. Add to that the fact that there's a vocal group of pseudo scientists out there that likes to tell us climate change is responsible for every weather event when the NOAA tells us otherwise and I simply don't think we know enough to reliably predict and model the weather for the planet. The science is too young and certainly too political for me to put any faith in it at all at this point.
Maybe 5 years from now they won't be revising every chart in every "peer reviewed" paper every 6 months and changing the hottest day on record from this day to that one and I'll believe they've figured it out, but until then I'll continue to be suspect of ever changing numbers that seem to be linked more to funding efforts than the actual climate.
Yeah, because evolution and AGW are the same thing...
It's one thing to look at the fossil record and say you don't believe in evolution and another altogether to look at global climate science and say "Do I trust the people who have a financial interest in this to tell me the truth." or "Do I understand all the science that's being used to explain global climate change and if not do I take it on Faith that everything the "scientists" tell me is true and they truly have accounted for every variable that affects climate on a global scale."
Sounds pretty much exactly like something an Evangelical Christian would say...
It's also interesting to note that AGW church members only see 2 sides to the issue (which also is eerily similar to religious proselytizers.) You either believe or you're a denier. There's no room for any other position.
Has AGW been recognized as a religion yet?
In a recent story I mentioned that while I'm not convinced that everything being reported about AGW is true I do my best to protect the environment. However, this isn't enough for the AGW crowd. It's not enough that I do everything they think I should, I have to believe exactly as they do too. AGW "believers" are the new Evangelical Christians.
I wonder how much the gov't subsidizes students on average per year at public schools. Could the difference between what in-state tuition is and for-profit tuition is be because we the taxpayer are picking up half the tab of in-state school students?
Personally I'd like to see student loans restricted to degrees that have some value. Want to study dead languages? Fine, do it on your own dime.
Well then, as long as you did the math. I guess global climate is really as simple as 2+2=4...
I'm sorry if I don't believe you or any other scientist has a perfect understanding of the planet or even perfect information which can be plugged into your perfect formula to come to a perfect conclusion. I do however believe that climate "scientists" are a self-selective lot. I've actually met a few of them, and without exception they were environmentalists BEFORE they were scientists. There's nothing wrong with environmentalism just as there's nothing wrong with vegetarianism, but I'm not going to ask a vegan where to get the best steak. Add to that fact that climate science is now big business and I find their conclusions just as suspect as an OS security report paid for by Microsoft.
I guess I never answered the OPs question though. If in 20 years I believe the science is conclusive that AGW is real, measurable, and detrimental then I'll just continue living my life. Like I said, there are plenty of non-AGW reasons to use fewer natural resources and take care of our planet. If I believed in AGW today I wouldn't live my life any differently than I currently am.
I'm what many people might call a "denier" even though I believe the earth is getting warmer. I'm just not convinced that 1) humans are making a measurable effect on the climate, 2) we can do anything about it if we are, and 3) it's something to really worry about (who says the current temperature is the perfect temperature for the planet?)
However, that doesn't mean that I don't recycle and do everything I can to reduce my environmental impact. Personally I think if less time and energy were spent trying to convince everyone the sky is falling because of AGW and more time were spent reminding people that having clean air and water is enough reason to take care of our environment then we might get somewhere.
I think the argument is most of the adult population already has HPV so it's too late for them.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-03/oral-sex-may-cause-virus-linked-throat-cancer-in-men-study.html
Your idea of family differs a bit from mine. My aunts and uncles weren't responsible for raising me. Neither were my grandparents. I wonder, in your family does your grandparents take $$$ from your parents and their siblings and redistribute it to you and your cousins?
If you can't see why California making decisions and taking financial responsibility for local issues in California is better than Florida and New York making those decisions for California then there's really no room for discussion...