Flawed logic. Take a group, and give them all the benefit of a socialist program,
Flawed logic, assuming that a socialist program is beneficial to all. You're assuming that which needs to be proven.
It's like arguing that beatings are good for children by starting from the position "Take a group, and give them all the benefit of a good beating...".
Yes indeed, this is how dirty politics works. Everyone votes for the whole pile of pork in order to keep the one program that actually benefits them personally.
The continuing resolution that reopened the government contained lots of pork, according to this. Another article talked about a spending increase of $1.2 billion. It's hard to tell, because the money is hidden in the final bill as amendments to previous legislation, saying things like "in place of the number X substitute bigger number Y."
This is a continuing resolution that is supposed to be continuing the previous budget until a new one can be worked out. And wasn't supposed to be negotiated at all. Senate Democrats balked at the first CR that contained extraneous legislation, but this one was just fine. Nobody wanted to deny the widow of Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) her $174,000 payout.
What is hear on the news (CNN, the Daily Show) or from my family is the Tea Party is mostly about bringing back racism.
Well, there you go. CNN has a political bias that is showing, and "The Daily Show" IS A COMEDY PROGRAM. It is Jon Stewart's cash cow. It isn't intended to be news, it is intended to keep his paycheck coming writ large. If you rely on either or both for your news, well, you're not getting the whole, or necessarily true, story. It's like taking a Jay Leno monologue at face value.
Perhaps the fact that CNN International carries "The Daily Show" might point you to the idea that CNN isn't trying to be a news channel anymore, if it ever was. It was Ted Turner's brainchild. The same Ted Turner who married Jane Fonda. The same Jane Fonda who visited the Viet Cong and made pals with them by denouncing the US, while the Viet Nam war was still going on. There can't be any biases in anything they do, can there?
They might be really good at science and math; but they're short on compassion
Short on thinking the government is the source of all compassion. You can't claim that someone is short on compassion because they don't support your enforced-via-taxes government-is-the-only-way compassion model.
and unwilling to admit that they benefited in their youth from programs that are socialist.
Let's see. Everyone is run through those "programs", and only some come out as high achievers and well-paid professionals. If the program were the cause, then everyone would come out the same. Maybe there is something to the concept that some people are different than others and they can excel because of who they are and not the socialist programs they were subjected to?
Were this a true discussion of learning systems, there would be a large number of people expressing their personal datapoint that they didn't need those cookie-cutter systems and we'd be patting them on the back in congratulation that they did well on their own despite the system. When it is your stereotypical TP member, they are being hypocrites for not admitting the cookie-cutter system was how they got where they are.
Scientific knowledge isn't everything when it comes to leadership, management, politics, etc..
Well, if you can't insult "Tea Party" members for their lack of scientific knowledge, find something else and keep slinging.
Face it. The squishy "human factors" matter.
And nothing you've said reduces the "human factors" that Tea Party people have, they just don't fit your personal view as to which human factors are most important. They value personal responsibility as a "squishy human factor" more than you do. They don't think "forced charity" is a reasonable "human factor" (and it isn't really, since the human doesn't get to choose.) Ok.
Now, if I were talking with a whale, you might have an argument, but I kind of doubt that.
"Projection" is a psychological term that means you are assuming someone else has the same feelings and beliefs that you do. For example, you are mad at someone for some reason and based on that you assume they are mad at you.
In this case, you feel the Earth doesn't need you and you project that into a statement that it doesn't need "us". The Earth may very well not need you, I can't speak to that issue. If that is true, you are welcome to leave; the rest of us who want to stay will wave goodbye as you exit.
Large cities do tend to have large airports and large airports tend to have restricted airspace around them,
If they did, nobody could land at them.
You mean they have controlled airspace around them, under the control of various ATCs. The levels of control range from class B (most requirements for use) through class E (not much). G is uncontrolled. These have been around for a long time, unconnected with 9/11.
Why did they start at B instead of A? Class A airspace covers the entire US at and above flight level 180 ("18,000 feet as indicated by a sensitive altimeter set to a standard air pressure of 29.27 inches of mercury"). All pilots who fly there must be on IFR flight plans.
Restricted airspace is a place that nobody is supposed to fly except under very special circumstances. "Within X distance of Air Force One" is one very common bit of restricted airspace. There used to be restricted airspace over the submarine pens up near Seattle. There is now restricted airspace over the White House and other DC stuff.
One that still exists and should probably be cancelled because it is not needed is;
ALL AIRCRAFT AND PARACHUTE OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN A 3 NMR UP TO AND INCLUDING 3000 FT AGL OF ANY STADIUM HAVING A SEATING CAPACITY OF 30,000 OR MORE PEOPLE WHERE EITHER A REGULAR OR POST SEASON MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, OR NCAA DIVISION ONE FOOTBALL GAME IS OCCURRING. THIS NOTAM ALSO APPLIES TO NASCAR SPRINT CUP, INDY CAR,...
The ridiculous part of this rule is that pilots must know 1) where these stadiums are and 2) when a game is taking place, and for college football, 3) is the college an NCAA division one school. (What happens when a Division II school plays a division I? Is the game "Division 1" or "Division 2"?) They aren't marked in any special way on the charts, and there are no standard NOTAMS (notices to airmen) issued for them. Just the one blanket one.
Protip Tiger, we all saw 2012 and we all woke up December 26 2012 didn't we?
If by "we all" you limit yourself to "everyone who is alive to day and reading this particular story in/.", well, yes, you are absolutely correct. Everyone who woke up this morning also probably woke up on December 26, 2012. A very uninteresting statistic.
Now, a more useful reading of your words that isn't quite so self-referential and circular in reasoning would be that you're claiming that everyone in the world woke up that morning, which is patently false. There are 26 documented cases of people who did not wake up on December 26 -- 20 children and six adults in Newtown, CT. Plus an undocumented number of people who woke up on December 25 but didn't wake up on December 26.
It should be noted that even when the second coming occurs, it will be possible for/.rs who want to deny any special event having happened could post, in the first sense of "we all", that "we all woke up on the day after the second coming, didn't we?", implying that nothing special happened that day, and be factually correct in the explicit statement and absurdly wrong in the implied one.
The language written is done to be specific in as few words as possible.
They did not write the amendments to be as short as possible, they wrote them to say what they meant. That takes extra words, sometimes. Like the words you keep ignoring.
The right to be secure in your property
Not "property" in general, four things that aren't all inclusive. Against unreasonable searches and seizures. You keep forgetting these words. They apparently thought the word "unreasonable" was important, otherwise they really could have written it with as few words as you want to accept. And they could have been all-inclusive and said "property", but they chose not to.
If you have a right to be secure in all of those things, then the Government can NOT access any of that data legally unless they follow the Constitution and have a warrant.
"Follow the Constitution" is a very nice way of puttng it, since that is absolutely correct. "Follow s.petry's personal interpretation of the Constitution that has a large number of words elided" would be incorrect. "Unreasonable", not "any and all". And the words that aren't there that you keep trying to put in are the ones that say "a warrant is required for any search", which is incorrect.
They spell out 3 areas of "private" materials which are _yours_ by the Bill of Rights and that the Government can not touch without a warrant.
It's actually four. Persons, houses, papers, and effects. And "unreasonable" keeps appearing in my copy of the Constitution under the part that says what it prohibited, even though it appears to be missing from yours. The government can and does make reasonable searches without warrants all the time. Everything from pat downs when they interview you on the street to look inside your car when they stop you as a driver to empty all your pockets when they arrest you.
Because when it's talking about saving, it's a comparison between a budget and actual cost.
Yeah, that's the politician's trick to turn an increase in spending into a "budget cut" and create fictional balanced budgets based on projected savings thirty years down the road. In real life, "increased cost" is the difference between what you used to pay and what you have to pay now.
If you budget 100 dollars for groceries, and spend 90 and get everything you wanted, then you saved 10 dollars.
And if you used to pay $100 for groceries and now you have to pay $110, but you get things you didn't want because the government said you had to buy them, then the cost went up. People are talking about having to pay more for the same coverage because the exchange rates are higher than the group plans they are already in. That's not a savings, that costing them lots of "thin dimes". And when those group plans are no longer offered because the company decides to drop health insurance for their employees, you can't buy them yourself. How do you keep a plan you are happy with if it isn't sold anymore?
Can you not comprehend English? I gave it to you twice and you keep reverting back to the same nonsense. "The right to be secure in their person".
Thank goodness you put the period outside the quote marks, because the real fourth amendment doesn't end the sentence there. It continues "... against unreasonable searches and seizures,...". Just repeating "secure in their person! secure in their person!" doesn't convey the full meaning of the true fourth amendment.
Do something, except repeat the same nonsense over and over hoping it becomes true.
Be careful when admonishing others that you don't ignore the log in your own eye.
That statement is very clear. You are to be secure against search or seizure of your person, property, papers, and effects unless the Government has a warrant.
That may be your interpretation of the fourth amendment, but the fourth amendment doesn't actually say that in so many words. It implies that there are reasonable searches and does not prohibit the government from conducting those. And it says what is required for issuance of a warrant, but does not clearly say that a warrant is required for every search. By implication then, a warrant is not required for every search.
And you've converted the specific word "houses" into the generic "property". Had the founders intended the amendment to cover all property owned by someone, they could have done what you did -- use the word "property". They chose not to. Certainly in a more agrarian time, they'd have thought "what about barns and stables?" "What about searching a field?" A barn is not a "person, house, paper or effects". Did the founders just forget barns existed, or did they intend to exclude them from the list of things that have a right to be secure against search or seizure?
The warrant requires a court order with someone giving testimony on why the warrant is required, and the warrant must be specific as to what can be searches or siezed.
Almost right. It does not say that a warrant is required for every search. You've kind of admitted you know that when you say that there is a requirement for a statement of why the warrant is required. If it were as simple as "every search requires a warrant", then you'd not need to specify that when you want to get one. It would be insulting the court's intelligence, and wasting its time, to swear upon oath that the reason this warrant is required is because the Constitution requires one for every search.
But you are wrong because the oath or affirmation is not to specify why the warrant is required. That oath or affirmation applies to the probable cause. That's why a warrant is justified.
The requirement for a warrant is rather vague. I'm certain that the people who wrote this amendment knew that when they wrote it, and were it to have meant that a warrant was required for every search, it would have said so.
The wording in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not vague.
The fourth amendment requirement for a warrant is one example of where the Constitution and Bill of Rights is rather vague. The ICC is another. That's why there is a Supreme Court.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-- US Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Just for Reference
You do understand that the majority of the Bill of Rights is not what the Government can't do, but what it can do correct?
Wrong.
Congress shall make no law...
... shall not be infringed.
No soldier shall...
... not be violated. No warrants shall isssue...
No person shall be...
... the accused shall be...
... the right of trial by jury shall be...
Excessive bail shall not...
... shall not be construed to deny...
The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution...
All ten are things the government cannot do.
They wrote down what your rights are, and spelled those rights out meticulously.
And in the Bill of Rights, they did that by saying what the government cannot do. For the right to free speech, the founders did not write "citizens shall have the right to speak on any subject at any time in any venue", they said that the government cannot create rules to abridge the right they already assumed to exist. They didn't have to tell you that you have a right to free speech because that was a given.
One of the few things clearly spelled out that the Government can't do, is that they can not deny you any of your rights!
Citation required. I find no such simple statement anywhere in the Constitution. Maybe I missed it?
Now, please explain how what you said changes the fact that the founders were simple people and could have said things very simply, were that how they intended things to be. The use of the term "unreasonable" implies there is also "reasonable" search (which you can claim a right to be secure against from general principle, but is not stated explicitly) which the fourth amendment does not prohibit the government from conducting. The statement about how warrants shall be obtained does not say that they are required for every search.
I recall that having the first few columns of each line reserved for special uses threw me off the first time I saw it,
That reminds me of more differences between standard FORTRAN compilers. There are compilers that default to free-form input, so your first few columns don' t mean what they used to. There are compilers that default to strict column definitions, so if your line runs past column 72 and it compiles fine with one compiler, don't expect it to compile on any other. And if your free form input runs past column (I forget which) and it compiles fine, another free-form input compiler will barf because it defaults to free-form input lines only shorter than that.
This is a day when standard packages for things come with a configure script and it is usually as simple as saying "./configure; make; make install" and you've got a working whatever. I have yet to see ANY modeling code written in FORTRAN come anywhere close. Most require hand editing of the Makefile to pick a compiler, and even when the Makefile contains references to which compiler was used by the original author, that compiler on YOUR system will gag on various parts. I've had to hand-edit the Makefile not to change the definition of FC, but to add author-provided functions to the lists of "compile me with the free-format flag" source, or "use 132 character free form lines".
This truly is job security for anyone who can debug and decipher crash dumps and wants to work in modeling.
Those great libraries are spread across several different "FORTRAN"s. gfortran. gfortran44. Intel's fortran. f77. f90. PGI pgif90. etc. etc etc.
Gfortran is woooonderful. It allows complete programming idiots to write functional code, since the libraries all do wonderful input error checking. Want to extract a substring from the 1 to -1 character location? gfortran will let you do it. Quite happily. Not a whimper.
PGI pgif90 will not. PGI writes compilers that are intended to do things fast. Input error checking takes time. If you want the 1 to -1 substring, your program crashes. PGI assumes you know not to do something that stupid, and it forces you to write code that doesn't take shortcuts.
So, if you get a program from someone else that runs perfectly for them, and you want to use it for serious work and get it done in a reasonable amount of time so you compile it with pgif90, you may find it crashes for no obvious reason. And then you have to debug seriously stupidly written code wondering how it could ever have worked correctly, until you find that it really shouldn't have worked at all. They want to extract every character in an input line up to the '=', and they never check to see if there wasn't an '=' to start with. 'index' returns zero, and they happily try to extract from 1 to index-1. Memcpy loves that.
The other issue is what is an intrinsic function and what isn't. I've been bitten by THAT one, too.
And someone I work with was wondering why code that used to run fine after being compiled with a certain compiler was now segment faulting when compiled with the same compiler, same data. Switching to the Intel compiler fixed it.
Sigh. But yes, FORTRAN is a de-facto standard language for modeling earth sciences, even if nobody can write it properly.
Regarding wristwatches, they're losing out because how often do you really need to know the time?
All the time. I have places I need to be at a specific time. I also like to know exactly how much time I've wasted posting to/.
People stopped wearing them because they're redundant. I found myself already knowing the time from the last look at my cell,
Isn't that exactly what I said? They're losing their battle to the cellphone which has the time displayed on it's face. Not because the cellphone is more convenient to find out the time from, but because they're more used to doing it that way.
As for me, I know the time I last looked at my cell, but that doesn't tell me what time it is now. "Gosh, I missed my meeting with the Dean because I last looked at my cellphone at 8:32 when I pulled it off the charger and put it in my pocket, and it can't be 11AM yet because my cell said it was 8:32."
So, I can figure out what time it is now in one of several ways, in order of decreasing convenience. 1. Look up at the corner of my screen to see the clock there. 2. Look up above my screen to see the clock radio there. 3. Turn my wrist slightly and look down at my watch. 4. Take my hands away from the keyboard, reach into my pocket, pull out my cellphone, flip it rightside up (since it always seems to come out upside down), press the 1/0 button on the top so it wakes up, and then see the time. Option 3 is easiest overall because it always works. I can be in any meeting and manage a quick glance at my watch without anyone noticing. Option 4 is the hardest. It is an obvious action that shows everyone in the room that I'm considering how much time of mine they are wasting. Sometimes that's not a good thing to let them know.
I think you have to be neurotic or a timekeeper to need to keep an eye on the time to that extent.
Or just someone whose next "appointment" isn't Mom calling down the basement stairs that dinner is ready and stop playing on the computer and go wash your hands.
My local library has 10s of thousands of books, for free, including recent offerings.
That's nice. So does mine. Of course, I have to actually go there, find the one I want (hope it isn't checked out already), wait in line to check it out, and then carry it around for a week while I read it. If I don't get it done, well, too bad, I have to carry it back to the library to turn it back in, or maybe they'll let me check it out for another week. Compare that to "turn on reader, continue reading".
And then, how convenient is the library book when you realize "this guy writes crap" or even "this is really boring", and you want to move on to another book. You're stuck taking it back whether you liked it or not and then getting another one that may turn out the same way. My reader has never taken more than a few seconds to close a boring book and let me pick something else.
And if I want those current books, my library offers them in electronic form, too. Some of those books have joined the 100 free ones on my reader. Almost the same convenience, so almost the same result.
What good does it do me to have 100 in my hands at a time? It's irrelevant when pleasure reading
Hardly irrelevant. Having it with you so you can read it anywhere you are and not thinking "gee, if I had brought that dead-tree book with me I could be finding out the next plot twist...". And then, when you get to the last page you can immediately move on to the next book. Convenient. Making things inconvenient tends to reduce pleasure, I've found.
I have, and will always keep, a paper subscription to a sci fi magazine. At one point, prior to e-versions, I was a year and a half behind. I'd put the latest copy on the shelf when it arrived so I would know where it is, and then never carry one with me. If I did, I'd lose it or it would get damaged and I'
Hershey bars are not supposed to be good chocolate either. They're supposed to last a long time and not get stale.
Hershey built its brand during one of the world wars (WWII, I think) based on creating a chocolate bar that GIs could carry with them and it wouldn't melt in their pockets. The EU locale, being the place that was local to said GIs (even if not called the EU at the time) didn't have to worry about adulterating the chocolate because the GIs could get it fresh. (The latter part is hypothetical and perhaps a bit fictional, but the Hershey part is true.)
Britain is the most challenging European country to find good food in as a visitor, especially in the larger cities.
I'm sorry, wot? The place is littered with chip shops, you almost can't swing a dead haggis without hitting one. And pub grub? Yummmm. A nice shepherd's pie, a Cornish pasty... a pint of Strongbow... oh, man.
there are several huge, expensive franchise restaurants selling average to poor steak for the price of very good steak.
The fact that chains are an ever-present hazard doesn't mean it's hard to find good stuff, just that it is easier than it should be to find crap. Ever since my horrible experience with MickeyD in Japan (teryaki burgers, yuk!) I don't go to any chains when I travel abroad, and certainly not US ones.
Here is a company that does wholesale ready meals (microwave meals) for pubs etc.
Yeah, we're all familiar with Tom Archer and his Ready Meals. I hear they're pretty good. They're almost organic, aren't they?
Just because mice chose Cocaine over Rice, and chose Oreos over Rice, DOES NOT lead to the conclusion that Oreos are the same as Cocaine.
Saying that one thing is just as X as another isn't saying that the two things are the same. "The outside of an oreo is just as brown as the turd from a/. poster" doesn't mean that oreos are the same as your steaming pile. That's basic, fundamental logic you should have learned in GRADE SCHOOL.
There are only TWO possible explanation for this "study".
Or the third, most probable explanation. It was an undergrad science project intended to promote interest in STEM education. And GIRLS in STEM. Did you fail to notice in your haste to rip them a new one that, except for the professor involved, all the people listed in the article were WOMEN?
Hey, here's a novel concept. Not every lab experiment has to be publication quality research for the people involved to learn something, or for it to motivate them to continue their education so they can learn more. Every term there is a lab class that meets outside my office window that drops pop bottles containing dry ice into a large container of water, to demonstrate the physics behind geysers. Boom! Splash! My God! They aren't using controls! They didn't test the effects of just dropping the pop bottle into the water! And the water doesn't have all the dissolved mineral content that geyser water has! The water isn't boiling hot! There aren't any Park Rangers around keeping them on the boardwalks! They can't learn anything from this! It's bad science! Fire everyone involved! Cancel the journal that would publish such nonsense!
But quite frankly I'd argue to vegan that the plant itself grew from soil with animal matter in it anyway
Simpler and more direct than that. Grains can contain by FDA regulation up to certain percentages of insect parts. I've found the little green inchworms in bags of frozen raspberries. Can you really avoid "animal products" even if you're going to be so picky that you'll eschew sugar because it might have been filtered through charcoal made from bones?
This puts it rather succintly.
To avoid all unsavory food components, it seems, would be to stop eating all together.
And when they say "unsavory food components", they're referring to insect and rodent contamination. I.e., animal parts.
Always amazing how those that THINK they know post authoritative statements. There are absolutely categorizations of 'addiction' in the DSM-IV, which just proves you don't know what you are talking about.
So you are saying that the linked reference in the summary doesn't know what it is talking about, since I referred to the statements from there about the DSM. Not surprising. I'd say that article says a lot of things they know nothing about.
The only online references to the DSM-IV I can find refer only to dependencies and don't call them addictions. In any case, a PRESS RELEASE from a college website is going to use the colloquial terminology, which is exactly as I put it. Oreos can, indeed, be addictive in terms a normal human being would use. The tempest in the teapot has been identified and should be ignored.
Perhaps in the same manner that a dmv worker isn't a specialist in driving.
Oooh, an attempt at a car analogy. You mean in the same manner that a journalist isn't a psychologist writing a diagnostic report? And that undergrad college students may not limit their vocabulary to only the strict definition of medical terms?
Nice try at self-importance though.
Thanks. Since you seem to agree with me, I'll take that as a compliment.
You can't just compare something to "drugs" - because different drugs work differently -
The fact that they have differing mechanisms of action doesn't mean you can't compare something to them. And the fact that something isn't technically a drug (tobacco) doesn't mean it can't be addictive and doesn't mean it doesn't in fact contain a drug (nicotine).
and have differing levels of addictive qualities
Here's where the sensationalism of this/. submission can be addressed. The "Motherboard" article goes to great length to disparage this experiment, but also admits that "addiction" isn't mentioned in the DSM-IV. That is a good indication that the term "addiction" can only be used in a common meaning, not some specific psychological diagnosis sense. In common parlance "addiction" means a strong urge to do something, not a pure clinical dependence such as you'd refer to "heroin dependence" as. Common parlance, such as the language a press release for CT College would be written in, for example.
Somewhere there was a comment about being addicted to food. As in, you can't be. Well, yes, you can, in the pure dependence meaning of the term, too. If you don't eat food you suffer extreme withdrawal symptoms. Death can be a final symptom. And you can be addicted to foods in the common language meaning of addiction. Mmmm, I love mint chocolate chip ice cream. I have a strong urge to eat it. If it is anywhere close, I will. Sorry, that was your scoop? You shouldn't leave it on the table.
And, OMG, this isn't a peer reviewed publication. It sounds like it was an advanced undergrad lab experience. You know, undergrads who are there to learn techniques and maybe get excited about, you know, STEM education? You don't peer review independent study or undergrad teaching labs.
I deal with REU where I work. Research Experiences for Undergrads. Yes, sometimes their work is part of a larger project that is published in peer reviewed journals. Most of the time they produce a report and maybe a seminar about what they did and that's as far as it goes. So, no, the fact that it isn't peer reviewed in this case, well, yawn.
Well, at least you finally admit they exist. No, they weren't special cases, they were large scale cases that were high in the hit list when googling "corporate scandal" and they made the top 10 and 25 lists. "Easy to find" doesn't equate to "special cases".
They were not indicted for crimes the company itself committed.
Yes, they were, because they were committed under the guise of that company. "The company" doesn't commit crimes, it is the people who make up companies that can and do. And you've been shown clear examples when the people go to jail for committing crimes as part of that company.
So I stand by my statement, when the CORPORATION commits a crime, the CORPORATION goes to jail.
So yes, when the CEO of a company commits a crime through the company, you want the janitors and the secretaries and everyone else to go to jail, too. What a cruel heartless person you are. The entire corporation, all the people who are part of it, go to jail for the actions of one person. I hope you never work for anyone else and find out the hard way how ridiculous your desire is.
Slashdot Mirror
Flawed logic. Take a group, and give them all the benefit of a socialist program,
Flawed logic, assuming that a socialist program is beneficial to all. You're assuming that which needs to be proven.
It's like arguing that beatings are good for children by starting from the position "Take a group, and give them all the benefit of a good beating...".
but Jon Stewart isn't funny. Not even a little bit.
Are you sure you're in his target demographic? If not, he doesn't have to be. And isn't trying to be.
Yes indeed, this is how dirty politics works. Everyone votes for the whole pile of pork in order to keep the one program that actually benefits them personally.
The continuing resolution that reopened the government contained lots of pork, according to this. Another article talked about a spending increase of $1.2 billion. It's hard to tell, because the money is hidden in the final bill as amendments to previous legislation, saying things like "in place of the number X substitute bigger number Y."
This is a continuing resolution that is supposed to be continuing the previous budget until a new one can be worked out. And wasn't supposed to be negotiated at all. Senate Democrats balked at the first CR that contained extraneous legislation, but this one was just fine. Nobody wanted to deny the widow of Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) her $174,000 payout.
What is hear on the news (CNN, the Daily Show) or from my family is the Tea Party is mostly about bringing back racism.
Well, there you go. CNN has a political bias that is showing, and "The Daily Show" IS A COMEDY PROGRAM. It is Jon Stewart's cash cow. It isn't intended to be news, it is intended to keep his paycheck coming writ large. If you rely on either or both for your news, well, you're not getting the whole, or necessarily true, story. It's like taking a Jay Leno monologue at face value.
Perhaps the fact that CNN International carries "The Daily Show" might point you to the idea that CNN isn't trying to be a news channel anymore, if it ever was. It was Ted Turner's brainchild. The same Ted Turner who married Jane Fonda. The same Jane Fonda who visited the Viet Cong and made pals with them by denouncing the US, while the Viet Nam war was still going on. There can't be any biases in anything they do, can there?
They might be really good at science and math; but they're short on compassion
Short on thinking the government is the source of all compassion. You can't claim that someone is short on compassion because they don't support your enforced-via-taxes government-is-the-only-way compassion model.
and unwilling to admit that they benefited in their youth from programs that are socialist.
Let's see. Everyone is run through those "programs", and only some come out as high achievers and well-paid professionals. If the program were the cause, then everyone would come out the same. Maybe there is something to the concept that some people are different than others and they can excel because of who they are and not the socialist programs they were subjected to?
Were this a true discussion of learning systems, there would be a large number of people expressing their personal datapoint that they didn't need those cookie-cutter systems and we'd be patting them on the back in congratulation that they did well on their own despite the system. When it is your stereotypical TP member, they are being hypocrites for not admitting the cookie-cutter system was how they got where they are.
Scientific knowledge isn't everything when it comes to leadership, management, politics, etc..
Well, if you can't insult "Tea Party" members for their lack of scientific knowledge, find something else and keep slinging.
Face it. The squishy "human factors" matter.
And nothing you've said reduces the "human factors" that Tea Party people have, they just don't fit your personal view as to which human factors are most important. They value personal responsibility as a "squishy human factor" more than you do. They don't think "forced charity" is a reasonable "human factor" (and it isn't really, since the human doesn't get to choose.) Ok.
Now, if I were talking with a whale, you might have an argument, but I kind of doubt that.
"Projection" is a psychological term that means you are assuming someone else has the same feelings and beliefs that you do. For example, you are mad at someone for some reason and based on that you assume they are mad at you.
In this case, you feel the Earth doesn't need you and you project that into a statement that it doesn't need "us". The Earth may very well not need you, I can't speak to that issue. If that is true, you are welcome to leave; the rest of us who want to stay will wave goodbye as you exit.
Large cities do tend to have large airports and large airports tend to have restricted airspace around them,
If they did, nobody could land at them.
You mean they have controlled airspace around them, under the control of various ATCs. The levels of control range from class B (most requirements for use) through class E (not much). G is uncontrolled. These have been around for a long time, unconnected with 9/11.
Why did they start at B instead of A? Class A airspace covers the entire US at and above flight level 180 ("18,000 feet as indicated by a sensitive altimeter set to a standard air pressure of 29.27 inches of mercury"). All pilots who fly there must be on IFR flight plans.
Restricted airspace is a place that nobody is supposed to fly except under very special circumstances. "Within X distance of Air Force One" is one very common bit of restricted airspace. There used to be restricted airspace over the submarine pens up near Seattle. There is now restricted airspace over the White House and other DC stuff.
One that still exists and should probably be cancelled because it is not needed is;
The ridiculous part of this rule is that pilots must know 1) where these stadiums are and 2) when a game is taking place, and for college football, 3) is the college an NCAA division one school. (What happens when a Division II school plays a division I? Is the game "Division 1" or "Division 2"?) They aren't marked in any special way on the charts, and there are no standard NOTAMS (notices to airmen) issued for them. Just the one blanket one.
The Earth really doesn't need us.
You're projecting again. The doctor called, he wants his thermometer back.
It isn't called the Ring of Fire because we like to have beach cookouts, you know.
No, it is because of the spicy food that people in those regions tend to eat.
Protip Tiger, we all saw 2012 and we all woke up December 26 2012 didn't we?
If by "we all" you limit yourself to "everyone who is alive to day and reading this particular story in /.", well, yes, you are absolutely correct. Everyone who woke up this morning also probably woke up on December 26, 2012. A very uninteresting statistic.
Now, a more useful reading of your words that isn't quite so self-referential and circular in reasoning would be that you're claiming that everyone in the world woke up that morning, which is patently false. There are 26 documented cases of people who did not wake up on December 26 -- 20 children and six adults in Newtown, CT. Plus an undocumented number of people who woke up on December 25 but didn't wake up on December 26.
It should be noted that even when the second coming occurs, it will be possible for /.rs who want to deny any special event having happened could post, in the first sense of "we all", that "we all woke up on the day after the second coming, didn't we?", implying that nothing special happened that day, and be factually correct in the explicit statement and absurdly wrong in the implied one.
The language written is done to be specific in as few words as possible.
They did not write the amendments to be as short as possible, they wrote them to say what they meant. That takes extra words, sometimes. Like the words you keep ignoring.
The right to be secure in your property
Not "property" in general, four things that aren't all inclusive. Against unreasonable searches and seizures. You keep forgetting these words. They apparently thought the word "unreasonable" was important, otherwise they really could have written it with as few words as you want to accept. And they could have been all-inclusive and said "property", but they chose not to.
If you have a right to be secure in all of those things, then the Government can NOT access any of that data legally unless they follow the Constitution and have a warrant.
"Follow the Constitution" is a very nice way of puttng it, since that is absolutely correct. "Follow s.petry's personal interpretation of the Constitution that has a large number of words elided" would be incorrect. "Unreasonable", not "any and all". And the words that aren't there that you keep trying to put in are the ones that say "a warrant is required for any search", which is incorrect.
They spell out 3 areas of "private" materials which are _yours_ by the Bill of Rights and that the Government can not touch without a warrant.
It's actually four. Persons, houses, papers, and effects. And "unreasonable" keeps appearing in my copy of the Constitution under the part that says what it prohibited, even though it appears to be missing from yours. The government can and does make reasonable searches without warrants all the time. Everything from pat downs when they interview you on the street to look inside your car when they stop you as a driver to empty all your pockets when they arrest you.
Now please go back and watch the puppet show!
And when is your next performance?
Because when it's talking about saving, it's a comparison between a budget and actual cost.
Yeah, that's the politician's trick to turn an increase in spending into a "budget cut" and create fictional balanced budgets based on projected savings thirty years down the road. In real life, "increased cost" is the difference between what you used to pay and what you have to pay now.
If you budget 100 dollars for groceries, and spend 90 and get everything you wanted, then you saved 10 dollars.
And if you used to pay $100 for groceries and now you have to pay $110, but you get things you didn't want because the government said you had to buy them, then the cost went up. People are talking about having to pay more for the same coverage because the exchange rates are higher than the group plans they are already in. That's not a savings, that costing them lots of "thin dimes". And when those group plans are no longer offered because the company decides to drop health insurance for their employees, you can't buy them yourself. How do you keep a plan you are happy with if it isn't sold anymore?
Can you not comprehend English? I gave it to you twice and you keep reverting back to the same nonsense. "The right to be secure in their person".
Thank goodness you put the period outside the quote marks, because the real fourth amendment doesn't end the sentence there. It continues "... against unreasonable searches and seizures, ...". Just repeating "secure in their person! secure in their person!" doesn't convey the full meaning of the true fourth amendment.
Do something, except repeat the same nonsense over and over hoping it becomes true.
Be careful when admonishing others that you don't ignore the log in your own eye.
That statement is very clear. You are to be secure against search or seizure of your person, property, papers, and effects unless the Government has a warrant.
That may be your interpretation of the fourth amendment, but the fourth amendment doesn't actually say that in so many words. It implies that there are reasonable searches and does not prohibit the government from conducting those. And it says what is required for issuance of a warrant, but does not clearly say that a warrant is required for every search. By implication then, a warrant is not required for every search.
And you've converted the specific word "houses" into the generic "property". Had the founders intended the amendment to cover all property owned by someone, they could have done what you did -- use the word "property". They chose not to. Certainly in a more agrarian time, they'd have thought "what about barns and stables?" "What about searching a field?" A barn is not a "person, house, paper or effects". Did the founders just forget barns existed, or did they intend to exclude them from the list of things that have a right to be secure against search or seizure?
The warrant requires a court order with someone giving testimony on why the warrant is required, and the warrant must be specific as to what can be searches or siezed.
Almost right. It does not say that a warrant is required for every search. You've kind of admitted you know that when you say that there is a requirement for a statement of why the warrant is required. If it were as simple as "every search requires a warrant", then you'd not need to specify that when you want to get one. It would be insulting the court's intelligence, and wasting its time, to swear upon oath that the reason this warrant is required is because the Constitution requires one for every search.
But you are wrong because the oath or affirmation is not to specify why the warrant is required. That oath or affirmation applies to the probable cause. That's why a warrant is justified.
The requirement for a warrant is rather vague. I'm certain that the people who wrote this amendment knew that when they wrote it, and were it to have meant that a warrant was required for every search, it would have said so.
The wording in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not vague.
The fourth amendment requirement for a warrant is one example of where the Constitution and Bill of Rights is rather vague. The ICC is another. That's why there is a Supreme Court.
-- US Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Just for Reference
You do understand that the majority of the Bill of Rights is not what the Government can't do, but what it can do correct?
Wrong.
All ten are things the government cannot do.
They wrote down what your rights are, and spelled those rights out meticulously.
And in the Bill of Rights, they did that by saying what the government cannot do. For the right to free speech, the founders did not write "citizens shall have the right to speak on any subject at any time in any venue", they said that the government cannot create rules to abridge the right they already assumed to exist. They didn't have to tell you that you have a right to free speech because that was a given.
One of the few things clearly spelled out that the Government can't do, is that they can not deny you any of your rights!
Citation required. I find no such simple statement anywhere in the Constitution. Maybe I missed it?
Now, please explain how what you said changes the fact that the founders were simple people and could have said things very simply, were that how they intended things to be. The use of the term "unreasonable" implies there is also "reasonable" search (which you can claim a right to be secure against from general principle, but is not stated explicitly) which the fourth amendment does not prohibit the government from conducting. The statement about how warrants shall be obtained does not say that they are required for every search.
I recall that having the first few columns of each line reserved for special uses threw me off the first time I saw it,
That reminds me of more differences between standard FORTRAN compilers. There are compilers that default to free-form input, so your first few columns don' t mean what they used to. There are compilers that default to strict column definitions, so if your line runs past column 72 and it compiles fine with one compiler, don't expect it to compile on any other. And if your free form input runs past column (I forget which) and it compiles fine, another free-form input compiler will barf because it defaults to free-form input lines only shorter than that.
This is a day when standard packages for things come with a configure script and it is usually as simple as saying "./configure; make; make install" and you've got a working whatever. I have yet to see ANY modeling code written in FORTRAN come anywhere close. Most require hand editing of the Makefile to pick a compiler, and even when the Makefile contains references to which compiler was used by the original author, that compiler on YOUR system will gag on various parts. I've had to hand-edit the Makefile not to change the definition of FC, but to add author-provided functions to the lists of "compile me with the free-format flag" source, or "use 132 character free form lines".
This truly is job security for anyone who can debug and decipher crash dumps and wants to work in modeling.
Upside: tonnes of great libraries.
Those great libraries are spread across several different "FORTRAN"s. gfortran. gfortran44. Intel's fortran. f77. f90. PGI pgif90. etc. etc etc.
Gfortran is woooonderful. It allows complete programming idiots to write functional code, since the libraries all do wonderful input error checking. Want to extract a substring from the 1 to -1 character location? gfortran will let you do it. Quite happily. Not a whimper.
PGI pgif90 will not. PGI writes compilers that are intended to do things fast. Input error checking takes time. If you want the 1 to -1 substring, your program crashes. PGI assumes you know not to do something that stupid, and it forces you to write code that doesn't take shortcuts.
So, if you get a program from someone else that runs perfectly for them, and you want to use it for serious work and get it done in a reasonable amount of time so you compile it with pgif90, you may find it crashes for no obvious reason. And then you have to debug seriously stupidly written code wondering how it could ever have worked correctly, until you find that it really shouldn't have worked at all. They want to extract every character in an input line up to the '=', and they never check to see if there wasn't an '=' to start with. 'index' returns zero, and they happily try to extract from 1 to index-1. Memcpy loves that.
The other issue is what is an intrinsic function and what isn't. I've been bitten by THAT one, too.
And someone I work with was wondering why code that used to run fine after being compiled with a certain compiler was now segment faulting when compiled with the same compiler, same data. Switching to the Intel compiler fixed it.
Sigh. But yes, FORTRAN is a de-facto standard language for modeling earth sciences, even if nobody can write it properly.
Regarding wristwatches, they're losing out because how often do you really need to know the time?
All the time. I have places I need to be at a specific time. I also like to know exactly how much time I've wasted posting to /.
People stopped wearing them because they're redundant. I found myself already knowing the time from the last look at my cell,
Isn't that exactly what I said? They're losing their battle to the cellphone which has the time displayed on it's face. Not because the cellphone is more convenient to find out the time from, but because they're more used to doing it that way.
As for me, I know the time I last looked at my cell, but that doesn't tell me what time it is now. "Gosh, I missed my meeting with the Dean because I last looked at my cellphone at 8:32 when I pulled it off the charger and put it in my pocket, and it can't be 11AM yet because my cell said it was 8:32."
So, I can figure out what time it is now in one of several ways, in order of decreasing convenience. 1. Look up at the corner of my screen to see the clock there. 2. Look up above my screen to see the clock radio there. 3. Turn my wrist slightly and look down at my watch. 4. Take my hands away from the keyboard, reach into my pocket, pull out my cellphone, flip it rightside up (since it always seems to come out upside down), press the 1/0 button on the top so it wakes up, and then see the time. Option 3 is easiest overall because it always works. I can be in any meeting and manage a quick glance at my watch without anyone noticing. Option 4 is the hardest. It is an obvious action that shows everyone in the room that I'm considering how much time of mine they are wasting. Sometimes that's not a good thing to let them know.
I think you have to be neurotic or a timekeeper to need to keep an eye on the time to that extent.
Or just someone whose next "appointment" isn't Mom calling down the basement stairs that dinner is ready and stop playing on the computer and go wash your hands.
My local library has 10s of thousands of books, for free, including recent offerings.
That's nice. So does mine. Of course, I have to actually go there, find the one I want (hope it isn't checked out already), wait in line to check it out, and then carry it around for a week while I read it. If I don't get it done, well, too bad, I have to carry it back to the library to turn it back in, or maybe they'll let me check it out for another week. Compare that to "turn on reader, continue reading".
And then, how convenient is the library book when you realize "this guy writes crap" or even "this is really boring", and you want to move on to another book. You're stuck taking it back whether you liked it or not and then getting another one that may turn out the same way. My reader has never taken more than a few seconds to close a boring book and let me pick something else.
And if I want those current books, my library offers them in electronic form, too. Some of those books have joined the 100 free ones on my reader. Almost the same convenience, so almost the same result.
What good does it do me to have 100 in my hands at a time? It's irrelevant when pleasure reading
Hardly irrelevant. Having it with you so you can read it anywhere you are and not thinking "gee, if I had brought that dead-tree book with me I could be finding out the next plot twist...". And then, when you get to the last page you can immediately move on to the next book. Convenient. Making things inconvenient tends to reduce pleasure, I've found.
I have, and will always keep, a paper subscription to a sci fi magazine. At one point, prior to e-versions, I was a year and a half behind. I'd put the latest copy on the shelf when it arrived so I would know where it is, and then never carry one with me. If I did, I'd lose it or it would get damaged and I'
Hershey bars are not supposed to be good chocolate either. They're supposed to last a long time and not get stale.
Hershey built its brand during one of the world wars (WWII, I think) based on creating a chocolate bar that GIs could carry with them and it wouldn't melt in their pockets. The EU locale, being the place that was local to said GIs (even if not called the EU at the time) didn't have to worry about adulterating the chocolate because the GIs could get it fresh. (The latter part is hypothetical and perhaps a bit fictional, but the Hershey part is true.)
Britain is the most challenging European country to find good food in as a visitor, especially in the larger cities.
I'm sorry, wot? The place is littered with chip shops, you almost can't swing a dead haggis without hitting one. And pub grub? Yummmm. A nice shepherd's pie, a Cornish pasty ... a pint of Strongbow ... oh, man.
there are several huge, expensive franchise restaurants selling average to poor steak for the price of very good steak.
The fact that chains are an ever-present hazard doesn't mean it's hard to find good stuff, just that it is easier than it should be to find crap. Ever since my horrible experience with MickeyD in Japan (teryaki burgers, yuk!) I don't go to any chains when I travel abroad, and certainly not US ones.
Here is a company that does wholesale ready meals (microwave meals) for pubs etc.
Yeah, we're all familiar with Tom Archer and his Ready Meals. I hear they're pretty good. They're almost organic, aren't they?
Just because mice chose Cocaine over Rice, and chose Oreos over Rice, DOES NOT lead to the conclusion that Oreos are the same as Cocaine.
Saying that one thing is just as X as another isn't saying that the two things are the same. "The outside of an oreo is just as brown as the turd from a /. poster" doesn't mean that oreos are the same as your steaming pile. That's basic, fundamental logic you should have learned in GRADE SCHOOL.
There are only TWO possible explanation for this "study".
Or the third, most probable explanation. It was an undergrad science project intended to promote interest in STEM education. And GIRLS in STEM. Did you fail to notice in your haste to rip them a new one that, except for the professor involved, all the people listed in the article were WOMEN?
Hey, here's a novel concept. Not every lab experiment has to be publication quality research for the people involved to learn something, or for it to motivate them to continue their education so they can learn more. Every term there is a lab class that meets outside my office window that drops pop bottles containing dry ice into a large container of water, to demonstrate the physics behind geysers. Boom! Splash! My God! They aren't using controls! They didn't test the effects of just dropping the pop bottle into the water! And the water doesn't have all the dissolved mineral content that geyser water has! The water isn't boiling hot! There aren't any Park Rangers around keeping them on the boardwalks! They can't learn anything from this! It's bad science! Fire everyone involved! Cancel the journal that would publish such nonsense!
But quite frankly I'd argue to vegan that the plant itself grew from soil with animal matter in it anyway
Simpler and more direct than that. Grains can contain by FDA regulation up to certain percentages of insect parts. I've found the little green inchworms in bags of frozen raspberries. Can you really avoid "animal products" even if you're going to be so picky that you'll eschew sugar because it might have been filtered through charcoal made from bones? This puts it rather succintly.
And when they say "unsavory food components", they're referring to insect and rodent contamination. I.e., animal parts.
Always amazing how those that THINK they know post authoritative statements. There are absolutely categorizations of 'addiction' in the DSM-IV, which just proves you don't know what you are talking about.
So you are saying that the linked reference in the summary doesn't know what it is talking about, since I referred to the statements from there about the DSM. Not surprising. I'd say that article says a lot of things they know nothing about.
The only online references to the DSM-IV I can find refer only to dependencies and don't call them addictions. In any case, a PRESS RELEASE from a college website is going to use the colloquial terminology, which is exactly as I put it. Oreos can, indeed, be addictive in terms a normal human being would use. The tempest in the teapot has been identified and should be ignored.
Perhaps in the same manner that a dmv worker isn't a specialist in driving.
Oooh, an attempt at a car analogy. You mean in the same manner that a journalist isn't a psychologist writing a diagnostic report? And that undergrad college students may not limit their vocabulary to only the strict definition of medical terms?
Nice try at self-importance though.
Thanks. Since you seem to agree with me, I'll take that as a compliment.
You can't just compare something to "drugs" - because different drugs work differently -
The fact that they have differing mechanisms of action doesn't mean you can't compare something to them. And the fact that something isn't technically a drug (tobacco) doesn't mean it can't be addictive and doesn't mean it doesn't in fact contain a drug (nicotine).
and have differing levels of addictive qualities
Here's where the sensationalism of this /. submission can be addressed. The "Motherboard" article goes to great length to disparage this experiment, but also admits that "addiction" isn't mentioned in the DSM-IV. That is a good indication that the term "addiction" can only be used in a common meaning, not some specific psychological diagnosis sense. In common parlance "addiction" means a strong urge to do something, not a pure clinical dependence such as you'd refer to "heroin dependence" as. Common parlance, such as the language a press release for CT College would be written in, for example.
Somewhere there was a comment about being addicted to food. As in, you can't be. Well, yes, you can, in the pure dependence meaning of the term, too. If you don't eat food you suffer extreme withdrawal symptoms. Death can be a final symptom. And you can be addicted to foods in the common language meaning of addiction. Mmmm, I love mint chocolate chip ice cream. I have a strong urge to eat it. If it is anywhere close, I will. Sorry, that was your scoop? You shouldn't leave it on the table.
And, OMG, this isn't a peer reviewed publication. It sounds like it was an advanced undergrad lab experience. You know, undergrads who are there to learn techniques and maybe get excited about, you know, STEM education? You don't peer review independent study or undergrad teaching labs.
I deal with REU where I work. Research Experiences for Undergrads. Yes, sometimes their work is part of a larger project that is published in peer reviewed journals. Most of the time they produce a report and maybe a seminar about what they did and that's as far as it goes. So, no, the fact that it isn't peer reviewed in this case, well, yawn.
That handful you mentioned were special cases.
Well, at least you finally admit they exist. No, they weren't special cases, they were large scale cases that were high in the hit list when googling "corporate scandal" and they made the top 10 and 25 lists. "Easy to find" doesn't equate to "special cases".
They were not indicted for crimes the company itself committed.
Yes, they were, because they were committed under the guise of that company. "The company" doesn't commit crimes, it is the people who make up companies that can and do. And you've been shown clear examples when the people go to jail for committing crimes as part of that company.
So I stand by my statement, when the CORPORATION commits a crime, the CORPORATION goes to jail.
So yes, when the CEO of a company commits a crime through the company, you want the janitors and the secretaries and everyone else to go to jail, too. What a cruel heartless person you are. The entire corporation, all the people who are part of it, go to jail for the actions of one person. I hope you never work for anyone else and find out the hard way how ridiculous your desire is.