From what I've heard from the ones I know, they still believe in the phenomenon of radioactivity, so that nuclear reactors and such work just fine. They just think that radiometric dating methods fail, because they think that the speed of light has changed over time.
Most of these people have heard most of the obvious objections to their crackpottery, and have put in a lot of time and effort to counter them. The BS they've come up with to support their beliefs can be quite elaborate, and it can actually take a lot of effort to debunk it.
Probably the same reason I don't see too many architects, civil engineers, bank tellers or riverboat captains on the list: the list only includes famous people and there aren't very many famous evolutionary biologists.
But why is a list of famous people be relevant to the supposed link between eugenics and evolution in the first place? Wouldn't a list of actual evolutionists, famous or not, be more relevant? What does ``famous'' have to do with it?
I do see people try to link Christianity with anti-semitism. The problem is that while there are examples of Christianity being implicated, there are so many counter-examples including the tenets of the religion itself which makes it difficult to call a violent anti-semite "Christian".
It's not at all difficult to call some violent anti-semites ``Christian;'' to say otherwise is to play the game of No True Scotsman. And why raise the bar to ``violent?'' Most anti-semites aren't violent, just as most advocates of Eugenics didn't forcibly sterilize people themselves. And non-violent anti-semitism was the norm among practicing Christians for centuries. But of course, Christianity isn't inherently anti-semitic any more than evolution is inherently pro-eugenics. My point, of course, was that both supposed linkages are unsound.
Also, the most successful anti-semites (Stalin and Hitler) were also anti-Christian.
Hitler was Catholic; he often invoked God in his speeches as well. Not that it really matters. The question would be the role of Christians; the role played by unbelievers is irrelevant. If Stalin's atheism is relevant, the beliefs of your famous non-evolutionists should be relevant to the other question, but they in fact are not.
With evolutionary biology, it may be possible to show a link between beliefe an the theory and belief in eugenics, etc., but I suspect it will be very difficult to find counter-examples of anti-eugenics activism that is motivated by a belief in evolutionary biology.
It's not necessary to find such a counterexample, as biology may be neutral on the matter. Likewise, Christianity doesn't become more anti-semitic if counter-examples of Christian pro-semitic activism are ``hard to find.''
That would be an interesting assignment - Compare and contrast suspected links between evolutionary biology and eugenics with suspected links between Christianity and anti-semism.
More interesting, but I don't think it's a game worth playing in either case.
I don't see too many evolutionary biologists on that list. Why do you suppose that is? Eugenicists may have relied evolutionary theory to support their claims, but Eugenics has fallen out of favor, and yet evolutionary biology has continued unfazed. Darwin was not a Eugenicist. Neither are modern evolutionary biologists (generally -- I'm sure there's an exception out there somewhere).
One can't condemn an idea -- or in this case a whole body of knowledge -- because it may lead people to bad conclusions. One can't appeal to consequences. By appealing to consequences, one can evade the question of ``is the theory of evolution (whatever that means) actually true?''
Christianity led many to embrace anti-semitism, (e.g. Jews as the ``killers of Christ'') but I can't imagine that the students will be asked to ``trace the connections between Christianity, anti-semitism, the inquisition, pogroms, and death camps. Why are believers so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?'' Yeah, such a link could be made, but the built-in implications of both sets of questions are dishonest: that Christianity [or Evolution] is a ''package deal'' with anti-semitism [or Eugenics].
I got OpenLinux with a book about that time, too. The quality of the packages was very high; I found quite a few packages with minor bugs with Redhat's stuff, having switched in 2000 or so. Every OpenLinux package seemed to come preconfigured with intelligent defaults so that it "just worked." The huge book was really the selling point for me -- I knew practically nothing about computers, so the struggle to install and configure Linux was a teaching exercise for me. I'll always have a warm fuzzy feeling about Caldera's OpenLinux -- it was my first OS on my very first computer. I remember when I thought of Caldera as the "good guys."
I wonder how many people here got their first Linux CDs from a book.
It's true that there are USB drivers available for DOS -- but which ones can be obtained legally? DUSE and USBASPI are not freely distributable as far as I know -- USBASPI seems to have been written by Panasonic and distributed with their own hardware. A number of posters on www.computering.net seemed to imply that they are quite scarce as well (which would figure).
As I said, non-free (as in freedom, and as in beer), and hard-to-find. Can any of these drivers be obtained and used legally?
FreeDOS (and MS-DOS too) can't access USB flash drives -- at least not out of the box, without a (nonfree, hard-to-find) third party utility of some kind. Not in my experience, anyway. If you actually boot from the drive, that will work, since it is recognized by the BIOS (if it is a new enough board), and not the the OS (which cannot). You probably don't want to do that, though.
I've used Linux for nearly ten years now. I switched to Debian from Red Hat a few years ago and like it very much. Installation (for me, anyway) was a piece of cake.
But what I don't hear much about -- in these comments or elsewhere -- is CONFIGURATION. A chimpanzee can now install Debian on a PC, but how about configuring exim? Or setting up a printer? I had problems with both of these things -- which I eventually solved, of course, but how many naive users could? There are plenty of useful guides, books, etc., but very little written at the NOVICE level for Debian (probably because it isn't really possible).
Perhaps you would be interested in the Contiki OS, which has already been ported to the Apple ][ as well as wide variety of other old (mostly 8-bit) machines. http://www.sics.se/~adam/contiki/
Colin Powell, known to us old vets as "Americal Powell," also mentioned
that transfer of money to the Taliban (a k a NGOs) to stop growing
the poppy [...]
No he didn't. He claimed that the food aid was to alleviate the food
crisis caused by warfare and drought. I'm not saying that's what
it was for, I'm just saying that's what he ``mentioned.'' He gave a
press conference, so it's ``public information,'' as you put it. http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remar ks/2001/2928.htm The aid money was never
``supposed to be for opium stoppage,'' as you claimed. As I said
before, it wouldn't be plausible to claim this, although I will grant
you that it wouldn't be the first time that this administration made
an implausible claim.
[...] they were paying them for their collusion, [...]
No, as I stated in my previous post, ``the aid was paid to NGOs, not the
Taliban.'' Much of the aid was in the form of food and was distributed
by the United Nations. Again, that's what was stated publicly. Why would the UN pay off the Taliban? How does the Taliban qualify as an NGO? The Taliban was the
de facto (if not de jure) government of Afghanistan, while ``NGO'' stands for
``Non Governmental Organization.''
geez, what is you level of reading comprehension????
Better than yours, evidently. I didn't say anything about whether our
government did or did not collude with terrorists. You claimed that
(a) our government paid the Taliban $43 million, that (b) this was
a payment in advance for the 9/11 attacks, and that (c) the lack of
further payments (we hope!) explains the lack of further terrorism.
If (a) is false, (b) and (c) must also be false. Even if (a) and (b)
were true, there might be other reasons why there hasn't been any large
attacks in North America, and I suggested a couple in my previous post.
There is no ``cause and effect'' inference to be made here.
The ``public information'' came from an LA Times column by Robert Sheer. The AP story about this at the time contradicts his column -- the aid was paid to NGOs, not the Taliban. The Taliban already forbid the cultivation of poppies. Not even the current adminstration is dumb enough to pay people to do what they already do for free. It was the Northern Alliance that benefitted from the opium trade. And the absence of large-scale attacks (in the U.S., that is) from al Qaeda doesn't have much to do with it -- al Qaeda != Taliban. It could be that al Qaeda is really crippled as the adminstration claims (but I don't take anything they say at face value), or they may simply be very patient. They waited 7+ years before attacking the WTC after a previous failed attempt to destroy it.
Thank you for posting -- it's good to here from ``the other side'' here for a change, especially from someone with some personal knowledge of the subject.
As usual, I like to knitpick. The Left (for lack of a better term) is fond of pointing out that the No Fly Zones were not actually UN mandated. Aren't they correct about this? Not that I minded, say, the protection of the Kurdish area, but we should still get our facts straight.
I suppose that the assumption is being made that the rabbis are the generally accepted authority of the Old Testament.
I suspect that you are right about that. The next question is: would they accept what the rabbi said? I mean, apart from his supposed authority.
... it is often argued by Christians that all but the parts of scripture presented as visions and prophecies should be taken as literal.
I know some ``fundies'' with just that point of view. While they are not totally against some symbolic interpretation of the bible, they generally avoid that. In the case of Genesis 1 and 2 specifically, a symbolic interpretation would contradict what Paul said in Romans 15:2 (I think) about sin coming into the world through one man (i.e. Adam), and would challenge their (also rather literal) view of original sin. In summary, even if the Orthodox rabbi and the Christian ``fundamentalist'' actually shared a similar technique for interpreting Scripture, they are working from different assumptions -- the Christian must also square any interpretation of the O.T. with the N.T.
I hold no brief for the fundamentalist or for Christianity in general, BTW
``Bush-Cheney campaign workers in three Florida cities said they were intimidated by chanting labor union activists.''
Yes, there were AFL-CIO protesters there, but has any *independent* person or persons confirmed the Bush campaign's version of events? How do we know the people causing the damage were really with the AFL-CIO, if we were inclined to scepticism on this point? The story you cited doesn't help us with that question.
It won't help in the case of many smaller companies, because the people making the decisions are non-technical types who only have experience with MS products and who therefore THINK THIS IS NORMAL.
Also, many people are tied to MS whether they want to be or not because they use programs that only run on the Wintel platform, have all their data in MS proprietary formats, etc. etc. Such is the nature of the de facto monopoly: even if you can convince someone that there is a better way, they just shrug their shoulders and say ``yeah, but whudya gonna do?''
Did you lean on your elbows as you typed? Or were you putting pressure on them (perhaps not consciously) during the course of your day-to-day activities? I don't wear the pads, but I generally don't lean on my elbows in order not to aggravate the condition. Maybe that's not enough? I'd really like to know.
Wrong. Not the same symptoms, because it is not the pinky and ring finger that are most affected by CTS. There are many forms of RSI, and it's just as silly to say that are most likely to be Cubital Tunnel Syndrome (i.e. a pinched ulnar nerve at the elbow) as it is to say that they are all Carpal TS.
You are right in pointing out that leaning on the elbow will inflame the ulnar nerve, but I don't lean on my elbows when I type (and I'm careful not to at any other time) and I'm really hurting from this. Just having the elbows bent aggravates the problem. I lowered my keyboard (to lower the angle of my arms when typing) and that has helped, but frankly, I am on the verge of quitting my job because of it. When I type, it hurts, and when I stop, it goes away.
The name is actually Philo Farnsworth. (The story of Edwin Armstrong, the inventor of FM, is also instructive. He literally went crazy fighting RCA in court.)
> a country (USA) that the person (Linus) doesn't live in.
Actually, last I heard Linus lived in California. I don't know if he is currently a U.S. citizen, though
``...I expect (and usually get) some _real_ content. In this case, it's just more Real(tm) crap.''
Unfortunately, much useful, relevant (to me) and `non-crap' content is/only/ available in Real format. Otherwise, I wouldn't care. ``Wrapper'' in this context is just a euphemism for ``prison.''
The real question is whether IBOC interferes with adjacent freqencies. This is related to spectrum usage, but the graphic you linked to seems to indicate that IBOC uses quite a bit more spectrum. So what is the effect of this mode of broadcasting on other stations?
For an informed discussion of this question, you might look at http://www.worldofradio.com/dxld2144.txt. This is a rather long text file of mostly shortwave radio news, but if you do a search, you will find a very interesting discussion of IBOC on the mediumwave AM band by people who eat, breath, and sleep radio. There is some praise of IBOC, but some people who have heard actual over-the-air IBOC tests complain that they heard just AWFUL interference with neighboring stations. The ``buzz'' (if you'll pardon the expression) seems to be that IBOC could pose a real interference problem if you want to hear a weak station that is nearby on the dial. The problem seems to be sideband noise.
> And what's on shortwave that isn't streamed like the BBC?
Plenty. There are thousands of shortwave stations, some just flea's whisper stations in the Andes mountains, U.S. based religious nuts, unlicensed pirates, etc. etc. And I daresay only a small percentage of this is streamed.
I might also add that perhaps the vast majority of ``what's on shortwave'' isn't even news/entertainment, and would certainly never be streamed. There are radio beacons, RTTY (radioteletype) and data transmissions, and other utilities of various sorts. Some people monitor these transmissions as a hobby. Kind of a strange hobby if you ask me, but no one did, so to each his own. Anyway, the internet provides no analagous activity.
I Refuted the "Slave" argument befor (sic.) pointing out that Senator Calhoun's
agenda when he first proposed it.
You didn't ``refute'' smagruder's argument because he never actually made
any arguments supporting his position. He simply dogmatically stated
that people who follow corporate dress codes are ``SLAVES.'' In turn,
you simply called smagruder's statement ``drivel'' and ``stupid,'' and
said he'd soon think better of it if he's actually was a slave. (A point
that I thought obvious, but you didn't back it up with an argument.)
Then you brought up Calhoun.
The majority of the people I have seen repeating Senator Calhoun's
argument desire a variation of the system he was defending.
Sigh. I hear this so often; upon hearing a statement that they disagree
with, many people will type the speaker by ideology (e.g. ``liberal,''
''neoconservative'') or agenda (`these people make such statements as
part of a larger agenda') and then attack the ideology or agenda, rather
than the statement. Attack smagruder's statements, not statements
or ideas that he may or may not agree with.
And I didn't hear smagruder repeat Calhoun's argument. You were replying
to smagruder's post, which said:
Anyone who dresses as a hollow corporate clone is a SLAVE. People
should begin emancipating themselves from the corporate mindset
That's a statement, not an argument. Arguments have premises and
conclusions. Calhoun said that wage labor was as bad or worse than the
enslavement of Africans, right? When did smagruder say that? When did he
use that to argue that states have the right to legalize slavery? And
don't try to tell me that excessive government regulation is a form of
slavery. It stinks, but it's not a ``year under the lash in a cotton
field'' either.
Well, I'm through flogging this dead horse. And thank you for the
history lesson about John C. Calhoun.
Because an explanation of the the origin, or genesis, of an idea doesn't speak to the truth or applicability of that idea. For example, a criticism of the RIAA isn't made any less valid because the criticism is shown to have come from the mouth of a Clear Channel exectutive, even if the motive behind the statement can be shown to be evil or self-serving. Likewise, you can't show that wage labor isn't really a type of slavery simply because Senator Calhoun was the first to make that connection.
It's been a while since I took Intro to Logic, so correct me if I got it wrong, and I'll look it up.
I'm also not saying that all wage labor is really a type of slavery. Surely your main point is correct; the difference between real slavery and a job at, say, K-Mart or something should be obvious. Are there degrees of slavery? Yes. Is every form of exploitation a form of slavery? I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I've heard from the ones I know, they still believe in the phenomenon of radioactivity, so that nuclear reactors and such work just fine. They just think that radiometric dating methods fail, because they think that the speed of light has changed over time.
Most of these people have heard most of the obvious objections to their crackpottery, and have put in a lot of time and effort to counter them. The BS they've come up with to support their beliefs can be quite elaborate, and it can actually take a lot of effort to debunk it.
Probably the same reason I don't see too many architects, civil engineers, bank tellers or riverboat captains on the list: the list only includes famous people and there aren't very many famous evolutionary biologists.
But why is a list of famous people be relevant to the supposed link between eugenics and evolution in the first place? Wouldn't a list of actual evolutionists, famous or not, be more relevant? What does ``famous'' have to do with it?
I do see people try to link Christianity with anti-semitism. The problem is that while there are examples of Christianity being implicated, there are so many counter-examples including the tenets of the religion itself which makes it difficult to call a violent anti-semite "Christian".
It's not at all difficult to call some violent anti-semites ``Christian;'' to say otherwise is to play the game of No True Scotsman. And why raise the bar to ``violent?'' Most anti-semites aren't violent, just as most advocates of Eugenics didn't forcibly sterilize people themselves. And non-violent anti-semitism was the norm among practicing Christians for centuries. But of course, Christianity isn't inherently anti-semitic any more than evolution is inherently pro-eugenics. My point, of course, was that both supposed linkages are unsound.
Also, the most successful anti-semites (Stalin and Hitler) were also anti-Christian.
Hitler was Catholic; he often invoked God in his speeches as well. Not that it really matters. The question would be the role of Christians; the role played by unbelievers is irrelevant. If Stalin's atheism is relevant, the beliefs of your famous non-evolutionists should be relevant to the other question, but they in fact are not.
With evolutionary biology, it may be possible to show a link between beliefe an the theory and belief in eugenics, etc., but I suspect it will be very difficult to find counter-examples of anti-eugenics activism that is motivated by a belief in evolutionary biology.
It's not necessary to find such a counterexample, as biology may be neutral on the matter. Likewise, Christianity doesn't become more anti-semitic if counter-examples of Christian pro-semitic activism are ``hard to find.''
That would be an interesting assignment - Compare and contrast suspected links between evolutionary biology and eugenics with suspected links between Christianity and anti-semism.
More interesting, but I don't think it's a game worth playing in either case.
I don't see too many evolutionary biologists on that list. Why do you suppose that is? Eugenicists may have relied evolutionary theory to support their claims, but Eugenics has fallen out of favor, and yet evolutionary biology has continued unfazed. Darwin was not a Eugenicist. Neither are modern evolutionary biologists (generally -- I'm sure there's an exception out there somewhere).
One can't condemn an idea -- or in this case a whole body of knowledge -- because it may lead people to bad conclusions. One can't appeal to consequences. By appealing to consequences, one can evade the question of ``is the theory of evolution (whatever that means) actually true?''
Christianity led many to embrace anti-semitism, (e.g. Jews as the ``killers of Christ'') but I can't imagine that the students will be asked to ``trace the connections between Christianity, anti-semitism, the inquisition, pogroms, and death camps. Why are believers so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?'' Yeah, such a link could be made, but the built-in implications of both sets of questions are dishonest: that Christianity [or Evolution] is a ''package deal'' with anti-semitism [or Eugenics].
I got OpenLinux with a book about that time, too. The quality of the packages was very high; I found quite a few packages with minor bugs with Redhat's stuff, having switched in 2000 or so. Every OpenLinux package seemed to come preconfigured with intelligent defaults so that it "just worked." The huge book was really the selling point for me -- I knew practically nothing about computers, so the struggle to install and configure Linux was a teaching exercise for me. I'll always have a warm fuzzy feeling about Caldera's OpenLinux -- it was my first OS on my very first computer. I remember when I thought of Caldera as the "good guys."
I wonder how many people here got their first Linux CDs from a book.
It's true that there are USB drivers available for DOS -- but which ones can be obtained legally? DUSE and USBASPI are not freely distributable as far as I know -- USBASPI seems to have been written by Panasonic and distributed with their own hardware. A number of posters on www.computering.net seemed to imply that they are quite scarce as well (which would figure). As I said, non-free (as in freedom, and as in beer), and hard-to-find. Can any of these drivers be obtained and used legally?
What about the FDAPM utility for FreeDOS? It's pretty basic, but can blank the screen, put the machine in "sleep" mode, etc.
FreeDOS (and MS-DOS too) can't access USB flash drives -- at least not out of the box, without a (nonfree, hard-to-find) third party utility of some kind. Not in my experience, anyway. If you actually boot from the drive, that will work, since it is recognized by the BIOS (if it is a new enough board), and not the the OS (which cannot). You probably don't want to do that, though.
No, they're not.
I've used Linux for nearly ten years now. I switched to Debian from Red Hat a few years ago and like it very much. Installation (for me, anyway) was a piece of cake.
But what I don't hear much about -- in these comments or elsewhere -- is CONFIGURATION. A chimpanzee can now install Debian on a PC, but how about configuring exim? Or setting up a printer? I had problems with both of these things -- which I eventually solved, of course, but how many naive users could? There are plenty of useful guides, books, etc., but very little written at the NOVICE level for Debian (probably because it isn't really possible).
Perhaps you would be interested in the Contiki OS, which has already been ported to the Apple ][ as well as wide variety of other old (mostly 8-bit) machines. http://www.sics.se/~adam/contiki/
Colin Powell, known to us old vets as "Americal Powell," also mentioned that transfer of money to the Taliban (a k a NGOs) to stop growing the poppy [...]
No he didn't. He claimed that the food aid was to alleviate the food crisis caused by warfare and drought. I'm not saying that's what it was for, I'm just saying that's what he ``mentioned.'' He gave a press conference, so it's ``public information,'' as you put it. http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remar ks/2001/2928.htm The aid money was never
``supposed to be for opium stoppage,'' as you claimed. As I said
before, it wouldn't be plausible to claim this, although I will grant
you that it wouldn't be the first time that this administration made
an implausible claim.
[...] they were paying them for their collusion, [...]
No, as I stated in my previous post, ``the aid was paid to NGOs, not the Taliban.'' Much of the aid was in the form of food and was distributed by the United Nations. Again, that's what was stated publicly. Why would the UN pay off the Taliban? How does the Taliban qualify as an NGO? The Taliban was the de facto (if not de jure) government of Afghanistan, while ``NGO'' stands for ``Non Governmental Organization.''
geez, what is you level of reading comprehension????
Better than yours, evidently. I didn't say anything about whether our government did or did not collude with terrorists. You claimed that (a) our government paid the Taliban $43 million, that (b) this was a payment in advance for the 9/11 attacks, and that (c) the lack of further payments (we hope!) explains the lack of further terrorism. If (a) is false, (b) and (c) must also be false. Even if (a) and (b) were true, there might be other reasons why there hasn't been any large attacks in North America, and I suggested a couple in my previous post. There is no ``cause and effect'' inference to be made here.
The ``public information'' came from an LA Times column by Robert Sheer. The AP story about this at the time contradicts his column -- the aid was paid to NGOs, not the Taliban. The Taliban already forbid the cultivation of poppies. Not even the current adminstration is dumb enough to pay people to do what they already do for free. It was the Northern Alliance that benefitted from the opium trade. And the absence of large-scale attacks (in the U.S., that is) from al Qaeda doesn't have much to do with it -- al Qaeda != Taliban. It could be that al Qaeda is really crippled as the adminstration claims (but I don't take anything they say at face value), or they may simply be very patient. They waited 7+ years before attacking the WTC after a previous failed attempt to destroy it.
This American Life is distributed by Public Radio International, not NPR.
Thank you for posting -- it's good to here from ``the other side'' here for a change, especially from someone with some personal knowledge of the subject.
As usual, I like to knitpick. The Left (for lack of a better term) is fond of pointing out that the No Fly Zones were not actually UN mandated. Aren't they correct about this? Not that I minded, say, the protection of the Kurdish area, but we should still get our facts straight.
I suppose that the assumption is being made that the rabbis are the generally accepted authority of the Old Testament.
I suspect that you are right about that. The next question is: would they accept what the rabbi said? I mean, apart from his supposed authority.
I know some ``fundies'' with just that point of view. While they are not totally against some symbolic interpretation of the bible, they generally avoid that. In the case of Genesis 1 and 2 specifically, a symbolic interpretation would contradict what Paul said in Romans 15:2 (I think) about sin coming into the world through one man (i.e. Adam), and would challenge their (also rather literal) view of original sin. In summary, even if the Orthodox rabbi and the Christian ``fundamentalist'' actually shared a similar technique for interpreting Scripture, they are working from different assumptions -- the Christian must also square any interpretation of the O.T. with the N.T.
I hold no brief for the fundamentalist or for Christianity in general, BTW
Funny, the story mostly just said:
``Bush-Cheney campaign workers in three Florida cities said they were intimidated by chanting labor union activists.''
Yes, there were AFL-CIO protesters there, but has any *independent* person or persons confirmed the Bush campaign's version of events? How do we know the people causing the damage were really with the AFL-CIO, if we were inclined to scepticism on this point? The story you cited doesn't help us with that question.
>Someone, somewhere, will hopefully get a clue.
God, I wish you were right.
It won't help in the case of many smaller companies, because the people making the decisions are non-technical types who only have experience with MS products and who therefore THINK THIS IS NORMAL.
Also, many people are tied to MS whether they want to be or not because they use programs that only run on the Wintel platform, have all their data in MS proprietary formats, etc. etc. Such is the nature of the de facto monopoly: even if you can convince someone that there is a better way, they just shrug their shoulders and say ``yeah, but whudya gonna do?''
Did you lean on your elbows as you typed? Or were you putting pressure on them (perhaps not consciously) during the course of your day-to-day activities? I don't wear the pads, but I generally don't lean on my elbows in order not to aggravate the condition. Maybe that's not enough? I'd really like to know.
Wrong. Not the same symptoms, because it is not the pinky and ring finger that are most affected by CTS. There are many forms of RSI, and it's just as silly to say that are most likely to be Cubital Tunnel Syndrome (i.e. a pinched ulnar nerve at the elbow) as it is to say that they are all Carpal TS.
You are right in pointing out that leaning on the elbow will inflame the ulnar nerve, but I don't lean on my elbows when I type (and I'm careful not to at any other time) and I'm really hurting from this. Just having the elbows bent aggravates the problem. I lowered my keyboard (to lower the angle of my arms when typing) and that has helped, but frankly, I am on the verge of quitting my job because of it. When I type, it hurts, and when I stop, it goes away.
Some nit-picky corrections:
> read up on Leo Farinsworth if you doubt this
The name is actually Philo Farnsworth. (The story of Edwin Armstrong, the inventor of FM, is also instructive. He literally went crazy fighting RCA in court.)
> a country (USA) that the person (Linus) doesn't live in.
Actually, last I heard Linus lived in California. I don't know if he is currently a U.S. citizen, though
``...I expect (and usually get) some _real_ content. In this case, it's just more Real(tm) crap.''
/only/ available in Real format. Otherwise, I wouldn't care. ``Wrapper'' in this context is just a euphemism for ``prison.''
Unfortunately, much useful, relevant (to me) and `non-crap' content is
Poindexter's convictions were later thrown out on a technicality IIRC. Not that he doesn't scare me; but let's get the facts straight.
The real question is whether IBOC interferes with adjacent freqencies. This is related to spectrum usage, but the graphic you linked to seems to indicate that IBOC uses quite a bit more spectrum. So what is the effect of this mode of broadcasting on other stations?
For an informed discussion of this question, you might look at http://www.worldofradio.com/dxld2144.txt. This is a rather long text file of mostly shortwave radio news, but if you do a search, you will find a very interesting discussion of IBOC on the mediumwave AM band by people who eat, breath, and sleep radio. There is some praise of IBOC, but some people who have heard actual over-the-air IBOC tests complain that they heard just AWFUL interference with neighboring stations. The ``buzz'' (if you'll pardon the expression) seems to be that IBOC could pose a real interference problem if you want to hear a weak station that is nearby on the dial. The problem seems to be sideband noise.
> And what's on shortwave that isn't streamed like the BBC?
Plenty. There are thousands of shortwave stations, some just flea's whisper stations in the Andes mountains, U.S. based religious nuts, unlicensed pirates, etc. etc. And I daresay only a small percentage of this is streamed.
I might also add that perhaps the vast majority of ``what's on shortwave'' isn't even news/entertainment, and would certainly never be streamed. There are radio beacons, RTTY (radioteletype) and data transmissions, and other utilities of various sorts. Some people monitor these transmissions as a hobby. Kind of a strange hobby if you ask me, but no one did, so to each his own. Anyway, the internet provides no analagous activity.
You didn't ``refute'' smagruder's argument because he never actually made any arguments supporting his position. He simply dogmatically stated that people who follow corporate dress codes are ``SLAVES.'' In turn, you simply called smagruder's statement ``drivel'' and ``stupid,'' and said he'd soon think better of it if he's actually was a slave. (A point that I thought obvious, but you didn't back it up with an argument.) Then you brought up Calhoun.
The majority of the people I have seen repeating Senator Calhoun's argument desire a variation of the system he was defending.Sigh. I hear this so often; upon hearing a statement that they disagree with, many people will type the speaker by ideology (e.g. ``liberal,'' ''neoconservative'') or agenda (`these people make such statements as part of a larger agenda') and then attack the ideology or agenda, rather than the statement. Attack smagruder's statements, not statements or ideas that he may or may not agree with.
And I didn't hear smagruder repeat Calhoun's argument. You were replying to smagruder's post, which said:
That's a statement, not an argument. Arguments have premises and conclusions. Calhoun said that wage labor was as bad or worse than the enslavement of Africans, right? When did smagruder say that? When did he use that to argue that states have the right to legalize slavery? And don't try to tell me that excessive government regulation is a form of slavery. It stinks, but it's not a ``year under the lash in a cotton field'' either.
Well, I'm through flogging this dead horse. And thank you for the history lesson about John C. Calhoun.
Because an explanation of the the origin, or genesis, of an idea doesn't speak to the truth or applicability of that idea. For example, a criticism of the RIAA isn't made any less valid because the criticism is shown to have come from the mouth of a Clear Channel exectutive, even if the motive behind the statement can be shown to be evil or self-serving. Likewise, you can't show that wage labor isn't really a type of slavery simply because Senator Calhoun was the first to make that connection.
It's been a while since I took Intro to Logic, so correct me if I got it wrong, and I'll look it up.
I'm also not saying that all wage labor is really a type of slavery. Surely your main point is correct; the difference between real slavery and a job at, say, K-Mart or something should be obvious. Are there degrees of slavery? Yes. Is every form of exploitation a form of slavery? I don't think so.